Ok, so what is Tall Poppy Syndrome?

It’s a commonly used term, particularly in Australia, but also in New Zealand and maybe a bit less in Great Britain.

tall poppy (NOUN, Australian, NZ, informal)

A person who is conspicuously successful and whose success frequently attracts envious hostility.

Origin

Mid 19th century: from an obsolete sense of poppy ‘a conspicuous or prominent person or thing’, probably with reference to Tarquinius Superbus, a king of ancient Rome who demonstrated how to deal with potential enemies by cutting off the heads of the tallest poppies in his garden (Livy 1.54.6).

tall poppy syndrome (NOUN, Australian, NZ, informal)

A perceived tendency to discredit or disparage those who have achieved notable wealth or prominence in public life.

Courtesy Oxford Dictionaries.com

Tall poppy and tall poppy syndrome are well-attested Australianisms and refer to a tendency in Australian society to try and cut down people who are considered to be too successful or prominent (cutting the tall poppies down to size). Australians generally don’t like others to do too well, or (to use another popular Australian term) to ‘big-note’ themselves.

Oxford Dictionaries, Blog.

https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2017/06/21/tall-poppy-syndrome/

In a 2015 article titled “Crab Mentality, Cyberbullying and ‘Name and Shame’ Rankings,” Simon Spacey of the University of Waikato in New Zealand, calls it crab mentality. Spacey states,

“In modern day academia, secretly assassinating your peers is not necessarily performed the same way it was in king Tarquin’s day. The growth in importance of social media sites and the simplicity with which anyone can create an account that is not associated with their real identity makes it easier for an attacker to perform assassination through electronic rather than physical means. This form of anonymous electronic assassination is called cyberbullying (Li, 2007; NetSafe, n.d.) and like the assassinations of king Tarquin’s time, the harm caused by cyberbullying can include the death of young and old alike (e.g. Bailey, 2014; “Charlotte Dawson’s death throws spotlight on cyber bullying”, 2014; NOBullying.com, 2013) but does not need to actually kill for its perpetrators to gain advantage in their peer groups as discussed in Vance (2012).”

I have observed that ever since the Lawrence Krauss accusations of sexual misconduct, including a virtual condemnation of the entire atheist/skeptic movement as misogynistic, these social media attacks have ramped up. Some folks seemed to feel quite empowered to attack what some might consider the “old guard” of skeptics and atheists, demanding that they immediately denounce Krauss and disassociate themselves completely from him. (In fact, if they would go on YouTube and ceremoniously burn all his books, that would be even better.) I read an article which described how poor Matt Dillahunty (Atheist Experience) was relentlessly pursued and attacked on Facebook.

Similarly, people were attacking Sam Harris even though he made a statement at an event Krauss was supposed to attend and kindly said these are serious allegations and to give it some time.

These tall poppy trolls seemed to be out for blood. Nothing anyone said was to their satisfaction. Then they started attacking Krauss’s wife on Twitter. I don’t want to reveal her Twitter name here because she has been so mercilessly mistreated.

And lately people have been going after prominent skeptics like Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose and the attacks are not intellectual in nature—they are personal and nasty. Some of the attacks seem like little more than base jealousy, an attempt to attack a more prominent thinker to gain attention for themselves. But again… not in an intellectual fashion so much as in a, well… kind of creepy, kind of trash-talking, kind of overtly hostile, kind of demanding and four-letter-wordish sort of a way.

But it’s not just a single person– it’s a little online mob of like-minded “thinkers” that don’t like some of the criticisms they’re hearing from these rationalists, who, by the way, have earned their esteem through hard work, study and life experience. One fellow, for example, was blocked due to poor behavior, and kept making new Twitter accounts to harass these folks, feeling they were obligated to answer to him.

Well, I don’t know the answer here. Just an observation.  I guess that old saying, “don’t feed the trolls,” fits here. The tall poppies will be fine and the block feature on social media still works.

