Neil DeGrasse Tyson to be investigated following sexual misconduct allegations
94 replies, posted
It is a bit creepy run your hand up a person's clothes so it's his own fault.
Coordinated allegations from incidents that far apart seems slightly eyebrow raising.
It is creepy if you put it like that. But calling it sexual misconduct depends highly on context, so I don't agree with your accusatory "it's his own fault".
the action described by tyson was weird.. he doesn't sense it was weird either.
defining "sexual misconduct" makes me think tyson did cross a line
It's okay to be creeped out by someone. Whether something is considered creepy is solely in the eyes of the beholder.
Sexual misconduct, however...
I don't think it was weird when I picture the situation.
Is it weird that that pluto shirt accusation sounds more like a public attempt at bullying him for being a weird than him actually doing anything wrong? It's like someone is trying to make fun of him on national news for being awkward... and if that's the best example they have, he's fine.
Yeah no this is the problem. The other two stories, i don't know, but this "hey what a weirdo he's weird so anything he gets is his own fault" isn't sitting well at all.
I mean, the person he did that to has very good reason to be upset. It was a violation of their personal space and it could have been very distressing for them.
But that doesn't mean that he's responsible for what they thought he was doing, only that their feelings aren't invalid.
The part about him inviting the girl for cheese and wine, as far as I know that's not strange at all, he's expressed his love for both wine and cheese before.
I agree with this, her feelings wouldnt be invalid, it would have made sense to issue a private complaint, even freak out in the moment... but it didn't really end there. You (and I) would feel a lot more "creeped out" by some horribly ugly person breathing heavily next to you on the subway than some roman statue faced person doing the same, and it doesn't mean the ugly person did something wrong. Feeling creeped out has no bearing on whether there is any "misconduct" or ill-intent, feelings do not excuse action in law or just society in general.
The problem is, if we're holding people to such a high standard of "don't even risk creeping people out or it's your fault later" why does accusing someone of sexual misconduct on national news over a non-issue like this supposed to get a pass? Trying to get someone's life destroyed is obviously much more distressing than the worst interpretation of that story, by several magnitudes.
If that iron cross in your avatar is anything to go by, I'm sure your personality does just as good a job of keeping your virginity intact as any iron chastity belt would. Women love hyper-masculine neo-imperialist weirdos for sure dude
Because you didn't immediately picture it in a perverted light, which is a good thing imo.
Re-reading the interview this is based off, it just seems really absurd. It's like they're trying to portray him as automatically guilty and that there's no other explanation other than he's a horrible person who would do things like this where every small thing must have had some sort of negative intent, even something like asking a colleague if they'd like to share a bottle of wine (making it clear she said glass instead, implying him saying "bottle" was bad). Both the language used in the article and the selective quotations seem to come across as trying to paint him as in the wrong or at least skewed in a way that doesn't come across as neutral.
Maybe in the end there will be truth to these and the events did happen to some extent, but to have these things happen and then jump to the conclusion of "incase other victims want to talk" , "hopes that he wouldn’t hire more female assistants" and similar things - as if there's no other explanation or misunderstanding - i find a bit disingenuous. Even more so as it sounds like Tyson knew her for several weeks and they spent lots of time together, yet the wording of her side suggests that to her wasn't any sort of friendly relationship between them and she was just trying to "impress her superstar boss" as if that's all that mattered. It even says he apparantly "attempting to persuade her into sex" yet the article doesn't make mention of any definite advances to support that intent. The whole thing just come across as biased and doesn't seem like a credible source at all.
Tyson's a little touchy-feely with everybody though.
He gets handsy with people like this in almost every interview I've seen him in.
Wrap it up, boys. NDT is fucking done. And good riddance.
You're citing Buzzfeed and expecting to be taken seriously?
I do not speculate whether this individual did this or not or is a fabrication of the mind.
Many may confound this reason into hopeful sensibility or use the abhorrence without complete investigation.
But is it a Canard?
We can canvass all we want, until the truth shall be spoken. The stars will align and will catastrophe into a chain of events.
Then superman comes and saves the day or something.
Buzzfeednews is separate from Buzzfeed proper. They're not a joke site despite the common perception. They do legitimate journalism, and one of their writers was nominated for a pulitzer last year. They have occasionally rushed an article, but most of their reporting is sound according to Media Fact Check Bias.
