I find it difficult to believe you looked very hard, as it was easily available. More importantly, why did you think it was appropriate to say anything at all without having engaged with the primary source that you knew existed? It’s easy to wait.
Just because it’s available doesn’t mean it’s accessible. Yesterday morning was the first time I had available to sit down and listen to even one hour of audio, and I still haven’t had the opportunity to listen to the other three. That’s why I had been asking for the details of the accusers’ claims.
I also didn’t have the energy to listen to it until yesterday. But even in my personal life I didn’t say anything but the bare minimum until I had because I am not going to say shit about sexual violence when all I have is hearsay and wild speculation!
The only thing I saw people saying was “what are the actual statements from the actual people involved?” I still don’t understand why seeking out the victims’ stories is somehow troublesome.
You and I agree that seeking out victims stories is important. I think you did good work making a transcript available. Where we may disagree is whether it’s appropriate to spend A LOT of time sharing skepticism without first engaging with a source.
I think it’s inappropriate to make SO MANY posts like this without getting information, and inappropriate to defend it. It’s fine to wait for more information, not fine to put a LOT of time into criticizing media you haven’t engaged with yet when doing so leads here.
At the time she made that statement, honestly, I’m not sure how you could know for sure that the podcasters had spoken to two actual women outside of listening to the podcast itself. I certainly looked long and hard for that information and could not find it.
And you know? Nobody was supplying that info, either! Nobody was saying “The accusers spoke to the podcasters. The podcast heavily features the accusers speaking in their own voices.” Nobody was providing that clarity. I’ve been doing my best to get it out there, but I feel like I’m the only one!
Am I misremembering or wasn’t Salty herself not sharing the podcasts because it’s TERF status?
Also I still want to see Gaiman’s statement to them, not just their characterization of the statement.
I forget what was happening, it was a lot of fog of war. But I do not and will not apologize for not giving a ton of credence to the “maybe she wanted it, amirite?” people.
I believe the accounts, but the article and first hour of podcast listening leave me kind of stunned how cavalier the ‘journalism’ component here is. They levy serious allegations then just say “listen to her story, and we understand that in his private statement Neil disagrees”
Scarlett’s story is SO credible that they didn’t need a lot more. Add on the corroborating interview with the friend and I’m done. I don’t need to know what Neil says to know that I believe her, and I think the people trying to frame the story through his “admission” are sidelining her pretty hard.
Like, even now, the story is about the power dynamic of the employment relationship and not about the fact that he painfully sexually violated her without her consent and after she had told him “no” repeatedly.
The first part is obvious, clear, and even corroborated by Neil himself.
I have focused on that because that is enough to damn him in my eyes, and it is incontrovertible.
The only part about his story I care about is that ALONE it is enough to go “yeet him into the sun”
Pitty I liked his work, but “separate art from a badly behaving artist” doesn’t work for me
I am not centring his story, I'm just saying that what he admits is enough to damn him, as it proves that he couldn't have had consent regardless of what happened; whatever he wants to claim is irrelevant because of it.
Thing is, we don't actually have what he admits; we have what Tortoise media "understands" his claims/position to be. (unless I missed it and he issued a statement)
Therefore, I'd go with the story we _do_ have directly: Scarlett's extensive account as played in the podcast.
