Neil Gaiman accused of sexual assault

[WandsOut]

www.yahoo.com/entertainment/sandman-writer-neil-gaiman-denies-142813982.html

Story still unfolding in the news

@Grammarnut Nothing is unexplained, you just haven't been bothered to investigate or show any curiosity about what's been alleged. There's been plenty of exposition on this thread about what the women have accused NG of which you clearly haven't taken in. The evidence is already aired - the women have gone on record with statements. Is that not enough for you? You want a man to come along and verify?

So why not take a pause from this thread until you've at least done the minimum. And take your whataboutery re GMP to the appropriate thread - there's been a number of them.

I don't think it's that difficult a question. When the rapist is a public figure, it's in the public interest for the allegations to be reported.

Also we know full well what NG is accused of, at least by the two women who spoke to the podcast. We know in detail. It's unlikely to ever see the inside of a courtroom, because while the sexual acts were obviously coercive and abusive, they were also consensual. So there is also an element of needed public discussion about consent and whether that should be the only threshold when we consider sexual abuse. We have to ask can consent be granted retrospectively, for example. Is silence consent? These are all questions that are very tricky but important to air and discuss.

NG has admitted to all the things he's accused of, except he claims that he had consent for everything. So we know all this stuff happened.

So we know it happened because both parties agree that it did. What we do not know is how much/if any real consent was given. That is a philosophical problem. What constitutes consent? What can you consent to? Already, the law does not allow consent to an act which may kill or maim you - it is no defence in law. Can you consent and then change your mind later as other factors emerge which would have changed your mind at the time?
Those things need discussing. I do not like destruction of someone's reputation without a full discussion of what has happened. You will be unsurprised to know I am a Ricardian.

There has been a full discussion. You obviously just haven't bothered to follow it.

It would be interesting to see how quickly they're moving - I imagine Edendale have someone sat on it 24/7

As ever on Wiki, the discussion on the talk page is very illuminating.

Having read those Wiki comments about Tortoise Media, I’m fairly sure they were nominated for a Paul Foot award, but I need to go back through the Page 94 podcast for confirmation.

Actually just checked the 2024 nominees and yes they were shortlisted, which should class them as “reliable” I would think.

Those wiki warriors are determined to discredit Tortoise as an unreliable TERF news source. What utter rubbish. Even the flipping Guardian has recommended the podcast, despite ignoring the story as a news item.

The facts:

Sexual assault allegations have been made against Gaiman by women who were in ‘consensual’ relationships with him.

NZ Police are investigating.

Gaiman has strenuously denied the allegations (but has admitted to some pretty dodgy stuff, when you consider the power imbalance between him and the alleged victims).

How hard is that for Wiki warriors to grasp?

I am torn about, for want of a better phrase, trial by media. This case is horrific and I think it is right that it's known about (painful personally because I have been a fan and know I won't enjoy his books in the same way). But in order for this to be known about women have lost their anonymity and had to bare their experiences for the world, which isn't right. Doing so anonymously wouldn't have worked as it was so situation specific and people would have been able to work out who they were. And I'm afraid anonymous allegations rarely get taken seriously.

But then you have situations where the accusation is greater than the crime and lives are ruined because of malice. And that isn't right either.

God, I am having such a hard time knowing what should happen with this one. I'm not sure this contributes much but I want acknowledge the complexities beyond this particular case.

So sorry to hear about the abuse some here have suffered.

Edit: deleted double post.

I went on Reddit recently, lots of shock and justifications.

God that's a depressing read... 😕

The two sources in wiki sound depressingly like the "it's only rape if there's a male witness" doesn't it? If the same accuser talks to two different media outlets does that count as one or two?

The wiki thread backs up what I've observed in their content in recent years.

It's why I would no longer dream of using them as a reliable single source, and when I do click on a page and get the begging pop up or the 'hey, remember when you used to donate to us?' emails I take a certain grim satisfaction in ignoring the hell out of them.

There's still a small core of long-term editors at wiki who take their encyclopaedic role seriously, and try to avoid bias. There's a much larger group who are openly activists but justify their narrative-moulding with lines like "reality has a liberal bias".

