More Women Accuse Neil deGrasse Tyson of Sexual Misconduct

A mere three weeks ago I pointed out a splendid example of intellectual inconsistency among the internet atheists, especially PZ Myers: while they were eager to embrace the allegations of Christian Blasey Ford with very little evidence, they dismissed Tchiya Amet’s allegations against Neil deGrasse Tyson for lack of evidence.   What made this quite odd is that Amet had a stronger case than did Ford.  So why were they so eager to believe Ford while being so dismissive of Amet?

Well, as it turns out, two more women have come forward to accuse Neil deGrasse Tyson of creepy sexual misconduct.  It’s sure beginning to look like creepy sexual misconduct is a common trait of popular critics of religion, leaving us to wonder just how much of their anti-religious posturing is tied to a rationalization for creepy sexual behavior.

Anyway, it now seems like PZ Myers is willing to believe the women.  Kinda.  He’s now calling on Neil deGrasse Tyson to respond with a short blog entry entitled, “No more stonewalling.”  Huh?  What does he mean “no more” stonewalling?  When it was just a lone black woman making the accusation, PZ said there wasn’t enough evidence to even merit a response.  Now that a white, female Associate Professor of Physics and Astronomy has her own accusation, it’s different, eh?

 

 

 

 

This entry was posted in Neil deGrasse Tyson, Social Justice, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to More Women Accuse Neil deGrasse Tyson of Sexual Misconduct

  1. Mark Plus says:

    Atheist propaganda for generations claimed that a godless society would be a swinging sexual utopia. But it doesn’t work that way in the real world. What happens when a sexually unattractive Christian man renounces belief in god because he expects that will improve his sex life? He becomes a sexually unattractive atheist who still can’t get laid.

  2. Dhay says:

    Mark Plus > …What happens when a sexually unattractive Christian man renounces belief in god because he expects that will improve his sex life? He becomes a sexually unattractive atheist who still can’t get laid.

    My mind goes back a year or so to the lament of trans-woman Jacob Tobia:

    I want to be sexually objectified and it never happens. I want people to appreciate the time and effort that I put into my body and my look. I want people to look at my perfectly applied lipstick and want me because of it. I want my long legs to give people feels. I want to dance on the bar and leave boys breathless, panting, and desperate to talk to me.
    … [but] …
    While many of my cis women friends are trying to figure out how to drain out a swamp of unwanted male attention, I’m stuck in a desert trying to suck water from a cactus.

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2017/10/07/always-the-victim/#comment-20465

    What happens when a sexually unattractive man becomes a trans-woman because he expects that will improve his sex life? He becomes a sexually unattractive trans-woman who still can’t get laid.

    *

    Or there’s Bertrand Russell, an atheist who could get laid — after his first marriage ended he was in and out of sexual relationships; his daughter said:

    “Having given up strict monogamy with the end of his first marriage, he no longer felt any need to restrict his affections, which he distributed most liberally throughout the rest of his life.”

    “…it turned out that the new morality was no easier and no more natural than the ideal of rigorous life-long monogamy it was intended to replace.” And again: “Free marriage had proved more difficult than he had expected, its failure painful and expensive”

    https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1268-atheists-daughter-an

    In his autobiography Russell wrote: “The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God.”

    Russell could get laid, couldn’t get happy.

    *

    One last digression regarding Russell:

    Russell was an ardent proponent of Darwinism. He taught his children that “mankind was no more than an accident of evolution”. When he traveled with his family, his daughter recalls, “he suggested that we might lean out the windows when we passed other cars and shout out: ‘Your grandfather was a monkey.’ This was to convince them of the correctness of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

    Jerry Coyne would surely cringe at such pitiful ignorance of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

    *

    Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Back in 2015 Coyne blogged a short video of Russell, and quoted from it:

    The money quote, which faitheists should internalize:

    “It seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it’s useful and not because you think it’s true.”

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/there-cant-be-a-practical-reason-for-believing-what-isnt-true-bertrand-russell-on-his-unbelief/

    Russell’s daughter describes various inconsistencies, including this one:

    Russell believed that a parent must teach his child “with its very first breath that it has entered into a moral world”. And yet, as with all atheists, he had a most difficult time explaining why, if man is simply the produce of natural forces, children should be taught morality. Ms. Tait recalled various conversations relative to moral matters in which she and her father engaged when she was a youngster.

    “I don’t want to! Why should I?” she pressed. She noted that a conventional parent might reply: “Because I say so … your father says so … God says so….” Russell, however, would say to his children: “Because more people will be happy if you do than if you don’t.”

    “So what?”, she would respond, “I don’t care about other people.”
    “But you should,” her father would retort.

    In her innocence she would exclaim: “But why?” To her question the redundant rejoinder would be: “Because more people will be happy if you do than if you don’t.”

    Tait observed: “We felt the heavy pressure of his rectitude and obeyed, but the reason was not convincing—neither to us nor to him”.

    The confused celebrity could hardly impress his children with any kind of moral sense of responsibility when, as noted above, he himself taught: “Outside human desire there is no moral standard”

    I rather think that “[Do it] Because more people will be happy if you do than if you don’t” counts as what Russell describes as that “fundamental dishonesty and fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity.” Russell’s command to his daughter was inconsistent with Coyne’s quote of him; Russell commanded his daughter to act not because of truth but because of usefulness.

