OP stated that L’s accusations were dismissed by the EA community. Your link doesn’t provide any proof that they’re false. So it seems like you’re proving OP right.
There’s some evidence in that thread they weren’t dismissed by the EA community given the claim that multiple people were banned from EA events as a result. Perhaps not all accusations lead to an action, and you/OP mean dismissed as in “not entirely accept all claims”, but it does seem like that’s a pretty high, and likely unreasonable bar.
I’m really sorry about your experiences, and I think it is noble of you to try and fix this problem.
It kind of seems like Buck is being placed into a double bind here. The OP denounces “acts of ostracization” and “opportunistic harm”:
Elaborate documents were circulated in group chats in our absence on the topic of our character and mental health.
Cherry-picked screenshots were circulated in group chats, along with elaborate discussion for character assassination.
...
Humiliating websites were put up about us with cherry-picked screenshots and non-consensual recordings.
Buck seems to be a in something of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation. If he provides proof, he’s liable to be accused of ostracization, opportunistic harm, or slander. If he doesn’t, that could be a bit of a red flag, that proves how EA dismisses women.
Note Scott Alexander’s reasoning for not sharing proof publicly:
I’m extremely prepared to defend my actions here, but prefer not to do it in public in order to not further harm anyone else’s reputation (including Kathy’s).
Do you disagree with Scott’s reasoning? If so, why?
It seems like you’ve arrived at a similar place Scott has, with regard to your own case—you don’t mention your name, or the name of the person who hurt you, and you’re not sharing much proof.
What do you think the “rules of engagement” should be here? I’d like to see a set of agreed-upon guidelines, such that a person who follows those guidelines can be confident that they won’t later be accused of ostracization, harm, slander, dismissiveness, or anything like that.
Again—I don’t feel knowledgeable about the details of what happened to you, but I’m sorry it happened, it’s clear to me that it hurt you a lot, and I think you deserve an apology, at the very very least, from the person who hurt you.
Those who are familiar with Scott Alexander’s stories about Kathy Forth said that he slandered her on the basis of her mental health, without ever having met her. I find this unethical and stigmatizing to people who are getting treatment for mental health conditions.
Scott said: “She had a paranoia for being targeted for rape”—It is easy to guess where that paranoia comes from. People whose houses burned down panic at the smell of smoke. If anything at all, this indicates that she has indeed experienced rape.
“Investigations had found it to be false”—The conviction rate for sexual assault is abysmally low. Just because an incident couldn’t be proven doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Scott is epistemologically incorrect here.
He then reported a widely shared “warning” that Kathy makes false accusations, which could have just as easily been put out by a rapist or two and their friends. If you put yourself in the shoes of a woman who has been sexually assaulted, this is an absolute horror. She can never feel safe in the community again because no matter what happens to her, she won’t be believed. When rapists hear a “warning” like this, they have found their next convenient victim because the discrediting work has already been done for them. Imagine being a woman who has a target on her back like this and the most essentially layer of recourse, her word, stripped away.
The presence of “warnings”, the fear about sexual assault, the body of work on misogyny, and ultimately the suicide and her suicide note all together are strong evidence for me that Kathy has been falsely discredited after sexual assault.
Those who are familiar with Scott Alexander’s stories about Kathy Forth said that he slandered her on the basis of her mental health, without ever having met her.
Scott said: “She had a paranoia for being targeted for rape”
Sorry, where did Scott say that?
It is easy to guess where that paranoia comes from. People whose houses burned down panic at the smell of smoke. If anything at all, this indicates that she has indeed experienced rape.
She could’ve experienced rape many years before becoming involved in EA. Perhaps that created a paranoia that lead to her making false accusations once she became involved in EA.
“Investigations had found it to be false”—The conviction rate for sexual assault is abysmally low.
“The conviction rate for sexual assault is abysmally low” doesn’t help us figure out whether a given person is guilty or innocent. We want the conviction rate for innocent people to be low. (Could you confirm that you’re on board with that, at least?)
Just because an incident couldn’t be proven doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Scott is epistemologically incorrect here.
This sounds like a fully general way to excuse any false accusation.
Suppose I say: “Mandelbrot is a thief.” You say: “Where’s the proof?” I say: “Just because an incident couldn’t be proven doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. You’re epistemologically incorrect here.” How does that make you feel?
In any case… I think the most productive discussion here is about the rules of engagement. What is the right way to discuss the possibility of a false accusation, without being accused of ostracization, harm, slander, dismissiveness, etc.?
