CAH co-creator accused of rape

[TheUnknown]

So, the co-creator of Cards Against Humanity is being accused of rape. 

This is a blog post that’s incredibly confusing and painful for me to write.

Yesterday morning, Josh forwarded me a tweet that said:

TIL: Max Temkin, co-creator of Cards Against Humanity, raped a friend of my friend while attending Goucher College. I don’t support CAH.

We assumed this was someone making a tasteless joke, and I replied to tell him that it wasn’t funny. But after some more digging, I found a Facebook post from a girl I knew in college accusing me of sexually assaulting her, and urging people to boycott Cards Against Humanity.

This is totally, patently false. I have never sexually assaulted anyone, or previously been accused of any kind of assault.

Read More

On the flip side:

Please, please, before you reblog this, read Max Temkin’s response. Read it again, and keep reading it until you see all the things he’s saying. Read it until you see all the things he’s not saying.

Notice how he never apologizes. The word “if” has to be inserted into every sentence. “IF she felt I did something wrong,” “IF any part of that was traumatic for her.” Notice how he bandies about words like “feminism” and “rape culture”, and how he uses them to divert blame from himself.

Read More

So yeah, he said she said.  How wonderful.

[Witchyjoshy]

This is a tricky pickle alright.  How do you even prove something like this?  People are automatically inclined to stand by their friends, so "I know them and I know s/he would never lie" is not conclusive evidence, but nor is it damning to her position either.

His statements, however, are neither indicative or guilt or innocence.  If he's guilty, he'll deny it because he doesn't want to be caught.  If he's innocent, he'll deny it because he didn't do it.  That's also a tricky pickle.

What is the truth?  The actual truth?  Hm...

I don't know.  I can't know.  The only ones who really know are them.

[Ironchew]

Please, please, before you reblog this, read Max Temkin’s response. Read it again, and keep reading it until you see all the things he’s saying. Read it until you see all the things he’s not saying.

So basically, if I come to "the wrong" conclusion after reading something, I'm supposed to read it again (and again, and again) until the external biases from whoever is telling me I'm wrong start creeping in and brainwashing me?

That's a bad way to evaluate evidence.

[Canadian Mojo]

"He never apologizes"

If he didn't do anything why would he?

You can't use that as evidence against him; if he apologizes he did it, if he doesn't apologize he did it but doesn't feel bad about it. It's that kind of reaction that probably prompted him to feel the need to defend himself by saying "I'm not that kind of dick -- see." Unfortunately, that's only more evidence of his guilt.

[Ultimate Paragon]

No matter how this turns out, at least one person in this whole ordeal is utterly horrible.

[I am lizard]

I think I'll just not get into this.

[Witchyjoshy]

Please, please, before you reblog this, read Max Temkin’s response. Read it again, and keep reading it until you see all the things he’s saying. Read it until you see all the things he’s not saying.

So basically, if I come to "the wrong" conclusion after reading something, I'm supposed to read it again (and again, and again) until the external biases from whoever is telling me I'm wrong start creeping in and brainwashing me?

That's a bad way to evaluate evidence.

"He never apologizes"

If he didn't do anything why would he?

You can't use that as evidence against him; if he apologizes he did it, if he doesn't apologize he did it but doesn't feel bad about it. It's that kind of reaction that probably prompted him to feel the need to defend himself by saying "I'm not that kind of dick -- see." Unfortunately, that's only more evidence of his guilt.

This is why I'm not instantly jumping on her side.  That and instantly jumping on someone's side is bad thing to do, and a habit I need to grow out of.

No matter how this turns out, at least one person in this whole ordeal is utterly horrible.

It'd be different types of horrible (I consider rape to be a far worse crime than a false accusation of rape) but this is still pretty true.

I think I'll just not get into this.

Wise.

[Lt. Fred]

No matter how this turns out, at least one person in this whole ordeal is utterly horrible.

Not necessarily. Even assuming that the complaint is false, she might have made a mistake or misremembered or been blackmailed or something. Or it might have happened, but just be unprovable in a court.

There are a number of grades between "rape" and "deliberately false rape allegation". Statistically speaking, it is very unlikely to be the latter. That's not to say that he definitely did it - obviously there should be a trial, with evidence and all others sorts of good things.

But maybe the evidentiary rules should be loosened somewhat? What I mean is - famously, defence crossexamination in rape cases is routinely a disgrace. Indeed, the defence case in rape trials is routinely a disgrace. Defence occasionally use a woman's sexual history against her, as evidence she was asking for it or deserved it. This is routine, as I said. Defence routinely use humiliation as a tactic. Some courts will accept the lack of prompt complaint or the lack of a "fresh complaint" against the victim (that is, if you fail to tell your friends and family about your rape before you tell the police). Many, many guilty people avoid punishment by degrading their victims - re-raping them. Maybe courts need to make the rules on cross-examination tougher? Or perhaps the solution to this problem doesn't lie in the court rules at all. Maybe legal ethics need to change, or be more firmly enforced.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have any strong opinions either way - except insofar that I believe that it is imperative something be done. A gentleman that I knew was charged with (and convicted of) rape a few years back. It was a historic case - by which I mean the charges were quite old. Nonetheless, the cross-examination totally destroyed the witness and she killed herself. That should never happen, not even once. It is not even slightly good enough.

I hurry to point out that I have no idea how many women or men kill themselves as a result of tough cross-examination during rape cases. Does anyone know? I have looked, at least in the context of my own country.

[Art Vandelay]

But maybe the evidentiary rules should be loosened somewhat? What I mean is - famously, defence crossexamination in rape cases is routinely a disgrace. Indeed, the defence case in rape trials is routinely a disgrace. Defence occasionally use a woman's sexual history against her, as evidence she was asking for it or deserved it. This is routine, as I said. Defence routinely use humiliation as a tactic. Some courts will accept the lack of prompt complaint or the lack of a "fresh complaint" against the victim (that is, if you fail to tell your friends and family about your rape before you tell the police). Many, many guilty people avoid punishment by degrading their victims - re-raping them. Maybe courts need to make the rules on cross-examination tougher? Or perhaps the solution to this problem doesn't lie in the court rules at all. Maybe legal ethics need to change, or be more firmly enforced.

I suppose it's the downside of the jury being a thing. The defense is not trying to convince the judge or anyone else with actual legal training, but rather twelve (I think) random people, the vast majority of whom don't understand what an Ad Hom fallacy is, much less why it should not be considered evidence. As such, the "(s)he was asking for it" defense is far more effective than it has any right to be.