In an amazing act of bravery, Brian Dalton (aka Mr Deity) has made a video that sternly criticizes the community of people on the internet who vocally denounce rape and rapists. In it, he finally says what the rapistists (those who are prejudiced against men for no reason other than their sexual preference for women who are unwilling/unable to consent) need to hear:
1. Rape allegations are JUST FUCKING RUMORS
and
2. DON’T DRINK IF YOU DON’T HAVE THE BACKBONE TO STOP A RAPIST FROM RAPING YOU
Now, I admit that this is the only part of the video I watched because FUUUUUUUCK YOU, so I freely admit that I could be taking Dalton completely out of context in what could be one of the greatest, most profound and thought-provoking pieces of pro-feminist satire ever to hit the internet. But I’m putting all my money on misogynistic dickbag given that he has a video on the front page of Michael Shermer’s Skeptic Society featuring himself with Shermer in a MythBusters “parody.” (Which I watched long enough to see them putting a strange woman in the backseat of their car to drive her around parking lots to, I guess, bust her myth. *wink wink*)
(trigger. fucking. warning.)
Another shining example of atheists being “good without God” and not at all living up to their reputations as horrible smug assholes. Well done, Mr Deity. WELL DONE!
In the wise words of my grandfather, “You can go shit in your hat.”
I approve of this message.
WTF is this? Bros before… women who your bro raped?
What a condescending ass. He’s talking to women as if they are children and don’t know how to handle their alcohol. “You can just leave the glass full.” OH MY GOD did he not watch this before posting it?!
Basically, he’s saying that if you don’t wear your seatbelt, it is OK for another car to crash into you… plus he has contempt for women and thinks getting raped is funny.
Not just funny….but the obvious and natural outcome of not being able to handle your liquor….which of course is a constant at all times having nothing at all to do with biochem or hormones or anything…you know involving science.
So, let me get this straight. This is just gossip, and there’s little danger in anything bad happening to you. So stop being so distrustful and paranoid. However, responsibility is on you to take precautions because something bad can probably happen if you don’t. Therefore, don’t pay any credence to potential danger, but pay credence to potential danger.
…except in cases involving men in the skeptical community because…bitchez be lyin!
(Nevermind that the atheo/skeptic community doesn’t have an anti-rapist/harasser protecto-dome that keeps the creepers out….and makes it an exceptional community which is male dominated but totally free statisticly speaking of any of the normal demographics you would expect to find….)
Thank you for the demo with the wine glasses, Brian, but I’ve mastered Piaget’s third stage of cognitive development.
…I freely admit that I could be taking Dalton completely out of context in what could be one of the greatest, most profound and thought-provoking pieces of pro-feminist satire ever to hit the internet.
I watched it through, and there’s nothing that indicates an attempt at satire. Even if it’s supposed to be satire, it doesn’t matter. Scalzi’s Law: The failure mode of “clever” is “jerk.” (Original quote adjusted to remove the body-shaming implications of “asshole.”) Either it’s not parody – in which case he’s a flaming misogynist and lending cover to rapists – or it’s a failed parody – in which case he’s lending cover to rapists despite his intentions. Parody is tough to do right; even All in the Family got misinterpreted by racists to support their preconceived views, and The Colbert Report by conservatives. In this particular case, it’s not anywhere near that quality.
….trying to wrap my head around the “body shaming implications of asshole”…..because you know everyone’s got one?
– This is a genuinely curious inquiry….
It’s like calling someone a “cunt” or “dick” as an insult. It implies that, since it’s bad to be a cunt/dick/asshole, there’s something bad about the body parts themselves. Cross-reference the use of “gay” as a pejorative.
I think “cunt” and “dick” are problematic because they are specifically gendered insults, which asshole isn’t.
But cunt and dick are gendered. Asshole is not.
My cousin’s started saying “Using ‘gay’ as an insult is so heterosexual.” Luckily, Shannon County is one of the bluer parts of a red state. But yeah, sexualized insults are just stupid.
I’ve always said “Say ‘cunt’ again and see if you ever see one.”
Ah…. OK…I guess I don’t see them as the same but willing to learn.
Is fuckwad OK?
