#neil and amanda

[fuckyeahgoodomens]

👀 (Neil posted this Dec 6, 2011)

Given the nature of the Internet, you may need this one day. It’s Amanda Palmer doing the “You were right” dance.

(What, you don’t do the “You were right” dance? I thought all married people did the “you were right” dance. Probably you are not married.)

[fuckyeahgoodomens]

And part 2. There is 11 days still to listen to it (till 22.1.2023).

Playing in the Dark: Neil Gaiman and the BBC Symphony was a 2019 event with Neil reading stories and BBC Orchestra playing music where David Tennant appeared as a surprise guest :).

The Good Omens segment (Neil’s introduction, David reading the drunk AC scene, Amanda Palmer singing A Nightingale Sang In Berkeley Square) starts at part 2 at 39:50 :). And there is a Good Omens Theme played by the orchestra at the beginning of part 1 :) 

[queerbauten]

I love that people in my notes are calling Neil Gaiman a “random Jewish celebrity” that I’m baselessly attacking, as though: 1) “Israel has the right to exist” is not textbook Zionism; 2) he was not married to Amanda Palmer when she performed in Israel (in spite of calls for her not to do so); and, 3) he isn’t a wildly successful author and artist that this website worships

There are plenty of Jewish celebrities who give me no reason to think about their stance on Zionism! There are plenty of gentile celebrities who do! Get a grip!

[microclown]

Making a separate post for visibility because....

this is from Neil's Tumblr in 2011 - here is the original post with only 275 notes!?

the video (and a different video with a little more context)

"All married people" Neil....

[tallerthantale]

Neil and Amanda's Fake Therapist

I originally gathered information relating to Neil's fake therapist in a bit of a messy hyperfocus flurry that included some initial errors, followed by various erratic updates, so I wanted to put the main points together into one coherent place. Some of what I'm putting together here was found by others on the subreddit post.

I once again find myself skirting the edges of my typical rules for myself about analyzing public figures, so disclaimer: this is personal opinion, I'm not scientifically or clinically evaluating anyone based off public appearances / statements, I am commenting on what personal impression I am getting off things, and leaving most speculation about internal states out.

Man does this guy make it hard to stick to that though.

The person I'm talking about here is the supposed 'therapist' that Scarlett interacted with while Neil was (allegedly) pressuring her to say the allegations weren't true. His behavior there (with a paper trail according to Tortoise), and what I was able to gather from Amanda Palmer's podcast made it clear to me that he was not operating within the acceptable behaviour of a therapist, so I decided to see if I could prompt a review of his license. All indications at this time are that he does not have one. But it gets worse.

He claims to be a minister, but like the therapist claim cites no qualifications or organizations in his website's bio. This combination of therapist who isn't a therapist and minister who isn't a minister potentially creates a legal nightmare scenario. I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, but I'm going to give you my best estimate of the situation, which has involved looking up the law and reading some cases.

As long as he isn't claiming to be a mental health professional, he may be protected in calling himself a nonspecific 'therapist.' He can probably argue it as some kind of spiritual therapy. But because he isn't actually a mental health care provider, he is not subject to mandatory reporting. Generally therapists have a legal obligation to proactively report when someone is a danger to themselves or others. He does not have that requirement. He isn't bound by professional ethics, since he is not a member of any organizations and has no licenses. Moreover, it seems to be the case in New Mexico that if a person reasonably believes you to be a minister, that kicks in clergy-penitent privilege whether or not you actually are a minister.

The origin concept of clergy-penitent privilege is that the law cannot force a priest to reveal what was said to them in confession. The First Amendment means all religions get it equally and it doesn't have to be part of a specific Catholic ritual. In New Mexico, it covers anything that was not said publicly or intended to be passed on regardless of the surrounding context. That means anything said to or by this guy that is not said in public or explicitly intended to be forwarded cannot be used by the legal system for any purpose, no matter how documented or incriminating it is to the client or to him personally. There is no mechanism to remove that privilege form him for being misused because it is derived from his representation of himself as a minister, not his actual status.

According to his linkdin he received a Bachelors degree in creative writing from the University of Rochester, in New York. He then got a Masters degree in Divinity in Organizations from Harvard Divinity School, 1982-1985. These are the only points of education claimed anywhere we have seen. He lists no psychology or mental health qualification anywhere, and is most known as an author. His bookselling success might be due to a claimed promotional appearance on Oprah.

