Neil DeGrasse Tyson Misconduct

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Firstly, I don't get what you do by just jumping into discussions, saying some line, and then stopping there.

Where did I blame the victim? Very simply I said he changed his position. He could be guilty, he could be innocent. Either way, he changed his position. If that's what you consider victim blaming I think you really need to reevaluate your definition.

 

given the context of the thread, the victim is ambiguous. 

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

given the context of the thread, the victim is ambiguous. 

Well, that's good to know and doesn't address anything that I said. 

Where did I blame the victim? If you're going to accuse me of victim blaming, then you better have more evidence then me saying a guy changed his opinion.

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Do you really intend to imply that if you were in the situation of someone accusing you of things and they didn't have evidence, that you would never bring up the idea that maybe your accusers should have to have evidence? Is that seriously what you'd do?

 

And what are you implying?

that no evidence is = to evidence?

[Raider5678]

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And what are you implying?

that no evidence is = to evidence?

I'm implying that it's not wrong for Mr. Tyson to say that they should have evidence, and the idea that Ten Oz believes he'd never resort to bringing that up if people were accusing him of something without evidence, is hard for me to believe.

Obviously, I'm not implying that no evidence is = to evidence.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Raider5678

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

here we go again, blame the victim; rather than investigate the accusation.

Since suspending judgement until sufficient evidence comes forward is the new extreme leftist version of "blaming the victim" then sure, here we go again...

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Since suspending judgement until sufficient evidence comes forward is the new extreme leftist version of "blaming the victim" then sure, here we go again...

ATM this discussion is on par with "Does God exist?"

[J.C.MacSwell]

26 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

ATM this discussion is on par with "Does God exist?"

I'm pretty sure we can assume She does...pretty safe to say He doesn't exist until we have some very conclusive evidence...

Edited December 5, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

11 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Since suspending judgement until sufficient evidence comes forward is the new extreme leftist version of "blaming the victim" then sure, here we go again...

Sloppy. Folks here are not extreme leftists. With only few anecdotal exceptions, “leftists’ as a whole also don’t meet your own criteria of conflating victim blaming with judgment suspension. Finally, “leftist” itself is a mushy ambiguous catch-all term without much meaning, but with a certain intent to disparage entire groups.

By introducing such a broad sweeping generalization, you’re unnecessarily dividing massive numbers of people into us and them and making an issue partisan when it need not be. It’s lazy, cowardly, and off topic, and I just couldn’t let it stand without response.

Please name specific people if you see this behavior, and please try to find more precise, less partisan, less dismissing terms to group individuals. Even I sometimes screw up and do this, and I’m hopeful that you’ll join me in trying to stop. Cheers

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Sloppy. Folks here are not extreme leftists. With only few anecdotal exceptions, “leftists’ as a whole also don’t meet your own criteria of conflating victim blaming with judgment suspension. Finally, “leftist” itself is a mushy ambiguous catch-all term without much meaning, but with a certain intent to disparage entire groups.

By introducing such a broad sweeping generalization, you’re unnecessarily dividing massive numbers of people into us and them and making an issue partisan when it need not be. It’s lazy, cowardly, and off topic, and I just couldn’t let it stand without response.

Please name specific people if you see this behavior, and please try to find more precise, less partisan, less dismissing terms to group individuals. Even I sometimes screw up and do this, and I’m hopeful that you’ll join me in trying to stop. Cheers

Of course. I make distinctions between liberals, who have views I support, leftists, who have good intentions but go too far in trying to make things what they consider fair, and extreme leftists that have some pretty distorted views and rhetoric. They make generalized statements about "white men" and call you racist and misogynist if you don't agree.

That is why I said extreme leftists, to make myself clear.

12 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Since suspending judgement until sufficient evidence comes forward is the new extreme leftist version of "blaming the victim" then sure, here we go again...

"Here we go again, blame the victim; rather than investigate the accusation" could be a statement that anyone makes, but dimreepr directed it at Raider, who neither blamed the victim or advocated against further investigation. That's borrowing rhetoric from the extreme left, plain and simple.

And you called me out for pointing that out, yet give dimreepr a pass on it, while claiming I'm being unnecessarily dividing and partisan...