Oh, what’s that? After you’re finished with that absurd tirade, you ask for donations to keep the show going? Hmm, let me think about tha-NO.
Utter contempt for women who have been raped? Mr. Deity gets more like God every day.
Maybe this is just me. Maybe I’m a bit hypercritical about my media. But I do tend to think that “That totally didn’t happen” and “It’s totally your fault that happened” might be better served as messages by being put in two separate videos, maybe even delivered by two separate actors. Anyone else?
Fucking asshole.
I have been noticing that too. It reminds me of that people who believe at the same time that global warming is a hoax and also a totally natural phenomenon. Or that the Moon landings were faked and aliens were found on the Moon. Or that Osama was dead long before he was found, and yet he’s still alive. It’s that kind of conspiracy way of thinking where claims don’t need to be consistent with each other, just with the general underlying general idea that someone is lying: scientists, government, women…
Dang, I wish I was still subscribed to that channel so I could unsubscribe. Whatever message he wanted to convey he handled it badly there.
inorite…my first question was “who?”…. kind of glad I have no knowledge of him… but I imagine he is part of a sub-constellation of scummy circle jerking youtubers…who are all blocked..and have been for years now…
Unsubscribed from his channel this morning after just a small taste of that crap.
Well, up until now I had a pretty high opinion of Mr. Deity.
Dude, people saying the shit you just did are WHY people have to be anonymous. Never mind that some of the accusations aren’t from anonymous people and are well documented.
I’ll hold on to hope that his personal relationship with Shermer is clouding his judgement. I could accept an apology, but… wow.
I am pretty convinced his personal relationship with Shermer is severely clouding his judgment, because he appears to be someone who can be convinced by rational arguments and whose core values would likely make him an ally in fighting the abusive culture which seems to permeate the upper levels of the skeptic movement.
Which is why this article infuriates me so much. A piece so devoid of common sense that it actually makes the absurd claims that the slymepit is filled with regular guys who just got turned off by the feminist voices in the movement sound semi-plausible, is NOT going to help in trying to get Mr. Dalton as an ally.
And I would sincerely hope no one is more interested in continuing to be outraged rather than gaining an ally in the fight for women’s rights in the movement, So, why take this absurd road?
What? This makes absolutely no sense.
Argh. I kept waiting, HOPING, for him to say something like “Just kidding. See how ridiculous I sounded? That’s how you hyper-skeptics sound.” It would have still been in terrible taste, but at least it would have been an attempt at satire. Nope. Not even that. So done with Mr. Deity.
Hey, come on, if you don’t want to get raped, tell your soon-to-be rapist that you don’t want more wine. It’s that simple.
easy peasy!
I’m baffled by who he’s trying to convince here. He spends a lot of time bragging about his Awesome Skeptical Abilities, but is staggeringly tone-deaf about the people he’s attempting (and failing) to persuade.
Oh I don’t think this display is for the ladies so they can you know better protect themselves….this is providing rhetorical cover for creepy men. If it was advice he would clearly have more experience with an active interest in avoiding rape himself, and therefore perhaps be qualified in some way.
This is a performance for his friends…for back slapping purposes at the next meeting of the That’ll Learnem, Stupid Hoes Camp.
I love that independent clause so much. Elyse, you’re amazing.
Not sure what happened there. I was trying to quote this: “Now, I admit that this is the only part of the video I watched because FUUUUUUUCK YOU.”
It’s nice of him to tell us so clearly not to give him any more money. I wonder if I can get a refund?
…..oh…that guy looks like my dear dead dad! EEEP!
(shake it off uck!)
….love the bit about confirmation bias….
YES I *really* want it to be true that trusted people in my community are seriously morally compromised doucheweasels…. This has all been such a joyous ride…
WHAT.AN.ASS.
I always got a strong waft of narcissistic dingleberry from this guy, but I thought it was all part of the act. “Just keep your legs closed ladies!”. The problem with organized skepticism isn’t the herding cats problem, it’s that too many of the shepherds are assholes.
“The problem with organized skepticism isn’t the herding cats problem, it’s that too many of the shepherds are assholes.”