His personal webpage has a long 'client list' or list of 'collaborators' who have hosted speaking engagements. This list was last updated in 2012. The events on his calendar page have no year. I think I recall seeing a section of his website that was only accessible to those who were 'fully committed,' or something like that, but it doesn't seem to be there now. It's possible I'm misremembering, it's possible it got taken down when the reddit thread got popular, I don't have the right skillset to check. He won an award from the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which looks to be engaging in pseudo scientific spirituality in a manner similar to Scientology.

From what I can gather from the video's I've watched, the advice he 'preaches' is a mish mash of bits and pieces of metaphors and perspectives from a variety of religions and philosophies that he probably didn't fully understand. (My speculation.) There are pieces of genuine insight that are lifted from others and that can give the impression he knows what he is talking about to vulnerable people even if he doesn't really understand them himself. He doesn't seem to have any genuine religious beliefs or connections to any religious congregation or organizations. It is unclear if he is or is not technically ordained, but that is something anyone can just do online, and he doesn't even claim it.

Particularly noticeable in his talks are traces of Jungian psychoanalysis (which is the nonsense Jordan Peterson seems to have got caught up in, and it has antisemitic and fascist origins) some Buddhist resilience concepts that have been misused by westerners a lot, and Christian (I think) concepts about universal love and togetherness. They end up mashed together into a message that I believe will influence most victims who hear it to blame themselves and remain in toxic situations, while making perpetrators feel better about continuing to perpetrate. Not saying that was the goal, but if a person had that goal, this patchwork philosophy is what you would put together to achieve it. I'm not going to be specific because I don't want to be like, putting out a guide for people on how to do this.

Amanda says she met the guy before she had a child, but after she was married. That is somewhere between 2011 and 2015. Amanda says she met him at something resembling a TED conference, where all sorts of people got together to do various (rich people nonsense.) She had a mental breakdown in a horse paddock, and the fake therapist was the guy with the horse, teaching about horse whispering.

"And since then, he’s been my therapist, and he’s also become a true friend, to me, and to my family, and to many other people in my life that he’s taken on, and helped out, in some of their darkest hours of need, and he is my emergency phone call. And in a way, he sort of picked up where Anthony, my old mentor, left off, and I don’t find it a coincidence that Wayne walked into my life right around the time Anthony walked out. "

This is not what a therapist does, this is cult leader behaviour. This is pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if Neil might have known him first and orchestrated their meeting. He is an author with connections to an organization similar to Scientology. It might actually not be a coincidence. Again, pure speculation.

Amanda describes seeking advice from him whenever she was having trouble with Neil, and that talking to him would make her feel like everything was fine again. "Even just to have someone to talk to, to remind me what I’m struggling with, what’s going on, what is home, why does this feel so disorienting, what am I doing? And I can say right now, when I shifted my internal feeling within myself, within my relationship with Neil, around where I was, my feeling in my own house transformed. Because I went, oh, right, none of this fucking matters."

In June 2019 Amanda Palmer has the Portland, OR incident where she tells her fans they need to forgive their r@#ists.

In 2019 the fake therapist did a series of webcasts with The Santa Fe Center for Spiritual Healing over a few months. At times he is titled "Rvrd", and at times he is titled "Dr." there is no reason to believe he is either. In the first one, the host reads a bio she found online, that she says he asked her not to read (she appears to think he was being humble.) This version of the bio claims that he was a Senior Scholar at the Fetzer Institute. When he comes on after she read it, he makes odd comments about whoever might be watching the video online and appears very shaken. The Fetzer Institute has no mention of him on their website. That connection is not listed in his current bio.

In his last video for the Santa Fe Center he claims to be working on an upcoming project in D.C. with a co-facilitator who was famous for brokering a truce between the crips and bloods. He also comes across like he has been asked to stop working with the center and is being super passive aggressive about it. (My speculation.)