Your credibility couldn't possibly sink any lower.
This is great, coming from the person whose only previous post in this thread until I bumped it was that doozy of a non-sequitur on page one.
(Like, at least give me some actual reasons you think everything I posted is bullshit. Don't just respond with a low-effort zinger.)
What the fuck are you even rambling about you fucking psycho?
He's not really wrong. iirc Buzzfeed news has been hiring some fairly reputable journalists and have been putting some of the money garnered from their main site into their investigative journalism. They were a finalist for this years Pulitzer prize in international journalism.
Yeah, they're totally a unbiased and not a left leaning source.
Because the burden of proof is on you, given that I've offered evidence as to why I think my source isn't shit, and you've offered jack fucking squat other than insults.
According to them, if it wasn't for a few minor blemishes, they would have received a high ranking in accuracy. Given that the outlet is extremely new, I'm not willing to discount them automatically on the basis of a few mistakes they likely made early on. More importantly, news sources with a high rating of credibility have already been citing the story, including Vulture Magazine:
The Vulture story mentions that:
The new report comes after a nearly three-year investigative effort,
during which time BuzzFeed News spoke with “more than 30 people for this
story, including the alleged victims and their families, Cosmos crew
members, and graduate students and professors who were at UT Austin 30
years ago.” Fox Broadcasting Company and National Geographic, which
together produce Cosmos, have opened up an investigation into
the claims against Tyson, and the new anonymous accuser says she was
prompted to come forward with her story following that official action.
So this story is definitely not rushed, which was the prime reason Buzzfeed had to retract a few stories early in its existence and thus currently has a mixed rating from MediaFactCheckBias, despite an otherwise good record as far as they are concerned.
Now, do you want to actually offer a detailed response why you think everything I have posted in this thread thus far is bullshit, or are you going to hurl another childish insult at me?
You really shouldn't believe anything buzzfeed news says at face value, media bias fact check isn't law and buzzfeednews has a bad reputation for good reason, i've seen so much raw garbage from them it's insane. Personally that article in particular seems written pretty poorly, and it's very one sided at that. I don't know why storm is calling you a psycho because you disagree over the validity of a source though, what are you doing storm.
Two of the accusations don't really even describe potential "sexual misconduct" so it'd kind of hard to to take an article that is taking each claim as if they are equally valid. What gets me is that they're trying to establish validity by stretching to paint a picture of how everyone must have known tyson was a creep all along. Shit about "whispers by colleagues" obviously isn't something they can source reliably but it's presented as independent information. Even then it's bizzare to try to convince the reader that there were widespread "whispers" because neil looked for a pluto on someone's solar system arm tattoo in the first place. The writer at buzzfeed is also trying to paint him as "sexist and homophobic" by... quoting one guy on twitter who said he didnt like what he said during a 2014 conference using a tweet from dec 1st this year? Excuse me? That is unacceptable reporting, i don't trust information from a writer who does stuff like that.
So you basically agreed with me saying they're a left leaning source with the link you provided yet I should somehow explain to you why I think it's wrong when you already have a preemptive bias to whatever I'm going to say refuting your claims? wat
I'm sorry, I'm asking this directly so I don't possibly incorrectly assume your angle, but why "good riddance"?
He's probably mad that Tyson got more action then him.
Most sources on mbfc have some bias. Left-center is pretty acceptable.
"If not for a few minor blemishes Buzzfeed would be listed as High for factual reporting. Overall, Buzzfeed is a left leaning source that is almost always accurate in reporting, however our criteria dictates that a source that fails a fact check must be rated factually mixed. Buzzfeed is generally trustworthy, but it is recommended to check other sources to verify their stories"
And I'm not even sure if this media bias factcheck article is referring to Buzzfeed or Buzzfeed News, which as pointed out earlier, are two different things really.
Oh god, you're actually hung up about the fact that a source has a mild left-bias? You do realize that most of the news sites with even max factual rating on MediaFactCheckBias have a rating of at least mild bias in either a right or left direction, right? By your standards, none of these sites would be considered credible. This is bullshit.
Because if he is a sexual harasser, as I'm fairly confident he is at this point, he needs to go like all the other sexual harassers and/or rapists that have already been outed since #MeToo began. Obviously, you can disagree with me on whether or not he is actually guilty of this shit, but I would hope you aren't against getting proven harassers off the public stage.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.