QFT
“The problem with organized skepticism isn’t the herding cats problem, it’s that too many of the shepherds are assholes.”
re-QFT
Dammit, and I was just fucking raising a (not wine) glass to Brian because of his remarks on Ashley’s video. Trolls were practicing their Justicar-brand Junior Hypserskeptical Crash Investigator method on her and Brian was arguing against their ridiculous demands. And when he pointed out he was a witness, he got the same treatment . It’s difficult for me to reconcile that with this video.
Listen, Mr. Deity,
Ain’t no mountain high enough
Ain’t no vally low enough
Ain’t no rift that’s deep enough
Ain’t no river wide enough, Mr. Deity,
To keep you the fuck away from me.
In the beginning, I thought it might have been satire, but it wasn’t. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that his wife divorced him.
When did Amy divorce him?
I have a picture of myself with Brian K. Dalton on Facebook. I think I need to take it down now.
I do have an idea of what “confirmation bias” is. I don’t think it means what he thinks it means. I am getting sick of the people I really like, the public figures turning out to be such jerks.
This is particularly disappointing given Mister D’s own recent exchanges in the comments section of Ashley Paramore’s (helathyaddict) Sexual Assault at a Conference video. Even after he came forward as a witness to the event people continued trying to undermine Ashley’s version of events. Given that he has first hand knowledge of the level of rabid, unhinged vitriol being aimed at someone who gave up their own anonymity while not releasing their attacker’s identity, how is it so hard to imagine that people don’t want to add insult to injury by having their personal lives turned into the movement’s political football when they try to warn others about predatory behaviour?
Then, of course, there’s the victim blaming. Fuck that shit. If a woman out for a weekend of fun with friends she hardly ever sees wants to cut loose this does not for one second shift blame from the kind of sick, pathetic fuck that would prey on women in that way. In his attempt to protect his buddy he has just insulted every victim that has ever been coerced or taken advantage of after having a few drinks. If I could, I would sit him down and make him watch coverage of the Steubenville case on a loop with his own words playing over to see how long it would take for him to just fucking get it already.
RRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWRRR!!!!!!
Final thought that popped into my head after I hit submit.
What does it imply when his defense of this is not to claim that it did not happen, but that the person could have stopped drinking anytime they wanted? Has he just unwittingly lent credence to the facts of the accusation (Shermer got someone shitfaced and had sex with her), if not the conclusion (it was rape).
Not stating that that is definitely the case but I’m having a hard time to see how it can be taken any other way.
BOOM.
Why is it that seemingly every guy connected to the skeptic/atheist community is turning out to be a huge douche? I’m really disappointed by Mr. Deity, enjoyed his other stuff, but now he reveals himself to be a horrible creep.
The fact that as a person drinks, their ability to make an informed decision about continuing to drink is actually recognised in law here (Australia) where it is an offence to continue to supply drinks to an intoxicated person. So our laws actually recognise that people who are drinking can not simply make the decision to stop, and are not a good judge of their own level of intoxication.
So simple, yet so brilliant.
Wake the fuck up, USA.
In some US states,* if a person drinks, drives, and has an accident in which someone is harmed regardless of whether the victim was sober or drunk, the person who served the driver can be found liable for this very reason. Funny how that is the case for being a victim of driving but it is not the case for being raped. Oh wait, no it isn’t funny at all.
*well, at least OR for sure because liability was part of my beer and wine server’s training
that should say: victim of *drunk* driving
Isn’t this the same guy who said that Rebecca was somehow curtailing “free speech” with her video that-shall-not-be-named?
If he had reserved his comments only to the anonymous nature of the Gospels, I wouldn’t have had a problem with that, because I would have assumed he was addressing the anonymous name-naming Tumblr. I know there’s a diversity of opinion about that Tumblr even on the pro-feminism side of the debate, and I don’t have a firm opinion on it myself, so it wouldn’t have bothered me.
However, he didn’t leave it there. Instead, with his talk about wine, etc., he was obviously addressing the Shermer allegations, which were _not anonymous_. Names were withheld, yes, but that doesn’t mean the allegations were anonymous. For the Tumblr, anyone could have submitted anything, and it would have been easy for completely invented stories to become widespread (maybe some were). But for Shermer, PZ and Poppy (and maybe others?) had some information and corroboration. Sure, to Shermer, the difference might not matter since he doesn’t know who to respond to, but morally it is different.
