Before he was banned, Carrier made a post defending himself from one of the allegations. When asked by a blog user whether Carrier is blaming his victim (as per the normative SJW model), he replies:
"Victim blaming is the act of blaming the victim for their victimization. I’m saying that she wasn’t victimized. Beyond learning of my interest in a possible future date."
But unfortunately for Carrier as several users noted, in SJW philosophy the women's (aka victims) testimony must be favoured (smirk: privileged) over the men (the predator) in these kind of circumstances:
"I thought you had to “listen and believe” when it came to women? Guess it’s a little bit troubling when it happens to you huh? There is a reason it is innocent until proven guilty. I have no sympathy for you because you have sided with these psychopaths doing the whole A+ nonsense." (source)And:
"There’s no real evidence either way, Richard. It’s mostly your word against hers. I should probably just “listen and believe” Amy, then. That seems like the virtuous thing to do. Further to what Damion said, can you confirm that false accusations are vanishingly rare unless the accused is a SJW blogger?" (source)
And unfortunately following an objective analysis, one blog-user reveals that every method that Carrier uses to defend himself is actually a violation of his very own SJW principles and certainly constitutes victim blaming:
"Checklist useful for #24 victim blaming:
Beginning with suggestion that the alleged victim misled you about crucial details like her name and highlighting every possible error or fact in dispute – check.
Quibbling over irrelevant details like employment status of employees vs volunteers – check.
Highlighting where the alleged victim has changed details – check.
Assumption that failure initially to report something which is then later reported then that’s evidence of dishonesty – check.
Garnering character references from supporters – check.
Downplaying witting breaches of SSA policy – check
Pedantic quibbling over on-the-job vs off-the-job for leaders with duty of care for young students – check.
Expressing dismay that someone you praised as a very competent adult turns out to be too immature to be the subject of an above-board flirt from a person of your standing – check
Making a show of how you never wanted to make trouble for someone in an abusive relationship by defending yourself, then being reluctantly forced to retaliate with a truckload of trouble – check.
Skipping over why you never mentioned to the SSA that you had thought you were sacked from the speakers bureau for a separate incident in a completely different state – check.
Proof by Bayesian something or other that it couldn’t possibly have happened – check.
Ready supply of bystanders requiring exceptional evidence – check.
Deleting trolling outright but allowing sexist hyperbole #19 to receive only a mild tutting – check.
Redefining ‘creepy/sleazy’ to be whatever would have been more creepy/sleazy than what you did – check.
Telling your side of the story in your own framing and implying that failure by the other side to do so shows bad faith – check.
Writing a long-winded screed in 2015 which stresses the importance of learning from mistakes, then allowing the exact same situation to recur – check.
This sounds so much like the sort of thing a victim-blamer would do. Someone as wise as you could have followed the oft-useful maxim “guys, don’t do that”. But… don’t heed anything I’d suggest because it would be to do the exact opposite of what you’re doing." (source)
And that's it for Carrier, his Career is over.
