Erik Möller has made some disturbing comments, but I think that we all need to be reminded that people are innocent until proven guilty. What more, if the issue is to be discussed at all, it should be done rationally, dispassionately—it should not be allowed to deteriorate into the type of witch hunt that Erik himself decries as being conducted against innocent people suspected of pedophilia.
It is no secret that I have little sympathy for Erik. I find his comments disturbing; I find his arrogance unnerving; I find his opinions abhorrent. But that does not make him a predator. I believe his ideas should be held up for scrutiny, and that the Foundation (Board and Executive Director) should rethink whether he is the right person for the job he now holds. To be fair, I thought this long before this news broke, and the current revelations only solidified my opinion. Nevertheless, it is important to be accurate when discussing this topic, and not to jump off into speculation or insinuation. If there truly is a problem, the facts, as they come forth, will speak for themselves.
What would help, of course, is some reassuring words from the Foundation, rather than some second-hand comments or disparaging remarks: "Oh, it's just Valleywag. Who cares?" By now it should be obvious that plenty of people do care, and plenty of people rightfully expect nuanced discussion, rather than platitudes or vitriol. If the Foundation believes that Erik is blameless, as I assume it does, it should speak up. "In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends" (Martin Luther King, Jr.).
13 comments:
Erik's comments don't surprise me all that much, and I don't think his comments in any way equate him personally as a pedophile. I've known a couple of other libertarians who have expressed similar views about pedophilia and child abuse.
The fact that he was hired as Sue's #2 reflects poorly on the Foundation. Sue has two possible responses to the situation. Either she knew about Erik's writings, and his extreme libertarian views - including about child sexual abuse - and she decided to hire him anyway, or she neglected to do her due diligence. If she neglected to do the due diligence than it's just another in a long list of similar problems.
What a truly wonderful post, Danny.
Perhaps you could thump your chest in self-righteousness a little more about how good you are to acknowledge that Erik is innocent until proven guilty, while simultaneously dragging his name through the mud and attaching every evil thought possible to it.
By the way, is he also innocent until proven guilty of stealing office supplies, surfing porn at work and shoving a little old lady down three flights of stairs?
Do you have him writing essays on how he has stolen office supplies, surfed porn at work or shoved a little old lady down some stairs?
If so, we'd love to see them.
I also find it illustrative that you equate pedophilia with stealing office supplies and surfing porn at work.
Is your user name "short eyes" by any chance?
Danny - I really appreciate your latest post, espousing the spirit of dispassionate debate, rather than flame-bating, trolling, and convicting Erik in the court of the blogosphere before anything of substance has been considered.
So with this in mind, I'll try to do my best here to maintain the spirit you so eloquently recommend.
What do we have from Erik? Several writings which contend, from what I can tell, that child/child sexual behavior is normal and healthy, that adult/child sexual contact is unhealthy and immoral, unless the child consents, children possess sexuality experienced at their level of maturity, the cataloging of nude photos of children represents governmental hysteria and witch-hunting for pedophiles.
Would you say I have the gist right?
In all these cases, Erik certainly has legitimate points, except one.
And I think it's the one sentence that may be the most bothersome, and that's the one about adult/child sexual contact.
This one sentence could be indicative of a whole host of things, but none of them we know for sure. There could've been things lost in translation to - even with Erik's superior skills in English, it *is* his second language, and perhaps he didn't see the nuance of language here, than in English, child has a very different connotation that adolescent. Perhaps Erik would be appalled by sexual contact with an adult and an 8 year old, but doesn't have trouble with an adult and say a 16 year old. We simply don't know.
I think ultimately the problems come from pure gut level, intuitive responses, which are powerful. Something just seems off. Erik seems to have a preoccupation with this topic of childhood sexuality, and for most of us, it has numerous layers of psychological baggage that give off gut level, purely emotional warning signs that are embedded in our genetics as a survival mechanism. Some people override this with their higher cortical functions, some people don't, some people it's a mix.
So can we determine that Erik is a pedophile purely from the evidence?
In a court of law, we'd have to acquit Erik for lack of evidence.
However, like the members of the OJ Simpson jury, many *felt* something just wasn't quite right.
We've all known someone who has a preoccupation with something - collecting Victorian figurines, going go dog shows, what have you.
A preoccupation, and this *is* clearly a preoccupation, with childhood sexuality, something isn't quite right.
So if I had to predict, if the Foundation doesn't come out soon and explain this, even people who are nuanced, rational, and intelligent, will be made uncomfortable by this. Uncomfortable enough to where they don't donate, to where they think that Wikipedia is so free that it almost has no rules.
Anyway, this is long winded enough.
My opinion, for what it's worth.
I've told Jimbo several times about the (self-identified and active) pedophiles on Wikipedia. He's taken no action whatsoever.
@xed
"I've told Jimbo several times about the (self-identified and active) pedophiles on Wikipedia. He's taken no action whatsoever."
When? What did you tell him? What did he say? How do you know about the pedophiles?
"We must address this issue with Erik Möller rationally and not engage in a witch hunt against him," said Danny Wool while he continued to hammer on about ERIK FUCKING MOLLER.
Choke on dick, messedrocker. Choke.
Danny didn't force Erik to write these articles. No coercion was used.
The real fault lies with the foundation's complete and utter lack of any resemblance to a real corporation.
* No background checks.
* No formal interviews aka nepotism/cronyism.
* No system for handling adverse PR aka fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la
* No formal HR department.
* NO ACCOUNTABILITY.
You are just one more greasy, teenaged cog in this giant clusterfcuk of a machine doing your part eagerly to deflect any criticism at any cost.
In the real world, the one that comes *after* the McDonald's stint during the summer and after going to college, problem employees with public problems that cause collateral problems for their highly public employers are let go and a neutral statement of non involvement is released to the press.
Say, "Adios" to Erik. He is toast.
P.S. Danny was right.
Yes, the Foundation's a damned mess. I don't deny that. I'm just tired of hearing about Herr Moeller all the time.
Beware the door/ass interface on your way to 4chan or wherever clueless bints like yourself fuck off to.
@Anonymous immediately before this comment
"Beware the door/ass interface on your way to 4chan or wherever clueless bints like yourself fuck off to."
Is this puerile bit of hostility directed at anyone in particular, or just the world in general?
Just curious....
@anonymous just prior
Do try to play along you hopeless sped. The messages are sometimes in order and when there's no '@' the message typically refers to the previous message.
I've tarded it down for you with the first line in this message.
Back to huffing oven cleaner for you.
@anonymous previous to this comment..
Wow. I gotta give you imagination points. Still, you haven't answered my question. To whom is your hostility directed?
Still curious.....
Post a Comment