And that doesn’t even get into the wine bullshit.
From the video:
“The other problem here is confirmation bias: the tendency to see only what we wanna see.”
Never has anyone been so right AND so wrong at the same time.
Yeah, ‘cus when I’m hanging with my friends, there’s usually this point in the evening where I say to myself, oh, shoot…it’s rape o’clock. I’d better stop drinking so I don’t get raped by my friends.
That’s why I’m going to stop making money. I don’t want to tempt the robbers.
@DrJen “Yeah, ‘cus when I’m hanging with my friends, there’s usually this point in the evening where I say to myself, oh, shoot…it’s rape o’clock. I’d better stop drinking so I don’t get raped by my friends.”
Comment and phrase of the week. We need a shirt – “Could someone please tell me when it’s Rape O’Clock so I can stop drinking, dressing like a slut and ‘asking for it’?”
COTW. I would wear that shirt.
CotW
Friends? Please! We’re talking about an incredibly minor celebrity here. You should be honored by his unwanted attention.
I saw this when I got the update in my email since I’ve been subscribed to Mr. Deity since season 1.
I unsubscribed immediately.
Then washed my hands, ’cause that’s what you have to do in these situations.
I thank all of you who watched the video so that I don’t have to.
It really hurts to see how these people (who I have admired and quoted and skeptic-atheist-worshipped) really think of me, as a woman. When these same sorts of things happen in the religious community I don’t see them saying ‘oh those people totally deserved to be assaulted’ or ‘they’re lying’. I think I’m just about done with the skeptic ‘community’ on the national/big name level. My local groups don’t seem to have issues like this. Crap.
Chris: “t really hurts to see how these people (who I have admired and quoted and skeptic-atheist-worshipped) really think of me, as a woman. When these same sorts of things happen in the religious community I don’t see them saying ‘oh those people totally deserved to be assaulted’ or ‘they’re lying’. I think I’m just about done with the skeptic ‘community’ on the national/big name level. My local groups don’t seem to have issues like this. Crap.”
Actually, Chris, This is exactly what happens in many Catholic and Jewish communities and what routinely happens and is even enshrined in Sharia Law in Muslim communities. The priest is the mouthpiece of God and any suggestion that he (and it is always a he, of course) is less than perfect is taken to be inspired by the Devil and obviously false. Prior to Dawkins’ deplorable response to Rebecca’s video on her IEI, I thought we were better than that. Evidently, I was a tad over-optimistic.
Wow. I always enjoyed Mr. Deity: it’s a bit mean, but basically fair, and clever. I don’t have a lot of spare cash to contribute to projects like this right now, but Mr. Deity has been on my list of things to support once I can afford it.
So much for that. I won’t be able to watch those videos any more without thinking that this is the guy who said “It totally didn’t happen, and anyway, she deserved it for drinking so much.” And then, demonstrating a stunning lack of self-awareness, invoked confirmation bias (as though the belief that skeptical leaders are rapists was ever anyone’s default position). It kind of undercuts the whole message of the show.
It doesn’t appear to be satire. Brian Dalton’s Facebook page is public and comes up in an internet search for “Brian K. Dalton” (without quotes). His most recent post at this point is a critique of PZ Myers and his commentors for forming opinions about Shermer without the benefit of a trial. Given that he’s clearly picked a side in this dispute, this video probably represents his true feelings.
The part about spine was pure hatred. His friend got accused so he got mad at the accuser and unloaded that hatred, with a thin veneer of “wit” smeared over it. Maybe he isn’t a misogynist (ha!), but he’s vindictive and irrational like a motherfucker when it comes to backing up his homies.
Add me to the “Dude wasn’t even fucking funny” list. Haven’t wasted time watching one of those in a while. The soundtrack and all the reaction shots of deadpan expressions were using production and vamping to cover for a fundamental lack of funny. The most played out of played out shticks.
BTW, I’m a decent artist and I’ve noticed a serious lack of good art supporting the atheist and skeptic communities. (I care more about the atheism side, seeing it as a social justice issue almost more than a “keepin’ it real” thing.)