For more about Lawrence Krauss and his personal response/statement:

Lawrence Krauss: Dissecting the Buzzfeed Article on Sexual Misconduct

A short video on Tall Poppy Syndrome I found interesting is here:

Illustration by Edwin D. Babbitt.

“And how do I know this? I have lived it. I have an immediate family member with the same diagnosis.” Gretchen Mullen, Skeptic Review

Before I discuss the details of the case, here’s a statement from the parents of Jerry Drake Varnell, 23, of Sayre, Oklahoma. Varnell was arrested in August of 2017 for trying to detonate what he thought was a vehicle bomb at a downtown Oklahoma City bank.

Family statement, published August 16, 2017 by NewsOk.

“We as a family are extremely distraught about this situation with our son Jerry Drake Varnell, but what the public must understand is that he is a paranoid schizophrenic and is extremely susceptible to different types of ideology that normal people would deem immoral. Underneath his condition, he is a sweet-hearted person and we are extremely shocked that this event has happened. However, what truly has us flabbergasted is the fact that the FBI knew he was schizophrenic. The State of Oklahoma found him mentally incompetent and we, his parents have legal guardianship over him by the Court. These documents are sealed from the public, which is why no news media outlet has been able to obtain them. The FBI clearly knew that he was schizophrenic because they have gathered every ounce of information on him. Reading the criminal complaint against him has brought us great pause due to the numerous lies from the informant. We do not have an underground bunker! We built our home a few years ago and bought a storage container, as we use it for a storm shelter. We only recently pushed dirt up around it to make it safe. The building is used for storage and is NOT a bunker full of food and supplies, in fact the doors close from the outside. It has neither electricity nor anything that would make it habitable.

What the public should be looking at is the fact that the FBI gave our son the means to make this happen. He has no job, no money, no vehicle, and no driver’s license, due to the fact that he is schizophrenic and we; his parents do everything we can possible to keep him safe and functional. The mental health system has consistently failed us due to the lack of establishments and health care coverage for a person like him. He has attended college and just enrolled in welding school. His medications allow him to be somewhat functional but he will never be completely functional in life. His brain does not work like a normal person and never will due to the nature of his mental illness. He has suffered through countless serious full-blown schizophrenic delusional episodes and he has been put in numerous mental hospitals since he was 16 years old. The FBI came and picked him up from our home, they gave him a vehicle, gave him a fake bomb, and every means to make this happen none of which he had access to on his own. We know who their informant is and what the public should know is that he is that a drug-dealing criminal. On June 15, 2017, Jerry’s Father told the criminal informant “that he was not allowed back on our property and if he returned we would have him arrested for trespassing and drugs”.  Apparently, he continued to sneak onto our residence. The FBI paid him to continue this operation and I believe they have cleared his criminal record.

The FBI should have filed conspiracy on our son and had him committed to a mental institution. They should not have aided and abetted a paranoid schizophrenic to commit this act. There are many more facts that I will not make public that will support my son and the disturbing acts made by the FBI.

I realize that many will say my son could have found another person to commit this act. Yet, any person that has access to the materials and the state of mind necessary to bomb a building would not have any need for a schizophrenic who has no resources to contribute. Schizophrenics always have conspiracy theories and feels everyone is out to get them. They trust no one and there is no doubt in my mind that this informant began this hate against the government and my son followed along because others easily influence him. There is no person in his life that has even heard anything about hatred for the government and we have all been shocked by the event.

We ask all news media outlets to please respect our privacy. Do not fly helicopters over our home and stalk us at our gates for a story, we are trying our very best to comfort each other because this is a devastating loss for our family. We do not need to be bombarded by reporters who only want to omit important facts of this event. We understand the public wants to know how this could possibly happen. We simply ask them to look at the facts of the case and ask why the FBI made this happen. He is our son and he is a brother and loved one no matter what he has done. We have unconditional love for him, we are heart broken by this event and wish we had been made aware by the FBI, and we would have committed him into a mental institution for help.”

