Comment by i_cannot_hack
12 years ago
What on earth are you implying? She talks about outbursts and violent rage. It is not relevant to wonder if she enjoyed spanking. Your whole post makes me feel rather uncomfortable.
12 years ago
What on earth are you implying? She talks about outbursts and violent rage. It is not relevant to wonder if she enjoyed spanking. Your whole post makes me feel rather uncomfortable.
But that's how smears work. The whole point is to cause deep consternation, because dangerous questions might reflect poorly upon the person that asks them.
So, when confronted with a delicate social scenario that threatens our better intentions, an awkward silence is produced, and everyone's mind races at the grey areas, and 12 people will diverge in 12 directions, guided by assumptions based on personal experiences. But in considering the possibilities, we realize the fact that we are in a situation where we cannot comfortably clarify certain details.
It's important to pick apart details when two people are mutually compromising each other's reputation. It's important to discern who is the agressor, or the possibility that it's an equal match between evenly paired beligerents.
This is where "preponderance of evidence" comes into play. If the situation is criminal, often times that is immediately evident. Serious physical abuse produces serious results. Psychological abuse is more questionable, but criminal psychological abuse generally results in a person that is very obviously broken by profound events.
If something sounds like gossip, then it's more or less a civil disagreement. Sure, emotions may run hot with a gossipy scandal, but at that point it's the social implications of reputation at stake. Serious, within the scope of a professional career, and as an open-ended slow burning problem for the reputable, but that sort of damage is indirect and have yet to completely unfold.
But this is how blackmail works. Is it vapor, smoke and mirros? If there are Ugly dirty details, let's see them. Otherwise, it's simply mud slinging to produce voids of inormation, so that imaginations and simple minds can run wild.
To imply that she accused Feynman of cruelty because she enjoyed getting spanked sexually and then 'changed her mind' is not "asking the dangerous questions"... it is just weird and uncalled for. You're not doing a hero's work, you're just being mildly chauvinistic, and on top of it all trivializing sexual abuse.
Be critical of the basis of her claims all you like. I encourage scepticism. But learn from the others in this thread and keep the criticism relevant and appropriate.
You're not doing a hero's work either. Don't claim to be instructing me with shame.
Why encourage silence in the scenarios where it's safe to conjecture. They're both dead, and history is written. Recognize the lack of detail now, and where there's an opportunity for misdirection. When no one discusses the safe scenarios, we are less prepared for the hazardous ones.