Anyhow, I’d might be willing to do pro-bono work for someone who is a good writer, if they wanted to make a comic or two. Because as the Skepchicks keep demonstrating, the progressive side of atheism and skepticism doesn’t have a shortage of good writers.
The ‘ART’ tab at the top of the page will take you to Mad Art Lab. You can contact the skepchick artists there.
Haha, that’s egg all the hell over my face. You got mad artists in the cabinet. In fairness to me, I am close to totally unfamiliar with this site. I only end up reading articles here when linked to off FtB or the like.
I was just thinking of how low the bar is on the atheist side of things that this guy was able to stretch this particular joke this thin – that this is what passes for humor. I get that Jesus and Moe – for example – is not meant to be a laff riot, but why don’t we get something more fun, outside of occasional nods by smbc or xkcd? I know naught of ye cool skeptic types.
Well, you can’t ‘win’ an argument about art, and arguing seems to be the main sport of skepticism.
And scientists are just terrible comedians.
I’m disappointed as I’ve always enjoyed his work. I guess you can leave the Mormons, but the mormon doesn’t always leave you.
I would be curious to see how his other friend, Carrie Poppy, feels about this.
Can someone ask her?
I am getting tired of having to move people from the respected to the previously-respected side of the ledger. There you go, Brian Keith Dalton, right between Penn Jillette and Harriet Hall. Now you behave yourself Gervais, don’t want to have to move your ass too…
*sigh*
“I won’t be doing Mr. Deity again until an apology is made. Blaming the victim isn’t funny or clever. It’s old as dirt and just as disgusting “(https://twitter.com/CarriePoppyYES/status/367780938832293888)
Thanks Elyse, I don’t do Twitter much.
Thanks Elyse, I was wondering what she would have to say.
I really enjoy Oh No Ross and Carrie, and it would be a pity to have this hanging over it.
I don’t know very much about Mr Deity and I realise that this whole discussion is liable to get heated, but, to be fair, I think he is only suggesting that all adults are capable of deciding to get drunk or not in the face of some commentators who seem to want to deny this. He doesn’t suggest that it is ever OK to rape a woman (or man), drunk or sober.
To be fair, he did strongly imply that people who don’t refuse a refill have no self control. And that anonymous accusations are merely gossip. And that believing anything that you don’t personally witness makes you “no real skeptic”.
All of this ignoring the truths of this case (the report was not anonymous, predators ply people with liquor, liquor inhibits self-control, skeptics rightly believe all kinds of things on the say-so of trusted sources, etc., etc., etc.)
No, his friend was attacked so he attacked the attackers. I’ve heard things from him that were misogynist before, I wrote them of as being part of the Deity character. I’ve gone back and reviewed earlier videos and it spills over into the addendum quite often.
And…
People should be able to drink however much they want without getting raped, because other people don’t rape them, because that would be wrong.
If I am drunk so I forget to lock my front door and someone comes into my house and kills me, I’m not partially to blame for my own murder. If I am drunk and someone follows me out of the bar then beats the hell out of me, I’m not partially responsible for my own assault. Why is the standard different for forced sex than it is for a forced beating or a forced ending of my life?
If you are drunk and forget to lock your door and somebody comes into your house and rapes you, nobody would say you are partially to blame for your own rape, either. The bedroom is one of two places a woman is supposed to be. Unless the rapist is your husband. You did fight back hard enough that you had to be brutally beaten into submission, right?
A better analogy would be if you went out and got drunk and then started waving a giant wad of cash around the bar and bragging about having tons of cash on you. If somebody then mugs you, I think a lot of people would in fact say it was partially your fault for being so stupid. “Having a vagina” is like “waving lots of cash around,” and “dressing slutty” is like bragging about all your money.
I know this can get confusing, so let me break it down for you.
HOW TO TELL IF YOU ARE TO BLAME FOR YOUR OWN RAPE
1. Were you in a completely private place like your own home, or a completely public place like a busy grocery store? Private places accessible to the public, like your car, or public places that afford privacy, like a dark alley, do not count. If the answer is no, give yourself one point.
