Am I a Hypocrite About Clavicular?
Philosopher Stefan Molyneux answers a listener who asks if he is a hypocrite for treating later contact as evidence against an abuse claim in one case but not in family abuse. He says kids cannot choose or leave their parents and face heavy pressure to stay bonded, while adults can walk away, and he looks at the visit, delayed report and later messages in this case while welcoming the challenge to his consistency.
Question:
Hi Stef,
In the recent Clavicular charges episode you mentioned that you generally find it hard to give accusers much credibility when they stay in positive and affectionate contact with the person they claim assaulted them, and that this contact is evidence against the horror of the situation. I was surprised by this, though you did say residual contact is not absolute proof nothing happened.
To be clear, I'm not claiming Clavicular is guilty or that the accuser is telling the truth, this could well be a false or exaggerated claim.I'm currently reading "Talking to Strangers" by Malcolm Gladwell. Spoiler if you've not read it: The former Penn State assistant coach Sandusky case in particular was a shocking anecdote in the book that highlighted that positive residual contact with perpetrators is not uncommon. Many of his victims kept positive contact for years and even brought partners and their children to visit him and the Weinstein case had a similar pattern.
I think reasons for this include minimization, denial, normalizing the event, trying to regain a sense of control, practical dependence, power imbalance, and positive elements coexisting with the harmful acts; the same dynamics your shows explain in depth in the context of trauma bonding, repetition compulsion, and secondary gains.
So my question is about what makes positive residual contact evidence against credibility for you in one context but a comprehensible trauma response in another? I wonder if you're applying positive residual contact as a "triage mechanism" where no physical evidence and harm has been established so it's serving as a credibility signal, as opposed to a call-in for example where, although it's still a one-sided account, the caller has given examples as evidence of behaviours and events rather than just narrative. Is this accurate?
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
Get Peaceful Parenting now!
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
Join us at Locals!