Anyone can create an account to become an editor, but if you go against the dominant clique you'll be bullied out pretty quickly.

Most editor accounts are zombie accounts, and the number of active editors is much smaller than people think. It's mostly people who are highly motivated and have lots of time on their hands, and overwhelmingly male. Certain niche subjects can be squatted by a handful of editors. Or foreign language editions - the Croatian wiki was run by a group of neo-fascists for about ten years before the Americans caught on.

The main way bias is introduced into the process is through the list of reliable sources and deprecated sources. Reliable sources in English would be the BBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, Guardian. But also more contentious outlets like Pink News and Vice Media. Meanwhile, you can't use Fox News for anything political or cultural - though you might quote a local Fox affiliate on a straight news story - and you can't use the Daily Mail as a source for anything.

What this means is, let's say for talk's sake that a major scandal in the UK is being covered by the Mail and GB News, but the BBC and Guardian are refusing to mention it. In that case, as far as wiki is concerned, the scandal doesn't exist.

That's why I might use wiki for "what is the capital of Madagascar" type questions, but not for anything politically or culturally controversial. I've seen too many blatantly agenda driven pages, and when you look at the talk pages you get to see how the sausage is made.

I think there's a statistic that only 5% of editors are women, also.

Women should get on and edit more, if it's a subject you are knowledgeable about, for sure.

As with everything, it's usually a good starting point and at least citations are required.

when you look at the talk pages you get to see how the sausage is made.

Absolutely. Is there any similar resource anyone can recommend that doesn't have the same issues, or is it more that at Wikipedia they are far more obvious because of the article edit process? For example, few journalism articles cite or link to sources directly, instead summarising what was found or quoting press releases. They're still making sausages, we just don't see it! But, at least with newspapers there should be some fact-checking process that isn't "just throwing it out to the crowd".

This is why it's so important to analysis how we know what we know - with everything! The increase of AI misrepresenting things really makes me despair.

(Sorry, gone a bit off-topic)

For those who are counting...

You know, I think we don't have to decide what should happen legally or in terms of NG's writing contracts etc. It's important that people know NG's true character, because he's a public figure with a lot of power and access to vulnerable women. The more people who know about his history with women, the better.

In terms of the actual situations that have been brought to light - I think there is a case to say NG has broken the law in some circumstances. I do not think that there's much chance of him seeing the inside of a courtroom any time soon. But I also think that there are more women who could speak up, and would speak up, if the accusations were properly reported on.

In terms of whether you continue to read NG's books or tv or whatever, I feel like that's a purely personal choice. For me, I'm not on board with cancel culture. At the same time, I don't want to put any more money in his pocket. (Not that I've ever been that into him, tbh.)

I think this whole thing is going to blow up at some point. I know that NG has put a lot of resources into making it 'blow over' but unless he's planning on becoming an actual recluse for the rest of his life, he's going to have to come out and face the music at some point. I would put money on him using this time to put pressure on the women who've spoken up to recant and to threaten/bribe others from coming forward, so that he can come out and say, it was all a big misunderstanding. Really hope that his victims are getting the support they need.

I think for women's safety this needed to come out. I just worry about vindictive accusations (and I know that they are rare but they do happen and with trial by media the evidence required is far reduced). Not suggesting this is one btw, sadly it sounds all too true.

It makes me wonder how truthful it is when he's consistently distanced himself from the Church of Scientology.

It seems vanishingly unlikely that he would cut himself off from his family who are still heavily involved, so my assumption would be that he's still connected if not active.

It would also explain why the media blackout has been very successful. As well as the PR company, I imagine Scientology has a great deal of money set aside for damage limitation relating to their high profile members (of which I would still consider NG to be one).

For more info on that watch any of John Attacks videos on Youtube

Sixteen days! It sure is taking him time to think of a decent excuse.

Can’t help thinking of all the women who lost publishing contracts because they had the audacity to say that humans can’t change sex.

Male writer accused of sexual assault: crickets.

Woman writer accused of wrongthink: cancelled.