  3. unclesporkums says:

    Again, science and reason..

  4. stcordova says:

    Dhay,

    WOW! Russell’s writings were instrumental to my return to the Christian faith. I saw a lot of myself in him in many ways.

    ” I have sought love, first, because it brings ecstasy – ecstasy so great that I would often have sacrificed all the rest of life for a few hours of this joy. I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness–that terrible loneliness in which one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss. I have sought it finally, because in the union of love I have seen, in a mystic miniature, the prefiguring vision of the heaven that saints and poets have imagined. This is what I sought, and though it might seem too good for human life, this is what–at last–I have found.”

  5. Dhay says:

    Why limit this to Neil deGrasse Tyson. One of Jerry Coyne’s heroes, and a hero for many other anti-theistic atheists, is Richard Feynman — Coyne’s current latest post laments the auctioning of Feynman memorabilia, and he evidently expects some of (the wealthier of) his own fans will be interested in bidding. Oh, also a hero to his biographer, the anti-theistic atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss.

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/?s=Feynman&searchsubmit=Find+%C2%BB

    Hero for Coyne, Krauss and for many other anti-theistic atheists he may be, but a notoriously appallingly misogynistic sexual predator and harasser also.

    Krauss minimalised Feynman’s behaviour

    [Krauss’ biography of Feyman,] Quantum Man is a tremendous exercise in hagiography. Krauss documents Feynman’s bad behavior, but couches it in language that removes any responsibility the scientist may have possessed.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/lawrence-krauss-sexual-misconduct-me-too-arizona-state/573844/

    Who among us would have expected Krauss to not present sexual predation as bad behaviour.

    Someone who sees Feynman as a hero but does see and condemn his bad behaviour is physicist and science writer Matthew Francis, blogging at Galileo’s Pendulum:

    Dick Feynman the human

    Feynman stories that get passed around physics departments aren’t usually about science, though. They’re about his safecracking, his antics, his refusal to wear neckties, his bongos, his rejection of authority, his sexual predation on vulnerable women. Admittedly, that last one isn’t usually spelled out so blatantly. It’s usually framed as “oh, times were different” or “that was just Feynman being himself” or (if the person was at least trying to not to let the behavior slide) “he was a flawed human being”. Some simply ignore that side of him entirely. Some will pull out the admirable example of his encouragement of Joan Feynman, his sister, as proof that he couldn’t truly harbor horrible attitudes about women.

    The problem is that the facts are against any excuses. Feynman pretended to be an undergraduate to get young women to sleep with him. He targeted the wives of male grad students. He went to bars and practiced a technique that isn’t so different from the reprehensible “game” of the pick-up artists (PUAs). This is all public record, including anecdotes in his own words from his sorta-memoirs Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman and What Do You Care What Other People Think?

    (Inset is a panel from the excellent Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic about summoning the shade of Feynman, and its creepy consequences. Click to read the whole thing.)

    https://galileospendulum.org/2014/07/13/the-problem-of-richard-feynman/

    What do these heroes stand for? Science and Reason and Sexual Predation.

  6. Dhay says:

    In a post dated 01 December 2018 and entitled “Neil deGrasse Tyson Responds to Misconduct Claims, Says He Dated Rape Accuser” on his own blog David G McAfee (aka David Gee on Friendly Atheist) tells his few readers:

    Tyson admitted to the veracity of [Ashley] Watson’s claims, saying in a lengthy Facebook post that she confronted him and quit after an awkward night at his apartment.

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/nosacredcows/2018/12/neil-degrasse-tyson-responds-to-misconduct-claims-says-he-dated-rape-accuser/

    Although McAfee has told his readers he would carry out an independent and impartial investigation, I can but question whether he is impartial. From that quote one would assume Tyson has thrown up his hands and said, “It was me, I admit everything Watson alleges.” Tyson confirms the unimportant parts of Watson’s allegations and denies the allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards her. McAfee is misrepresenting.

    You would also assume from McAfee that Tyson’s behaviour forced Watson to quit, or she chose to quit because of it — neither is part of her allegations — whereas she left her job of Production Assistant during the last week of production, when she would be leaving anyway.

    McAfee is Impartial, is unbiased, is presenting the facts to his readers impartially and without bias? No. Certainly No.

    *

    It’s not so long ago that Hemant Mehta and Sarabeth Caplin were scornfully posting on Friendly Atheist about Mike Pence following the ‘Billy Graham Rule’, saying eg:

    The Billy Graham Rule — where you can’t be alone with a woman who’s not your wife because you might not be able to keep it in your pants — is disturbing enough when the Vice President is saying it …

    https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/?s=billy+graham+rule

    The two have a reading comprehension deficit. The Billy Graham Rule is not about whether or not you can “keep it in your pants”, it’s about being seen to be always acting without impropriety.

    The Watson and Tyson evening amply demonstrates the Rule’s wisdom.

  7. unclesporkums says:

    And it says more about the gnu’s mindset about being alone with a woman..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.