To me it sounds like spending 15 minutes responding by explaing why he is not going to respond. He does say the default position is to always believe the woman, but then spends most of his time hinting that the Buzzfeed article is not reliable. See for yourself:
Shadow To Light 
Digest: Basically accusation == guilt in the eyes of the same people who lecture us about evidence and skepticism. If Buzzfeed is the ‘skeptic’ community’s standard of evidence, God help them.
Hemant Mehta has already commented on the reliability of BuzzFeed in his first post, and he has a position contrary to both Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss’ wife — see the linked twitter record in the previous thread; Mehta considers BuzzFeed as reliable as any:
What does appear to be reliable is BuzzFeed’s report that:
BuzzFeed stresses the diligence and depth of their research. It would be wrong to dismiss the article as mere insinuation, its evidence unsubstantiated and fabricated with malicious intent.
*
I read:
Krauss “had to get approval before setting foot on campus”. Phew! I’d say that Krauss was put in a position where he was unable to perform his role as lecturer and tutor, so he was in effect sacked (allowed to move on as an alternative to dismissal?); he obviously moved pretty quickly to find a post elsewhere.
And he resigned after investigated allegations when at another university, allegations similarly not dismissed:
Because of the timing (again) this has ‘allowed to resign as an alternative to dismissal’ written all over it.
I still find it worrying that reputations and careers are being ruined on the basis of mere accusations, some of them regarding ‘transgressions’ that are trivial to any adult, and that nowhere in this #MeToo thing is there any attempt at due process. Where the hell are law enforcement and the justice system in all this?
What “Social Justice” actually means is “mob rule”. They just mete out punishment using social penalties (like no-platforming and ostracism) rather than incarceration. Nobody is pressing any of the usual charges, because they are going through the Social Justice system.
After 3:30 Mark of the vid just couldn’t listen to that golem drone on anymore.
“To me it sounds like”
Exactly. You’re hearing what you want to hear.
He asked Krauss not to appear with them that evening and spent 15 minutes of pragmatic explanation to the audience. This is his all-too-common speaking style. You should know this very well if you’re truly monitoring New Atheism as closely as you claim to be.
I don’t know who’s right, since I can’t tolerate listening to him for more than about six seconds.
Claiming to take no stance on the truth of the allegations in the same breath as stating that the accused is “under assault,” effectively switching the role of victim and perpetrator. I wonder how many of his acolytes noticed that neat little rhetorical trick.
Nice catch. When Harris claims he isn’t taking a stance on the truth of the allegations, I think he is lying. Framing his friend and colleague as someone who is “under assault” tells us what position he has taken. 😉
He asked Krauss not to appear with them that evening and spent 15 minutes of pragmatic explanation to the audience.
I think you have confused cowardly obfuscation for pragmatic explanation.
And Harris is one of the sycophants who are enabling Lawrence Krauss. And really, “a bad and awkward date”? Give me a break.