For what it is worth, I don't believe anyone here is on the extreme left, but there is an awful lot of support for that rhetoric at times.

Edited December 5, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Silvestru]

Can we please focus on the misconduct part? I really enjoy reading your point of view on this subject and less about politics. This whole page has nothing to do with the topic.

For example I would like to discuss the crazy amount of "fake news" or baseless assumptions that I come across in the media related to this subject. Media is quoting religious groups opinions on the matter like it's evidence. I can't say what really happened but when media puts up baseless speculations as evidence just to sell papers...it makes me sad  

For example:

Quote

 

Take an incident with a fellow physicist and a fan, Katelyn Allers. At a meeting in 2009, when the two posed for a photo, Tyson allegedly touched Allers’s skin, which was tattooed with the solar system. Though he says that he doesn’t recall the exact event, Tyson surmises that the account, in factuality, is reasonable.  There is actually a photo of Tyson grasping Allers’ arm. Allers says that he reached under her dress to trace her tattoo and that it made her uncomfortable.

Tyson takes issue with that framing. “This was simply a search under the covered part of her shoulder of the sleeveless dress,” writes Tyson. He was just looking for Pluto. Everyone knows how he feels about Pluto! He simply cannot resist the pull of cosmic artistry in general, “but going forward, I can surely be more sensitive to people’s personal space,” he writes. (This is as close as Tyson gets to learning a lesson.)

 

Stuff like this makes me so disappointed at what the modern reader is interested in.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

Can we please focus on the misconduct part? I really enjoy reading your point of view on this subject and less about politics. This whole page has nothing to do with the topic.

For example I would like to discuss the crazy amount of "fake news" or baseless assumptions that I come across in the media related to this subject. Media is quoting religious groups opinions on the matter like it's evidence. I can't say what really happened but when media puts up baseless speculations as evidence just to sell papers...it makes me sad  

For example:

I am a tad confused, do you mean the quote as an example of "fake news". The reason why I am asking is that the quote seems to quote a post made by Tyson. Or do you mean that it was misquoted?

[Ten oz]

28 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Can we please focus on the misconduct part? I really enjoy reading your point of view on this subject and less about politics. This whole page has nothing to do with the topic.

For example I would like to discuss the crazy amount of "fake news" or baseless assumptions that I come across in the media related to this subject. Media is quoting religious groups opinions on the matter like it's evidence. I can't say what really happened but when media puts up baseless speculations as evidence just to sell papers...it makes me sad  

For example:

Stuff like this makes me so disappointed at what the modern reader is interested in.

The way this conversations keeps dipping toward talk of leftist extremism, cries related to due process, lamenting about not being able to flirt anymore and statements that nothing can ever be known here and we all should move are disappointing. Whether or not we ever know for a fact what happened there are interesting points for discussion here.

Drugged and Raped accusation - Tyson claims he dated his accuser for a while, they were intimate a few times, and it didn't workout because there was "no chemistry".   Tyson didn't specify the length of the relationship or total amount of intimacy. Tchiya Amet (Link to her version) claims that Tyson was assigned by school administrators to initially show her around campus and the two became friends. Amet claims she viewed Tyson as a mentor or older brother figure and the two hung out a lot. She claims there was a platonic relationship. One day while hang out Tyson offered her some water. After drinking it she only remembers sparse moments where Tyson was intimate with her.  She believes Tyson drugged the water. 

The 2 version of events are not so incredibly different as to be totally irreconcilable. There is room here to accept both version without the need to assume one side or the other is lying. It is common between people for the nature of a relationship to be misunderstood. I'd bet everyone of us have been in a relationships where there was confusion from one side or the other about whether the relationship was platonic or romantic. Both Tyson and Amet claim they spent time together. It is reasonable that both are telling the truth from their own perspective. Tyson thought they were dating and Amet thought it was platonic. It happens all the time.

Where their stories diverge is whether or not the intimacy was consensual. Neither is denying intimacy accorded. Amet's  believes she was drugged because she can't remember consciously participating or consenting to intimacy after being given water by Tyson. The water being drugged is the conclusion Amet came to because she experienced being impaired. Amet does not have hard evidence for or proof of Tyson drugging her. Still accepting both versions of events if Amet became impaired somehow unrelated to anything Tyson did it is possible in my opinion Tyson wouldn't have noticed and since he believed the 2 were dating went ahead been intimate her. These things do happen. Most commonly when alcohol or illicit drugs are involved but those are not the only was a person can become impaired. There are other physiological things which can produce memory loss and temporary impairment. It is why clear verbal consent is so heavily preached now days in sexual assault and prevention training. Sometimes the extent to which a person is able to consent is compromised and it goes unnoticed.