His appearance on Amanda Palmer's podcast is recorded in July 2019, about a month after the last Santa Fe Center webcast, in upstate New York. In the descriptor she says it was recorded after a week long retreat with him she set up for 60 of her Patrion supporters. There is a nearly two year gap between the recording and posting, which is not explained. She describes him as a minister, therapist, leadership mentor, and her personal therapist. In the episode itself, she also describes him as her and Neil's relationship therapist. In the description she promotes his books and his website, and says he is still readily contactable there, but to be patient right now because he is mid move. (The description was posted when the podcast was posted, in 2021. As mentioned earlier, there are features of his website that have not been updated since 2012.)

The fake therapist tweeted about Neil being a 'dear friend' in late 2020. He has under 100 followers, not really what you would expect for a best selling author / therapist / minister / community leader / mentor / horse whisper. While I make references to cult leader behaviour, a genuine cult leader would probably have a larger following. But somehow I don't think he lacks for money. I expect there is a market for pseudo-therapists you can freely talk to about the crimes you are actively committing. You can even involve him in the crime, and it still privileged.

The events of Scarlett's allegations date to 2022, about a year after Amanda posted the podcast episode. Sometime in March is when Neil manipulates Scarlett into saying the allegations are false with what is essentially a su!c!de threat, then asks her to repeat her assurances that it was consensual to the fake therapist. Amanda had recently received a scorching message from one of Scarlett's friends about what was done to her. It seems like Neil is doing this to win a fight with Amanda in their "relationship therapy." Scarlett gets a message from the fake therapist.

Tortoise describes it as him "saying he'd be happy to speak to her in complete confidence because he had heard that she found herself in his words 'in the midst of relationships, stories and narratives, not alas necessarily of your own making. Sadly, this is not a surprise. Two creative dynamic people can easily draw others into their orbit unaware of how powerfully the magnetic pull of their influences can have on others.'"

My perception of this message is that it plants the suggestion to Scarlett that her friends are brainwashing her to think she was r@ped by pulling her into 'narratives not of her own making.' I could see how people might interpret the later lines regarding magnetic pull as being about accidental power dynamics abuse, but I read it more as him saying Scarlett's friends are opportunistic manipulators looking to make a name for themselves by taking down a famous person.

Either way, there are a considerable number of things happening there that an actual therapist would not ever do, for a variety of very good reasons. Tortoise's attempt to call him to ask for comment was thwarted by the fact that his phone has been specifically programed not to accept voicemails. Not like, the voicemail box was full or something, he went out of his way to do that. Which means Tortoise can't quite claim that he didn't respond to requests to comment, because they couldn't leave a message. Other organizations probably run into similar difficulties establishing evidence that they have contacted him. It's not a smoking gun, but I don't like it.

A year later Amanda Palmer makes her post on the Russel Brand allegations, where she argues the solution to serial predatory behaviour is to try to get them to stop doing "stupid shit" by trying to heal their lacking and fear with love and compassion and forgiveness, because that the ONLY cause / motivation for abusive behavior. And some unarticulated hope for non-specific accountability vibes.

This post looks to me like the perspective of a person who has been continuously exploited, and manipulated into thinking it is their personal responsibility to heal people who have no interest in being healed. It reads to me like a person who has been justifying staying in a toxic situation to themself so long it has warped their entire worldview. It reads to me like the inevitable end result of this fake therapists preaching.

I don't think that absolves her of what ever her role has been in facilitating access to victims, or actively promoting these views to her audience, but it is something to keep in mind.

There is a broad rage of possibilities for what is going on with this guy. The spectrum runs from deeply misguided fool to deliberately exploitative criminal. Either way it looks like he is charging people money for the service of turning them into the "this is fine" dog. This is not fine. This is not ok. Unfortunately it probably is legal.

[wifkin]

Reeeaaally not enjoying the amount of people using the neil gaiman situation as an excuse to dunk on amanda palmer for mistakes she made like a decade or more ago. Saying racial slurs or asking people to perform for free is pretty shitty, sure, but in no way does that equate to raping and abusing and ruining the lives of vulnerable women. I also think it is very very bold to assume that amanda did not encounter the same sort of abuse during their relationship considering his very obvious pattern (and her musical work). Framing her as "just as bad" as him is insane at best and deeply misogynistic at worst.

[rainbowpopeworld]

The “You Were Right” Dance done by Amanda Palmer for Neil Gaiman at least 12 years ago.