If there’s no right way to discuss the possibility of a false accusation, we can’t trust the community to come to accurate conclusions, which leaves us in the dark.
I think if you believe that false accusations are rare, the thing to do is work to create a widely trusted investigative process. If there’s an investigative process which is widely trusted, and it finds that most accusations are true, people will see the pattern.
I believe that these accusations are false. See here for previous discussion.
OP stated that L’s accusations were dismissed by the EA community. Your link doesn’t provide any proof that they’re false. So it seems like you’re proving OP right.
There’s some evidence in that thread they weren’t dismissed by the EA community given the claim that multiple people were banned from EA events as a result. Perhaps not all accusations lead to an action, and you/OP mean dismissed as in “not entirely accept all claims”, but it does seem like that’s a pretty high, and likely unreasonable bar.
I do not see valid claims that L’s report was false on the post you link, and to be totally honest, this comment is a bit of a red flag.
Hi Lucretia,
I’m really sorry about your experiences, and I think it is noble of you to try and fix this problem.
It kind of seems like Buck is being placed into a double bind here. The OP denounces “acts of ostracization” and “opportunistic harm”:
Buck seems to be a in something of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation. If he provides proof, he’s liable to be accused of ostracization, opportunistic harm, or slander. If he doesn’t, that could be a bit of a red flag, that proves how EA dismisses women.
Note Scott Alexander’s reasoning for not sharing proof publicly:
Do you disagree with Scott’s reasoning? If so, why?
It seems like you’ve arrived at a similar place Scott has, with regard to your own case—you don’t mention your name, or the name of the person who hurt you, and you’re not sharing much proof.
If we’re going to avoid public discussion, is it OK to e.g. share evidence with Maya privately?
What do you think the “rules of engagement” should be here? I’d like to see a set of agreed-upon guidelines, such that a person who follows those guidelines can be confident that they won’t later be accused of ostracization, harm, slander, dismissiveness, or anything like that.
Again—I don’t feel knowledgeable about the details of what happened to you, but I’m sorry it happened, it’s clear to me that it hurt you a lot, and I think you deserve an apology, at the very very least, from the person who hurt you.
Sending compassion and support your way!
Those who are familiar with Scott Alexander’s stories about Kathy Forth said that he slandered her on the basis of her mental health, without ever having met her. I find this unethical and stigmatizing to people who are getting treatment for mental health conditions.
Scott said: “She had a paranoia for being targeted for rape”—It is easy to guess where that paranoia comes from. People whose houses burned down panic at the smell of smoke. If anything at all, this indicates that she has indeed experienced rape.
“Investigations had found it to be false”—The conviction rate for sexual assault is abysmally low. Just because an incident couldn’t be proven doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Scott is epistemologically incorrect here.
He then reported a widely shared “warning” that Kathy makes false accusations, which could have just as easily been put out by a rapist or two and their friends. If you put yourself in the shoes of a woman who has been sexually assaulted, this is an absolute horror. She can never feel safe in the community again because no matter what happens to her, she won’t be believed. When rapists hear a “warning” like this, they have found their next convenient victim because the discrediting work has already been done for them. Imagine being a woman who has a target on her back like this and the most essentially layer of recourse, her word, stripped away.
The presence of “warnings”, the fear about sexual assault, the body of work on misogyny, and ultimately the suicide and her suicide note all together are strong evidence for me that Kathy has been falsely discredited after sexual assault.
That’s not what Maya said.
Sorry, where did Scott say that?
She could’ve experienced rape many years before becoming involved in EA. Perhaps that created a paranoia that lead to her making false accusations once she became involved in EA.
“The conviction rate for sexual assault is abysmally low” doesn’t help us figure out whether a given person is guilty or innocent. We want the conviction rate for innocent people to be low. (Could you confirm that you’re on board with that, at least?)
This sounds like a fully general way to excuse any false accusation.
Suppose I say: “Mandelbrot is a thief.” You say: “Where’s the proof?” I say: “Just because an incident couldn’t be proven doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. You’re epistemologically incorrect here.” How does that make you feel?
In any case… I think the most productive discussion here is about the rules of engagement. What is the right way to discuss the possibility of a false accusation, without being accused of ostracization, harm, slander, dismissiveness, etc.?
If there’s no right way to discuss the possibility of a false accusation, we can’t trust the community to come to accurate conclusions, which leaves us in the dark.
I think if you believe that false accusations are rare, the thing to do is work to create a widely trusted investigative process. If there’s an investigative process which is widely trusted, and it finds that most accusations are true, people will see the pattern.