Whether or not that is the case between Tyson and Amet isn't known but it is something that happens. It is one of the many reasons why I feel we can allow ourselves to believe victims while still respecting the innocence til proven guilty of the accused. These situations do not need to be viewed through the lenses of good vs evil where one side is a Rapist or the other side is a lair bent of ruining someones life. 

[swansont]

On 12/4/2018 at 5:54 AM, iNow said:

It’s possible, yes. I can easily see Tyson as an overly flirty yet socially awkward and often misunderstood man. I cannot so easily see him as a Bill Cosby style rapist. 

Partly, possibly, because Cosby had multiple accusers capable of describing his MO. If that happens with Tyson, then one would be able to see him as a predator. 

[DirtyChai]

2 hours ago, Silvestru said:

Can we please focus on the misconduct part? I really enjoy reading your point of view on this subject and less about politics. This whole page has nothing to do with the topic.

For example I would like to discuss the crazy amount of "fake news" or baseless assumptions that I come across in the media related to this subject. Media is quoting religious groups opinions on the matter like it's evidence. I can't say what really happened but when media puts up baseless speculations as evidence just to sell papers...it makes me sad

In addition to CharonY's question, I'd also like to know what that has to do with "religious groups opinions?"

 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Partly, possibly, because Cosby had multiple accusers capable of describing his MO. If that happens with Tyson, then one would be able to see him as a predator. 

 

In Poker the shark never bets the same way twice.  

[DrP]

Just now, DirtyChai said:

In addition to CharonY's question, I'd also like to know what that has to do with "religious groups opinions?"

 

I guess that 'religious groups' could jump on the band wagon and say that because he is an evil atheist without god in his life he was easily lead into sins such as rape... This is proof in some of their minds he can't be trusted and his arguments about evolution and the BB should be ignored in favour of creationism?   I guess creationists feel he is the enemy driven by satin because he propagates his views on the BB and the cosmos and thinks 'creation' is a myth in a story book.   Of course this would be ridiculous as there are many within the churches systems themselves that are guilty of far worse he is accused of without trial.

[Raider5678]

51 minutes ago, DrP said:

I guess creationists feel he is the enemy driven by satin because he propagates his views on the BB and the cosmos and thinks 'creation' is a myth in a story book. 

Most of the people in my church really like him simply because his voice is relaxing. 

[Silvestru]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I am a tad confused, do you mean the quote as an example of "fake news". The reason why I am asking is that the quote seems to quote a post made by Tyson. Or do you mean that it was misquoted?

48 minutes ago, DirtyChai said:

In addition to CharonY's question, I'd also like to know what that has to do with "religious groups opinions?"

Religious website Patheos reported allegations of sexual harassment made against mr. Tyson to a bunch of newspapers. Thats why I mentioned religious groups.

I can't believe I am mentioning them  About the fake news stuff, I have read multiple headlines which state that he is guilty. And the one I mentioned just tries to add satire and humor to a very serious rape accusation which disrespects both parties.

 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

These situations do not need to be viewed through the lenses of good vs evil where one side is a Rapist or the other side is a lair bent of ruining someones life. 

What is your proposed lens?

58 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In Poker the shark never bets the same way twice.  

Thanks again for the one line input.

[CharonY]

27 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

And the one I mentioned just tries to add satire and humor to a very serious rape accusation which disrespects both parties.

Oh I see, you mean the flippant style of the author? I found the source from Tyson

Quote

A colleague at a well attended, after-conference, social gathering came up to me to ask for a photograph. She was wearing a sleeveless dress with a tattooed solar system extending up her arm. And while I don’t explicitly remember searching for Pluto at the top of her shoulder, it is surely something I would have done in that situation. As we all know, I have professional history with the demotion of Pluto, which had occurred officially just three years earlier. So whether people include it or not in their tattoos is of great interest to me. I was reported to have “groped” her by searching “up her dress”, when this was simply a search under the covered part of her shoulder of the sleeveless dress.