I guess he took this and had someone choreograph it for Good Omens season 2 😅😂

[rexsuperbia]

Feeling vindicated rn cause I always had a feeling that slimy fuck Gaiman was a piece of shit.

He defended lolicon which is a step below pedo shit

On his own website too lol

He abandoned his wife in New Zealand too with their kid who was barely a toddler

He is just a garbage person do not come at me if youre a fan and want to defend him because he helped your mental health, i do not care go fuck yourself. I will block you

Youre helping a rich man who cares little to nothing about you or your defense just like Musk fans hope that helps you realize where you are

The allegations against him are just the cherry on the top

[suede-moon]

The podcast is vile, it's handled in the worst way possible, it's harmful to everyone.

The title of the podcast ? The catchy episode titles ? The format ? The cliffhangers ? The background music ? The fucking ad breaks ? It's supposed to be a serious investigation of a very grave matter and it's treated like a fucking Netflix production.

The way they handle the story is disgusting, sometimes misleading, clearly biased and a lot of things are presented in a very ridiculous way but those women wanted their stories to be out there so I think it's important to listen to them. I did, I feel awful, I hated every second of it but I formed my own opinion, I'm waiting for what will come next.

I hope those women are okay and staying off social media. Actually I hope everyone involved is staying off social media.

[honeylemony]

Especially now that three additional women have come forward sharing their stories of abuse at the hands of Neil Gaiman, we just gotta have a talk.

What are you really gaining from engaging with his works. What are you really getting out of fanwork inspired by his stuff. What is NEIL getting out of people still keeping his works in the cultural relevancy? How does engaging with someone's content and created work affect the world around us? What does "death of the author" really mean when hoardes of rabid fans are burying his sins under tagged fanart and fanfic and fan tattoos and zines and endless worship?

What message are you sending to victims when you share his content? Have you heard that one in four women will be assaulted in their lifetime? Have you heard about the ongoing fight against femicide in so many areas of the world? How do you feel about feminism? Do you think it's been "solved" already?

Who are you? Do you care what impact you have on this world? How do you feel when your comfort is threatened?

Do you have the ability to give up something you like if persisting in engaging with it enables an abuser to continue quietly abusing women? If not what does it say about you that you prioritize your comfort over social solidarity? Are you white?

What does rape culture mean to you? Are you it?

[hang-on-lil-tomato]

How it started: ”believe all women. Male feminist” blah blah blah

How it’s going: “False Memories! It didn’t happen! It was consensual. We only cuddled.” 🤮🤮🤮

I was assaulted by my 65+ yo sex obsessed boss when I was 20. wtf is wrong with these old men!

GROSS!

[tallerthantale]

I finally got around to doing a close reading of transcripts of the Tortoise episodes, and I am very glad that I did.

My view remains that I find all the allegations both very credible and very damning. The updates to my views are that I feel more positively (though not entirely positively) about Tortoise, and that there is a probable very bad actor in all of this that isn't getting nearly enough attention. (Not Amanda Palmer. Or well, yes Amanda Palmer, but she isn't who I'm talking about.)

Tortoise first.

I'd been seeing a lot of comments claiming that Tortoise was anti BDSM. I don't know what the people in the podcast have as their personal views, but they made a point multiple times to clarify that BDSM does not operate like what Neil Gaimen was alleged to have done, and the condemnation they had for the alleged actions was not a condemnation of consensual BDSM. As someone who has been very involved in BDSM community for decades, I am fully in agreement with everything the hosts have said. The line people got most hung up on was a guest expert snarking about degradation ever being consensual. It is ambiguous in context what definition of "degradation" he is using, but it seemed to me he was referring to processes of establishing coercive control, and not referring to degrading roleplay in a mutually invested, healthily negotiated kink scenario. My remaining critique on the host / guests perspective is that the language around abuse and coercive control used by the hosts and guests often presumes all abusers are male and all victims are female. It doesn't diminish the value of the rest of what they are doing, but I think it is worth being critical of as a side note.

