Noted false rape accuser, and Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris, Pee Zed Meyers, has some words of advice for a certain “big shot” (JtO) at AVfM. “A word for Hembling: Yes, rape is a crime. So is falsely reporting a rape.”
He’s referring to John’s comment on the content aggregator website Reddit, where he posted in response to the headline, “Men’s rights activists’ conspire to cripple college rape reporting system with false reports”
He reposted that headline, appending his own commentary.
“…GOOD! Go forward, brothers, and fuck their shit up. Rape is a crime. If somebody has a report to file of being the victim of this crime – file that report with a POLICE ORGANIZATION, not with some jumped up kangaroo court or administrative star chamber. And when operating in an environment where the star-chamber rules – FTSU with the same fraudulent reports they’ve tuned their system to process against you.”
Strong words. And we note for the record that they were not posted as a matter of AVFM policy. AVFM had nothing to do with the online attack of the rape “reporting” instrument at Occidental College in Los Angeles, which is why you saw JTO’s comment on a site aggregator and not as a part of organized activism promoted by our team.
That, however, does not place an editorial value judgement on what happened. While we are not keen from the management position here to place a “right or wrong” value on the attack, we do assert that in the current climate of hostility, rape hysteria, draconian policies and ideological public deception, that such forms of backlash are inevitable.
Now, the thesis driving the good professor’s public admonition? Bombing an anonymous rape reporting tool clearly designed to proliferate reports by any means necessary, including providing fertile soil for false reports, is, according to him, an escalation of the problem of fraudulent reports. It’s not a statement against the extra-legal processing of criminal complaints by an administrative railroad lacking legal due process.
Should we all now entertain Pee Zed’s pantomime; his charade that he is so mentally defective that this needs to be explained as if he’d been lobotomized at some point in his unfortunate existence?
Ah, no. Indeed, we won’t waste many keystrokes explaining. Even the occasional victim of prefrontal lobe scrambling that occasionally visits here will probably see the transparent, lying scumbucketry in attempting to circumvent JTO’s point by feigning outrage at false allegations — those being the current raison d’être of Free Thought Blogs. Roughly a year after Myers posted an anonymous, fraudulent accusation of rape against another public academic of far greater accomplishment than himself, the egg remains on his face.
“A word for Hembling: Yes, rape is a crime. So is falsely reporting a rape.”
How sweet. Pee Zed has finally found religion.
It is worth pointing out that while falsely reporting a rape to an actual police organization is at least theoretically a crime (it is rarely punished) – filing a phony report of the same to an extra-judicial administrative star chamber is something else entirely.
The “honor” courts now extant on American college campuses have a mandate from the department of education. But that mandate is a profound violation of the foundational principal of due process which has characterized human rights in the western world.
The mechanism of anonymous accusations and administrative show trials are now the “apparatus of justice” on a college campus. Treating them with the respect of a legitimate legal system is, therefore, to endorse the purposeful corruption of justice into ideologically driven fascism.
In fairness it must be said that a significant number of Men’s Human Rights Activists have publicly renounced the flooding of the Occidental “reporting” tool with false reports.
We understand their position, but do not agree with it. One comment immediately following JTOs read in part:
“’Fuck their shit up’ has to be done with some sophistication, so you don’t look like an asshole with nothing but hate on the agenda. This wasn’t the time to do that. The university was under the eye of the feds and now we are under those eyes. I’d call this a serious misfire.”
We are inclined to believe this encapsulates the most common aversion to the act of sabotaging of an anonymous false report facilitating system.
There is a public consensus that accusers are always victims. This isn’t necessarily an honest consensus. After all, even feminists admit that 1 to 5 percent of “reported rapes” are fraudulent. Some academic studies have placed the number much higher, between 40 and 50 percent, and some senior police officers, speaking publicly have estimated at least similar numbers of reports of rape are fraudulent. In 2010 the Orlando, Florida Police Department felt compelled to issue a public plea for false rape allegations to stop because of the drain they were causing on police resources.
However, the consensus exists, dishonest or not; that an accuser of sexual assault is automatically a true victim of sexual assault. That consensus has real power. Open defiance of this public narrative can earn the owner of nonconforming opinion extreme public censure as well as the loss of public personhood as a “good person” or “good man”. The pious, fraudulent shrieking and phony outrage has a chilling effect on the natural expression of healthy human conscience. We refer to that expressed in opposition to obvious evils such as suppression of free speech and elimination of due process, and anonymizing of criminal accusations.
And few people have the stomach to openly defy that pious public consensus when their own public personhood is the price to be paid. To be defined, by public consensus as no longer a decent human being. The threat of loss of the “good man” card is powerful stuff.
We are not good men. As men’s human rights activists, we are villains. We may even be a super-villains.
So we will both repeat together what we have both already said separately.
What should we expect to happen when a high profile institution of higher education provides a publicly accessible method for reporting anonymous criminal accusations?
Do we believe that such a tool would be widely publicly embraced? Only if we also believe that our neighbors, co-workers, and all the anonymous travelers in traffic in our day to day lives are individuals of no moral compass, and an infantile, literalist credulity toward the public misinformation we are continuously force fed by commercial media.
On the contrary, presented with free access to an obviously ideologically driven “reporting tool”, one which appears tailored to facilitate fraudulent reports, a mentally healthy population will subvert such a corrupt tool.
A mentally healthy individual will engage in the practice of FTSU.
Without apology, without embarrassment, and with a considered evaluation of right and wrong according to mainstream sensibilities.
Without even the prompting of a public-bad-man like JTO, whose endorsement came after the rest of the world have already responded by sabotage to the institution of Occidental College’s “reporting form”.
Good!, go forward brothers and sisters, and FTSU.
Incidentally, as the mighty Pee Zed has deigned to turn his mighty eye once more on JTO’s writing, Its worth noting that as of today, it is 1 year, 5 months and 4 days since the professor was challenged by John to actually use reason, rather than invective to refute or dispute anything written on this site.
The challenge to Pee Zed was first issued in July of 2012, and re-issued half a dozen times since:
“Address the substance of anything I’ve written in my last 100 articles on this site in a manner befitting an academic celebrity and intellectual. Show me where I’m wrong, and change my opinion. And do it without recourse to the usual tactics of censure, identity-politics and attempted shaming tactics.
I absolutely swear my opinion is readily changeable, provided a strong, reasoned argument can be made. Do it like a grown up. That’s my challenge to you PZ. Act like a man, for a complete full article. If you can do that absent of the usual puerile drivel, I’ll publish a permanent article right here on AVfM announcing to the world that you changed my mind.”
To date, he has not responded, despite apparently continuing to read every single thing JTO writes. Even comments on places like reddit. A favour neither Paul nor John can return, as tedious, predictable and unsupported invective and puerile authoritarianism make for rather dull reading.
“And gosh, but Hembling is really an awful person”.
Feature photo shamelessly stolen from Reap Paden.