• Support more videos like this at patreon.com/rebecca!

    Transcript:

    Three years ago, I wrote over on Skepchick about Richard Carrier. You may know him as the guy who you may have seen at atheist conferences […]

    • by “hints” I mean “direct statements.”

      What direct statements?

      Suing half-a-dozen bloggers and student activists for $2 million, all because some women felt uncomfortable and had the temerity to say as much.

      Always weird to see it implied that someone is making a small thing into a big deal, when they are just reacting to someone else who made it into a big deal.

      The defendants didn’t say he merely made some people “uncomfortable”, so no that’s not what he’s suing over. Here’s something he says he’s suing for:

      the defendants in my case continue to claim I’m a sexual harasser who engaged in “persistent, obnoxious sexual behavior in defiance of specific requests that he cease.” That’s demonstrably false. And that’s defamation. I present the evidence below.

      https://www.richardcarrier.info/fairtrial.html

      • LMAO yes complaining on Facebook that a man was creepy to you is the overreaction. Suing her for $2 million is just another Monday.

        • complaining on Facebook that a man was creepy to you

          Your characterization leaves out nearly all of the facts (including statements by other bloggers, consequences), and even then describes what’s left in a vague ill-fitting way.

          And I’m not saying “overreaction”.

          What are the “direct statements”?

          • Thanks but I already read all those e-mails out loud on camera once. I’m not going to do it again for someone clearly arguing in bad faith.

      • The things I was told are mentioned in Skepticon’s official statement that they were banning him from the conference, and also statements made to me by women who had observed his behavior. There were also several examples of rather creepy behavior in his blog that had made *me* uncomfortable over time. When we heard the more specific accusations, we made the entirely reasonable statement that we were suspending his account pending further examination.

        Carrier turned that into a multi-million dollar lawsuit, which sounds like “a big deal” to me.

        Your perspective seems profoundly skewed if you think being suspended from a blog is a big deal, while hitting multiple people with ludicrous multi-million dollar suits is a small thing. Especially when, if he hadn’t initiated this absurd reaction, the whole thing would have been forgotten by now.

        • Your perspective seems profoundly skewed if you think being suspended from a blog is a big deal

          …but that’s not what I think. That’s not what I said. That isn’t all that happened, and you of all people should know.

    • Back when Carrier made this stuff public, I read his argument in the case with Heina. My understanding is that he submitted that whole e-mail chain as evidence, because in the e-mails Heina says it’s fine. However, Heina has been complaining about him behind his back. He concludes that: a) the stuff that Heina says to him in the e-mail is completely truthful, and therefore b) the stuff that Heina says behind his back are all lies. He does not seem to consider the possibility that he got truth and lie backwards.

      Looking at the e-mail chain, I imagine that Heina insists it’s fine either because they’re still processing Carrier’s bullshit, or because they don’t want another round of “fisking” from Carrier.

      Another creepy thing about the case with Heina, is that it occurred soon after Heina had been added to FreeThoughtBlogs (circa August 2014), and Richard Carrier himself played an important role in choosing who was added. This one particularly pisses me off because Carrier also played a role in adding me to FTB.

    • Great video as usual, sounds like Carrier 100% Streisand effected himself here.

    • Not to try to justify Carrier’s allegedly* creepy behavior, I believe he and his wife have a polyamorous relationship, so the foursome in the hotel might not be cheating per se.

      Though that he then stated that he told his wife about it several months later makes me think it maybe violated the bounds of their relationship.

      *I said allegedly, he can’t sue me.

      • You are 100% wrong and Carrier’s own narrative plus the documents he insisted on submitting to the public record make it very clear that he cheated on his wife, and then they decided to try a polyamorous and/or open relationship before breaking up, not that I actually care and frankly I’m grossed out that I even know that much about his fucking fuck life.