The other big point of concern with Tortoise, which I got major bad vibes off of from day one, was the manner in which they talk about their "understanding of Neil Gaimen's position." That sets off my internal red flags because it immediately prompts the follow up questions, "How did you acquire that understanding?" "Who told you that?" "Why aren't you quoting and / or citing them?" I had been speculating that they were from his side of the communications provided by the people coming forward, or comments from lawyers that weren't being properly attributed. Council of Geeks had a great "Cite Your Sources!" whiteboard moment I would generally agree with.

However.

It turns out there is actually a good reason for the citation fuckery. I think a lot of people missed it, so I'm going to try to explain it. When the hosts are referencing communications provided by those coming forward, they say so. When they are referencing comments by lawyers, they say so. The issue is, the bulk of the time, their understanding is coming from piles of direct emails with Gaimen that are OFF THE RECORD. Journalists have to take that seriously to get to keep doing journalism. They are professionally obligated to NOT cite or quote him when he is off the record. Normally in such a situation journalists wouldn't do this squiggly 'our understanding of their views' thing, they would leave it out entirely to be on the safe side of their professional obligations. Sprinkled through the podcasts are comments about the moral importance of hearing from both sides, the great public interest need to hear from both sides. This is a very snarky justification for the game they are playing of vague-posting the gist of his off the record statements without ever putting the exact statement on the record.

A lot of their snark surrounding that, and some other bits, leave the very distinct impression that Gaimen and his lawyers have threatened legal action against Tortoise several times already. Honestly I hope that they do file legal action, as that would open Gaimen up to discovery. Discovery is a process by which Tortoise would be able to demand access to nearly all documents and / or electronic communications Gaimen has relating to the matter, and in doing so make them public. Discovery is far broader sweeping that what is admissible in court, because it has to be 'discovered' before the court can rule it admissible or not. But inadmissible thigs are still usually public record. A jury wouldn't see them, but we still can. Because of that, it is extremely unlikely that Gaimen will file a legal claim, but again, I truly hope that he does. Tortoise probably does too.

But there is another person deserving of investigation and discovery in all this.

The main focus of my current attention is from a bit in the first episode that jumped out at me. Like, it made my eyes bug out, jaw on the metaphorical floor, and I was shocked that I haven't seen it mentioned. But then I figured, people might just not have the context to know how big of a deal this is. So I'm going to talk about it.

According to Scarlett's account, after she came forward to Amanda, Neil asked her to take a call with a therapist that both he and Amanda see. It seemed like his financial assistance offer to her may have hinged on the call being part of the deal. At first read, it looks like Gaimen strongarming Scarlett to tell his therapist he didn't assault anyone. She does the call, and there is a message from the guy that seems designed to plant the suggestion in Scarlett that her friends are manipulating her into perceiving a consensual relationship as a non consensual one.

To me, that is a five alarm fire. Everything happening in there should not be happening, ever. A person who provides individual therapy should not provide it to both partners in a relationship. A person who provides relationship therapy should not be providing individual therapy to people in the relationship. (They should do one-on-one sessions with each in the context of the relationship therapy but that is different.) A therapist should not be framing things the way they are described in that message, or interacting that way towards someone who is not a client, particularly if they have a conflict with someone who is. Therapists are very aware of the potential for clients to coerce others into saying things that fit the client's narrative, and should not be encouraging them to try. And all that is before we even get to the part where he seems to have been tasked specifically to gasslight Scarlett into mistrusting herself and blaming her friends. By Scarlett's paper trailed account, this person should be facing very serious repercussions and investigation. According to Tortoise, he has not responded to any of their attempts to get in touch with him, and he has a phone that is set up to not accept voicemail.

The name of this alleged professional is stated in the podcast, so I looked him up. He is most widely known as an author. His first professional descriptor for himself is as an executive leadership mentor. That more or less translates to person who gives expensive pep talks to rich people. He is also a minister, and a 'consultant.' He does call himself a therapist, but he has no degrees, background, or training in psychology. His degree is from divinity school. He does not list any professional qualifications or certifications in mental health, he does not list any memberships in any mental health organizations. He did co-found an organization that appears to have put on motivational seminars for a variety of organizations. His 'client list' was last updated in 2012. His website has features that are only accessible by those who are 'fully committed.' He is based out of Arizona, USA.