So yeah, it was a hyperbolic description of the events. That being said, Tyson's own words do indicate that he apparently does not have a good sense of personal space. While the style of the reporting that you quoted is questionable, at least they did not change the essence of his words. I.e. due to his interest in Pluto, it is not weird (in his mind) if he wants to trace tattoos beneath clothing (without being offered to do so).

Now, with regard to the term "guilty". I think it should be added that this is not a trial of legal misconduct. Rather, if you will, there is a public discussion on whether these actions are considered a misconduct within a professional setting. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that he was entirely oblivious to how his actions were perceived. Assuming these were the only times that it happened, chances are that folks will tell him to be more sensitive next time. This is generally what happens, though being a figurehead of sorts can be problematic in these situations. And this also goes back to a previous comment of mine that mind sound too clinical for some, but to me it is fairly obvious why his behaviour (regardless of intention) could be seen as somewhat crossing the line. And again, there is no guilty or innocent here. As mentioned, the actions were pretty much in agreement on all sides. What we are talking about our ever-shifting standards of acceptable behaviour between colleagues (not friends) as well situations with power differential.

 

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

What is your proposed lens?

 

 good sight needs no lens.

25 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Thanks again for the one line input.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So yeah, it was a hyperbolic description of the events. That being said, Tyson's own words do indicate that he apparently does not have a good sense of personal space. While the style of the reporting that you quoted is questionable, at least they did not change the essence of his words. I.e. due to his interest in Pluto, it is not weird (in his mind) if he wants to trace tattoos beneath clothing (without being offered to do so).

In both the case of the Tattoo and assistant Tyson behaved poorly in my opinion. I think most adults know better, should know better, than attempting to get beneath clothing or inviting subordinates into a private location for wine. In his response on Facebook I feel Tyson blames the victims in both cases by suggesting what he felt they should have done at the time rather than focusing on himself. In my opinion Tyson substantiated those 2 claims in his response. It is the third accusation which is unknown. 

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

In both the case of the Tattoo and assistant Tyson behaved poorly in my opinion. I think most adults know better, should know better, than attempting to get beneath clothing or inviting subordinates into a private location for wine.

I'd agree what he did was unwise, probably inappropriate, etc.

Regarding the alleged groping though. Really now we have to ask if that should be constituting sexual harassment. 

I mean, if his intent was not to harass her, and his intent was not sexual, and(No, this is not me trying to blame the victim) since she didn't stop him or resist(according to her own words), should we categorize it as being sexual harassment or just him being a creepy guy?

I mean, if his intent was to harras her, I could see it. If it was sexual, I could see it. If she said no and he ignored it, I could see it. In fact, even if it had simply been done in private, I could see it. But I really don't think in this situation it'd constitute sexual harassment. Additionally, he's apologized for it and said that he wouldn't do something like that again, and simply didn't realize it. He didn't try to deny that he did it, he simply explained what his motivations were.

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In both the case of the Tattoo and assistant Tyson behaved poorly in my opinion. I think most adults know better, should know better, than attempting to get beneath clothing or inviting subordinates into a private location for wine. In his response on Facebook I feel Tyson blames the victims in both cases by suggesting what he felt they should have done at the time rather than focusing on himself. In my opinion Tyson substantiated those 2 claims in his response. It is the third accusation which is unknown. 

I have edited my post above and I do agree that his conduct was poor in this situation. I can kind of understand it, as I do observe such or similar behaviour quite often in conferences, most often conducted by older folks and often by some sort of bigwig or another (though it does not mean that some of the younger folks are not creepy, either). It is honestly more indicative of a change in how we interact with each other if we are frank, it is mostly driven by women who assert their right to be treated as equals and colleagues.

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I have edited my post above and I do agree that his conduct was poor in this situation.

Agreed, it was poor, but what if it had been a guy?

If Mr. Tyson had pulled aside a guys shirt collar for example, to look at the tattoo, would that be considered the same thing?

Or is it just women? And if it's just women, would that constitute treating them different on the basis of sex, which would then mean sexism?

I'm not implying something, these are genuine questions.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Raider5678