Sincerely,

Clifford and Melonie Varnell

———————-

And here is what was released by the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Oklahoma, on Monday, August 14, 2017. Note that there is not a single reference to Varnell’s extreme mental illness nor his suggestibility or delusions about government persecution so common among paranoid schizophrenics.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma — Jerry Drake Varnell, 23, of Sayre, Oklahoma, was arrested in connection with a plot to detonate a vehicle bomb at BancFirst, 101 N. Broadway, in downtown Oklahoma City, announced Mark A. Yancey, United States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma.

According to a criminal complaint filed in the Western District of Oklahoma, the FBI arrested Varnell at approximately 1:00 am on August 12, 2017, after he attempted to detonate what he believed to be an explosives-laden van he had parked in an alley next to BancFirst. The complaint alleges that Varnell initially wanted to blow up the Federal Reserve Building in Washington, D.C., with a device similar to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing because he was upset with the government.

The complaint explains that after Varnell’s intentions came to the attention of law enforcement, an undercover FBI agent posed as a person who could assist him. According to the complaint, Varnell took a series of actions to advance his plot. He identified BancFirst as the target, prepared a statement to be posted on social media after the explosion, helped assemble the device, helped load it into what he believed was a stolen van, drove the van by himself from El Reno to BancFirst in downtown Oklahoma City, and dialed a number on a cellular telephone that he believed would trigger the explosion.

Varnell is charged with attempting to use explosives to destroy a building in interstate commerce. If convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. He is expected to make his initial appearance in federal court in Oklahoma City today at 3:00 pm.

This arrest is the culmination of a long-term domestic terrorism investigation involving an undercover operation, during which Varnell had been monitored closely for months as the alleged bomb plot developed. The device was actually inert, and the public was not in danger. “There was never a concern that our community’s safety or security was at risk during this investigation,” said Kathryn Peterson, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Oklahoma. “I can assure the public, without hesitation, that we had Varnell’s actions monitored every step of the way.”

U.S. Attorney Yancey said: “I commend the devoted work of the FBI and our state law enforcement partners in ensuring that violent plots of this kind never succeed.”

The investigation was conducted by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, including members from the Oklahoma City FBI; Homeland Security Investigations, part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the Oklahoma City Police Department; the Edmond Police Department; the Oklahoma Highway Patrol; the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs; and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. The FBI worked in conjunction with BancFirst during the investigation. Oklahoma District Attorney Angela Marsee, of District 2, also provided assistance. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matt Dillon, with assistance from the Justice Department’s Counterterrorism Section.

Reference is made to court records for further information. The public is reminded that this complaint is only an allegation and that Varnell is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

——-

A look at the criminal complaint tells a much different story. The FBI employed a paid confidential informant who was incarcerated and wanted to make a deal to get out of prison. The complaint conveniently skips over who actually initiated the plot, relying only on a tip from a CI wanting to get out of prison. It leaves open the question of whether the CI may have planted the idea in Varnell’s head to begin with.

In addition, the complaint shows time and time again that Varnell had to be provided with the means necessary to carry out this “plot.” He had no vehicle, he had no money to purchase explosives, no particular plan. He was spurred on by the constant contact he received from the CI and later an undercover FBI agent posing as the person who could obtain the explosives.

Paranoid schizophrenics often fear authority, particularly the government, feeling that these entities may be responsible for inserting thoughts into their heads. They are also lonely, craving friendship, which this CI certainly provided. Some suffer from a disordered pattern of thinking which makes pulling together such a complex plot almost impossible. In this case, Varnell was often contacted and had made no progress on the plot, so the CI and FBI agent would do it for him and then invite him along to “help.”