Searching for his name + therapist will get you to a podcast episode with Amanda Palmer, where she had him on as a guest, described him as a therapist, her therapist, and her and Neil's relationship therapist, and promoted his books. It was recorded in 2019, and it is utterly vapid and out of touch from the both of them. Searching his name + therapist will not get you any information on his work as a therapist, because he is not a therapist.

He can't get stripped of his status as a mental health practitioner, because he isn't one. Tortoise states that he has protected confidentiality to Neil and Amanda. If he does have protected confidentiality, he has it solely through his status as a minister, not as a mental health professional because again, he isn't one. As a minister, he may have greater client privilege than an actual mental health professional, who would be required to break privilege if they have reason to believe their client is a danger to themselves or others. Religious client privilege is very strongly protected in most of the US even if the client is explicitly planning to commit specific acts of violence. This might be the main selling point to people who choose to work with ministers who pretend to be therapists rather than actual therapists.

Scarlett doesn't have confidentiality much less privilege by any avenue, his communication with her did not form a professional relationship despite the ways his message seemed to blur those lines, which would have left him free to pass on whatever she said to Neil and Amanda. That would also open the door for him to corroborate what Scarlett told him to the media, but my impression is that if he can be contacted, he will cite a duty to his real client, Neil Gaimen, to avoid saying anything. This is one of many reasons why real therapists do not take clients who have potential conflicts of interest with their other clients. I can't tell from the content of either podcast to what extent he may have materially represented himself to be an actual mental health professional to his clients, but if he has done so he absolutely should be liable if not culpable for that.

I would like to see this man investigated to hell and back, but I don't know if anyone in the media is going to bother. For anyone who needs to hear it, do not go to therapy with someone who isn't a licensed mental health professional. Do not have the same individual therapist as your romantic partner(s). If you are setting up couples therapy, it needs to be with someone who has never met either of you before, and you make first contact with them as a unit.

Obligatory this is all personal opinion disclaimer. The internal states of public figures cannot be determined or scientifically evaluated by their public statements / appearances / works / ect... I am not the behaviour panel, nor do I endorse that kind of thing. But under certain circumstances I am willing to put out some personal opinions about what certain actions, if they happened, would seem to suggest.

I've been saying for a while now, the allegations paint a very strong and compelling picture of Gaimen knowing what he was doing and engaging in deliberate strategy even if he can make pocket experiences for himself where he gets to believe that the relationships were real. I think the evidence pointing towards Gaimen having a long running pseudo 'therapist' he is comfortable sending his accusers to talk to, who then encourages the accuser to think their friends are controlling them, speaks to how deeply this approach to life can saturate a person's existence. When I say 14 represents a lifestyle choice, these are the kinds of things I'm talking about. Someone who fucked up and made a few grievous errors, and did soul searching, and is trying to do better doesn't send their victims to their on call professional gassligter with religious privilege who they outsource to. This looks like 'life revolves around finding ways to control and silence people' level shit.

[bolly--quinn]

ok I made (and re-uploaded lol) my silly little MV

[fallow-grove]

[2isjustasbadas1]

Neil Gaiman allegations & Amanda Palmer's words abt Russell Brand and so much more...

TW: SA, forgiveness

Can we please discuss this in the light of the recent allegations against Neil Gaiman?

Amanda wrote this last year, so it was clearly about Neil Gaiman aswell.

When I read it last year, I got very angry and triggered, when she demands survivors to forgive their perpetrators to make it easier for them to admit to their "stupid mistakes".

Can we agree, that SA is not just a stupid mistake? It means disregarding someone's integrity, it means traumatizing them. It means showing zero empathy to them and using them for your own pleasure, to finally feel powerful and in control.

Survivors never owe empathy to their perpetrators! And forgiveness is not something you can ask for, it is a process that can happen.

It is not necessary for survivors to forgive their perpetrator in order to heal their trauma. Some people think it's helpful for themselves to forgive, but others will never forgive the unforgivable. And that is okay.

For me personally, I do only forgive, when the one who hurt me, admits to what he did, when he repents, when he shows me through actions that he is putting an effort to not hurting me again and repairs the rupture his behaviour caused.

But asking me to forgive someone, who doesn't recognise my pain, feels like a betrayal to myself.

[tampire]

Into the Johnny Simmons-Verse: featuring Matthew Patel and Jennifer Check hovering and levitating.