2. Have you ever met your rapist before? Think hard. Your rapist may have mistaken a friendly smile while standing in line at the bank as an invitation to have sex. If the answer is yes, give yourself one point. If you have ever had sex with your rapist before, give yourself two points. If you are married to your rapist, give yourself infinity points.
3. Were you dressed appropriately? Appropriate dress starts with undergarments, which should be either long underwear or pantaloons. On top of the long underwear, add your frumpiest sweatsuit. On top of the sweatsuit, you should be wearing an ankle length dress. If you were not dressed appropriately, give yourself one point. If you were dressed appropriately, but didn’t look sexy enough, give yourself one point because you probably needed to be taught a lesson.
4. Were you a virgin at the time of your rape? Have you had sex since your rape? If the answer to either question is yes, give yourself one point.
If your score is higher than zero, you are probably to blame for your rape.
So rich people, leave your giant wads in your pocket. And ladies, leave your vaginas at home. It’s the only way to be sure.
I love this post so hard I reposed on FB with your username. Too amazing.
“to be fair” Quite the contrary. Try again. Maybe something along the lines of “to completely miss the point of the video” or “to demonstrate that I don’t get the ‘joke’ Brian made” or even “to run cover for all this victim blaming.”
Things like this is why I don’t want anything to do with a formal skeptic movement. Because it’s full of ranting, babbling fools like this one who make ego-masturbation videos and then, some years later, turn around and destroy all of their own skeptic credibility by being horribly sexist or racist. And there are thousands of non-famous skeptics who follow suit, lame.
I think Skepchick is different because it doesn’t just challenge sexism in the so-called “skeptic community”, but in general in the political left, STEM, and non-religious circles who think themselves immune to sexism.
God, what an asshole! Thanks for the heads up. I actually had to figure out my youtube password just so I could unsubscribe.
Perhaps we need to change the narrative completely when talking about rape to point out that there are consequences for men too for getting drunk and/or not being able to say no…
We say to young men: The world is a dangerous place for young men. If a person is drunk, they cannot consent to sexual activity, therefore you might rape someone so don’t have sex with people who are intoxicated. Would we then hear, upon an accusation being made, “Well, what did he expect, she was drunk?” or “Why was he drinking so much that he got out of control and couldn’t stop himself? It’s his fault that he couldn’t comprehend that he was raping someone.” How about: Avoid social situations in which you might be pressured into sexually abusing someone–if you do not have enough willpower to stop an assault that you are witnessing, or to say no to a gang-rape, you should not put yourself in that situation.
I don’t know if I worded that correctly, but the onus is always on the victim to somehow be omniscient to the motives of everyone around her/him. Teaching men not to rape because it has devastating consequences for the victim doesn’t seem to be all that effective–men who rape clearly don’t give a shit about their victims, so maybe appealing to their own self-interest would work.
I completely agree, TWM, the idea that rape is no big deal has to be stamped out and it begins with educating young men. Dalton in his rebuttal video to all the vitriol on this site among others also appears to agree with you. From everything Dalton has actually said, it is pretty clear that he agrees that “No”, no response (possibly because the woman has passed out), or “Yesh, do whatcha gotta do” all count as “No, I have not given you permission to fuck me”. Men should only have sex with the enthusiastic and willing participation of a partner or simply whack solo. If they don’t have that enthusiastic participation, but still have sex with another person, it is rape, and rape is never the fault of the victim, no matter what the circumstances. As Dalton and some people here point out, Dalton was completely supportive of Ashley Paramore. He also left the Mormons (I always thought there were too many “m”s in that word :) ) over their completely immoral dogma about rape. I find this piling on to Dalton as if he was the one accused of being a sexual predator kind of repulsive. There is nothing reprehensible about not wanting to believe a friend is acting badly and wanting to defend that person (regardless of the person’s gender). As others have pointed out, the accusations coming out one at a time alleging sexist and harassing behavior by men in leadership positions in skeptical organizations will likely continue and eventually become a flood as more women are emboldened by the courage of their sisters in the movement to tell their stories. Dr. Stoltznow and Carrie Poppie both have considerable credibility and it is extremely difficult to believe the hypothesis that they are making their stories up for some nefarious purpose. It is far from obvious what they might gain from coming forward and extremely obvious what they stand to lose. So far no-one seems to have come forward in person (not anonymously) to accuse Shermer. When (and at this point this is still not a foregone conclusion) dozens of other victims come forward with their own stories about bad behavior by Shermer — even if they remain anonymous, if Dalton is still clinging to the hypothesis that Shermer and whoever else is shown to be acting badly are being framed, THAT’s the time to pile on and call Dalton an ass-hole. At this point, all he is guilty of is supporting a friend and supporting the principle that rumors and gossip are not adequate bases for coming to a conclusion about someone’s character. Points with which I would hope all skeptics could agree. If all I read was what was posted here and didn’t actually review Dalton’s two videos, I might be inclined to withdraw my monthly pittance from his video production funds, but at this point, IMHO, Dalton has done far more good for the skeptical movement and by extension humanity than several gigabytes of comments like the ones I’m seeing here.
