a) From Wikipedia: The allegations were from buzzfeed, and were later unsubstantiated in an official enquiry with the 'victim' who said "she did not feel victimized, felt it was a clumsy interpersonal interaction and thought she had handled it in the moment."
b) What does this have to do with his opinion on the doomsday clock?
Honestly this outrage culture, and mob mentality is pathetic.
The buzzfeed article details quite a number of allegations. There is no one victim.
In any case, the victim you're referring to essentially confirmed that the allegation was true. She merely said (in effect) that she was not particularly bothered that Krauss had touched her breast without permission. That does not make the behavior appropriate.
See also the ASU investigation report, which is available here: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/lawrence-k...
Besides all that, Krauss unapologetically helped Epstein after he was released from prison.
> There is no one victim.
This is not relevant. @iron0013 didn't cite anything other than a brief snippet of the Wikipedia article. No other evidence was provided and no argument was made linking the snippet to Krauss' credibility or arguments. As far as I can tell, @iron0013 saw this snippet and immediately wrote of Krauss. That's not a reasonable position and it spawned this subthread, which, although I've participated in it, I find to be mostly off-topic.
> She merely said (in effect) that she was not particularly bothered that Krauss had touched her breast without permission.
You're paraphrasing a Buzzfeed article which is paraphrasing an ASU report which paraphrased the alleged victim. Here is her statement to the public: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr9OIty2XGg
> See also the ASU investigation report, which is available here:
Actually, here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5015756-Krauss-Deter...
It's important to note that this report was prepared by a potential party to the allegations for the same party. It cannot simply be cited as evidence. At best, it should be treated as a suspect secondary source. In no case is it appropriate to treat it as a conviction.
Krauss' appeal also ought to be considered, whether it redeems or condemns him: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10lHwatvaGfmWNc3NdoioncYi7da...
As well as his retirement letter: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5015757-Krauss-Retir...
> Besides all that, Krauss unapologetically helped Epstein after he was released from prison.
This is wholly unrelated to his argument against the Doomsday Clock than the allegations which lead to his resignation from The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
And this is the crux of the issue. With extremely limited evidence (far, far less than you or I have provided), @iron0013 decided Krauss should be completely ignored, without even consider Krauss' argument. He's certainly free to do so, but based on the voting down of his comment, I'm happy to believe that the majority of people don't want to live in a world where others can be socially, professionally, and politically ostracized for alleged wrongdoing without so much as a trial.
I've offered the evidence here so people can make their own determinations, but I do so with the understanding that this entire subthread is off-topic and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
For me, personally, I don't have enough information to convict him or acquit him; and I think the rational choice is to acknowledge that the accusations exist. At best, I think @iron0013 could have pointed out the circumstances of Krauss' resignation, but even then, it's not relevant to the arguments Krauss makes. His motivation largely doesn't matter unless you're trying to somehow not 'let him win.'
The BuzzFeed article I linked to contains the full ASU report. It's helpful to have a direct link, but I wasn't linking to the wrong page.
My paraphrase is accurate. It's clear from her statement that Krauss touched her inappropriately and that she didn't like it. It's for Krauss's employer to decide whether that's a firing offense, not her. It baffles me that anyone would cite this in defense of Krauss. I mean, look at the title of the video!
Obviously, there is little connection between Krauss sexually harassing women and whatever he is saying in this article. I was responding to correct people who aren't aware that he has an indisputable record of sexual harassment.
> It's for Krauss's employer to decide whether that's a firing offense, not her.
Yeah, I think you've made your standpoint abundantly clear.
2 adults had an interaction, both are fine with it, then and now, but being a woman she is clearly not capable of deciding for herself if this was offensive, so you are happy to feel violated on her behalf.
She said very clearly that she was not fine with it: https://youtu.be/wr9OIty2XGg?t=339 https://youtu.be/wr9OIty2XGg?t=379
My feelings don't come into it. My point is that a university is perfectly justified in firing a professor who touches women sexually without their permission.
You yourself care so much about this woman's point of view that you either haven't bothered to watch the video, or have decided to wilfully misrepresent its contents.
Like, isn't at that point time to step back, look at the situation, and go "wait, this does not seem right"? To think that maybe this guy might just be rotten, and maybe he is neither worth listening to or defending?
"This does not seem right" is not proof enough for me to convict someone in my own mind. I have reasonable doubts. As far as I can tell, I've done more work than anyone in this thread to find the evidence both for and against the allegations against Krauss. If the best argument you can offer is "Well, it looks shady and his motivations might be in question, so we should ignore his arguments on that basis rather than on whether they are sound," you're just wasting your time and mine.
You've got a mob mentality. It might feel good. It might do some good. It might feel effective. It might feel like winning. But it's going to have false positives, going to do more bad than good in the long run, and it might even do bad to you personally. You need a rethink.
The allegations against Krauss are backed up by direct testimony and eyewitness evidence, not merely some general appearence of shadyness.
There's no "mob mentality" involved. There's good evidence that Krauss is a serial sexual harasser, and that is why I think that he is one.
Every contrarian likes to imagine that they're standing up to a baying irrational mob. But in most cases they're just missing something obvious that everyone else can see clearly.
None of this, obviously, entails that Krauss is wrong about the clock thing.
The evidence you found is not compelling. The evidence I found is not compelling. The ASU statement is not evidence. It’s hearsay. (It’s hearsay even if it’s all true.) No one has even bothered to address the fact that ASU is a party to the accusations and also has potential liabilities to manage.
If I’m missing something from your point of view it’s not because I haven’t seen what you’ve shown me. It’s because you’re “reading between the lines” which, while often useful in deciding whether to let someone in our home or business, is wholly inappropriate when deciding whether to vilify someone. “I don’t want to leave this guy alone with my daughter” is much different than “We shouldn’t listen to this guy about anything.”
And, again, the issue here is @iron0013’s original post, in which he not only doesn’t cite any of the things you and I cited, but goes a step farther and tries to use the fact of Krauss’ resignation as evidence of his motivations without even bothering to make an argument. Then people piled on the idea that we shouldn’t listen to Krauss at all. I’m willing to stipulate that you don’t have a mob mentality. Although we disagree, I think you’re reasonable. But surely you can see that it exists.
I think the original post didn't provide citations because Krauss's inappropriate behavior is well known and easy to verify from the sources in the Wikipedia article.
This discussion would be a lot easier if you'd just make your defense of Krauss, instead of accusing everyone else of being part of a mob. Krauss is not the victim. The victims are the women he harassed and the sex slaves of the pimp who bankrolled him, and who he publicly defended. Extraordinarily, you still talk vaguely as if there is some realistic doubt about any of this.
There are many, many people who would be more informative to listen on this topic. They could have been given the space to write an opinion article in this prestigious newspaper. It didn't have to be the sex pest. We missed out on hearing a good person speak on the subject, because a bad one was given the opportunity instead.