Unless you’re drunk, in which case you need to take personal responsibility for not drinking so much. No matter how many “nevers” he put in after the fact, that was the point of the drinking segment of his first video. What other possible reason did he have for including it? And what possible reason could he give that would make it any less insulting, condescending, and belittling of women in any context? If he wanted to demonstrate that he does indeed unequivocally support rape victims, that he is not victim blaming, he would need to at a minimum start by apologizing for doing the wine glass schtick in the first place. It was demeaning and sexist AT BEST.
His disclaimer followup said that he was only responding to the woman describing Shermer’s MO of keeping her wine glass full without her realizing it, but that story was corroborating the original woman’s story, that he coerces women with alcohol into a position where they cannot consent. And he misrepresented the entire situation by role-playing it as someone *asking* if they can refill a person’s glass, which is not what Shermer is accused of doing.
His whole leaving Mormonism story demonstrates only that he is against victim blaming if he believes it was rape-rape. Clearly, it’s not rape if a woman is drunk, if there aren’t witnesses to the rape itself (there are witnesses to Shermer’s tactics and witnesses to the woman’s state afterward and to her filing a report, but that’s clearly not enough).
Simply calling these accounts rumors and gossip is itself dismissive in a clearly sexist way. The word “gossip” is as common as the word “hysteria” to dismiss women. A firsthand account is not gossip or a rumor. Anonymous women aren’t gossiping about their own experiences, FFS.
He supported Ashley after the fact only because he witnessed it. That makes it rape-rape to him. A woman saying she was raped clearly doesn’t count.
He didn’t just do a piece about supporting his friend and believing him to be innocent or wanting to withhold judgment. That would have been understandable. He chose instead to mock women and rape victims. There’s no clarification that could make this defensible. An apology for doing it in the first place should have been the centerpiece of what was essentially a CYA second video.
….the “it’s just gossip” meme has been especially virulent….
What is the Mormon attitude toward rape? I know more of their bizarre racial views (See? Both Lakota and Hebrew have a lot of velar sounds! LOL), and the fundamentalist LDS groups that would rather marry three ten-year-olds than a thirty-year-old, but not their attitude toward rape.
Oh, wait, *googles it* Nasty stuff. The BOM teaches that virginity is more important than your life.
I had always liked Mr. Deity videos before. While watching this one, I was scratching my head wondering whether he was really being so awful, or whether it was meant as a satire. Sometimes he’s done some really good satire, but this one seemed not to be heading that way. I kept waiting for the punchline, for the camera to cut to Amy/Lucy standing nearby with her arms crossed and scowling, followed by an abject apology from Brian. But it never came.
Then I thought about the recent video with Dalton and Shermer. And that I got the video link from an e-skeptic email. (I’ve now unsubscribed from e-skeptic) I am extremely disappointed. But I guess I’m not surprised. This whole thing has left a sour taste in my brain, as more and more people I once thought were pretty OK turn out to be jerks. Crap.
Whenever you are wondering “is this satire (or comedy)”….. check to see if the satirist or comedian is punching up…or down.
Satirists take on the powerful not the oppressed.
If anyone ever sees Brian Dalton drunk, take his wallet.
But it’s all “gossip”! Ugh. But I didn’t turn off the video there; too horrified to act. So I went on to see his smug, condescending advice about turning down a refill.* And then his plea for money. No, no, no, no, never!
I forgot, until just now, that I’m subscribed on YouTube. I’ll unsubscribe immediately.
*My daughter, who rarely drinks, had her punch spiked in a college party. She woke up hours later, lying on the lawn, with no idea how she got there. But anything that happened in the interval would have been entirely her fault, wouldn’t it? She should have refused that second glass. She should have noticed the odd taste. She should have …
Good riddance, Mr. Deity.
Is that video for real? I’m finding it really difficult to get this into my head without frying all the circuits.
Surely it must have been satire? If not, then fuck you Mr Deity.
Sorry Ryan. I’m sure you didn’t want to deploy that “fuck you Mr Deity,” but deploy it you must.
” If a person is drunk, they cannot consent to sexual activity”
But you can and, I am guessing, we all have (I have at least). I think there is a misunderstanding here which is generating a lot of friction. As far as I can tell, nobody is suggesting that it is acceptable to have sex with someone who is incapacitated with drink, but if a drunk adult CONSENTS to sex, well that is different entirely. If a person consenting to sex while drunk cannot be held accountable for their actions, how can we hold accountable people who rape while they are drunk? Would anyone really want to say that a drunk rapist has no choice?
John Meredith, you fucking idiot, people cannot legally consent to sex while drunk. Buzzed sex is not drunk sex. Rapists rely on assholes like you spouting this shit to cover up their crimes.
Fuck you, and fuck your disgusting comparisons of rape victims to rapists.
Yes, people can legally consent to sex while drunk, unless you have a special definition of drunk such as ‘incapacitated with drink’.
As to your other point, you didn’t read carefully enough. Or perhaps you were a little ‘buzzed’?
In the US, it is rape if the victim is incapacitated by alcohol: criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/sexual-assault-overview.html
Yes, in the UK too. But simply drinking so much that your usual judgement is impaired and then consenting to sex cannot be rape. I am not sure in this case, but that latter state of affairs does seem to be what is being implied.
It can be and *is* rape. Impaired judgment is part of the legal meaning of “incapacitated.” A contract is void if one party signed while intoxicated, not because they were physically incapable of signing but because their judgment is impaired. A drunk person cannot legally give medical consent except in very specific emergency situations. The blood alcohol minimum for DUI is not set where a person is incapable of driving but at where their judgment is too impaired for them to drive safely.
“A contract is void if one party signed while intoxicated, not because they were physically incapable of signing but because their judgment is impaired.”
No, it isn’t, not in the UK. You can apply to a court to void a contract on the grounds that you were incapacitated, but the court will consider all circumstances. If you were voluntarily drunk and the other party had no reason to believe that you were unable to make reasonable judgments (and this can be quite a high barrier) the court is unlikely to allow the cancellation. You can understand why.
So you’re arguing that a man who is drinking with a woman and supplying her alcohol can reasonably not know she is drunk? Or even that a person not drinking with a woman but having sex with her does not know that she is drunk? So Shermer is mentally incompetent? Or he’s so insensitive to his sexual partners that he can’t tell if they are drunk? That alone presents a strong case that he didn’t care whether he got consent or not. That’s your argument?
Or should I say, that’s your argument now, because before, it was just that it’s not rape if the woman’s judgment was impaired by alcohol. Your goal posts have some sweet wheels on them.
I am saying that contract law isn’t going to help us much here, it has been designed for a very different purpose. But my view is that it cannot be rape if a woman consents to sex, even if she has been drinking alcohol. This is for many reasons, not the least of which is respect for the autonomy of women. Obviously, the situation is completely different if the woman is incapacitated by alcohol, or is in such a condition that she cannot be said to understand what she is consenting to, but that does not seem to be what is being claimed.
The contract example, among others, just illustrates that legally, across law domains, “incapacitated” includes having your judgment impaired. In this case, she was incapacitated by alcohol and could not consent. That is exactly the case here. Respecting the autonomy of women means respecting that they have the right not to be raped, whether they are drunk or not.