And how do I know this? I have lived it. I have an immediate family member with the same diagnosis. The toll on the family is unbelievable. To think that these parents have lived with the burden of serving as guardians, seeing to his care, involuntarily committing him if necessary… these are hard tasks. And to think that the FBI comes along and creates a scenario that was unlikely to occur without the set-up and support seems to be a criminal act in itself.

Full complaint:

https://jnslp.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/varnell-complaint.pdf

645. Entrapment—Elements/Department of Justice

Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that “Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute.” Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant’s lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.

Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government’s use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort “that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties,” United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government’s behavior was such that “a law-abiding citizen’s will to obey the law could have been overborne”); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created “a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it”).

Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant “was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime.” Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: “the ready commission of the criminal act,” such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent’s offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550.

Official Portrait Courtesy United States Supreme Court.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a wide-ranging conversation in celebration of the 25th anniversary of her appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here are some important highlights of the conversation:

Jeffrey Rosen: What are your thoughts on the #MeToo movement and will it prove lasting progress for women’s equality?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: It was a question I was asked this afternoon at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. What I wanted to convey there was that sexual harassment of women has gone on forever, but it didn’t get headlines until a woman named Catherine MacKinnon wrote a book called “Sexual Harassment of Working Women,” and that was the start of litigation under Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act]. A few cases came to the Supreme Court and they all came out right. But still, women were hesitant.

I think one of the principal reasons for it was because they feared that they would not be believed. The number of women who have come forward as a result of the #MeToo movement has been astonishing. My hope is not just that it is here to stay, but that it is as effective for the woman who works as a maid in a hotel as it is for Hollywood stars. [applause]

Rosen: Many women are wondering, will this prove a lasting advance for women or like previous discussions of sexual harassment in the 90’s will this advance pass?

Ginsburg: I think it will have staying power because people, and not only women, men as well as women, realize how wrong the behavior was and how it subordinated women. So we shall see, but my prediction is that it is here to stay.

Rosen: Why is it happening now? Is there something about what millennials are doing that has caused the #MeToo movement or is it something else?

Ginsburg: I think we can compare it to the gay-rights movement when people stepped up and said “this is who I am and I am proud of it.” They came out in numbers instead of hiding, disguising. That movement developed very rapidly, and I think we are seeing the same thing with sexual harassment.

Rosen: Did you see this one coming?

Ginsburg: No, no. And why did it happen just when it did? I’ve heard from women who told stories about Harvey Weinstein many years ago. And then the Times decided to do a big story on it. I think it was the press finally taking notice of something they knew long before that propelled it to the place it now holds in the public arena.

Rosen: What is your advice to all women, young women and to all women, about how to sustain the momentum of the movement and to make its changes lasting?

Ginsburg: I have heard from lawyers that women have come forward with stories about things that happened many years ago, and even though the statute of limitations is long past, these cases are being settled. One interesting thing is whether it will be an end to the confidentiality pledge. Women who complained and brought suit were offered settlements in which they would agree that they would never disclose what they had complained about. I suspect we will not see those agreements anymore.

Rosen: What are the legal changes necessary to make these reforms permanent?

Ginsburg: We have the legal reforms—we have had them for a long time. Title VII. It was argued early on that sexual harassment has nothing to do with gender discrimination. Everyone knows boys will be boys, and that was that. There are state and federal laws. The laws are there and the laws are in place, it takes people to step forward and use them. 

Rosen: At Sundance, you told your own #MeToo story about an encounter at Cornell long ago. Tell the audience about that.

Ginsburg: I was in a chemistry class at Cornell. I was not very adept in the laboratory, so a teaching assistant decided to help me out so much that he offered to give me a practice exam the day before the actual exam. When I went into the room and looked at the exam paper, I found that it was the practice exam. Then I knew immediately what this instructor expected as a payoff. So, instead of being shy, I confronted him and said, how dare you do this? That is one of many, many stories that every woman of my vintage knows.

Rosen: What would you advise women to say in similar situation? Should they be similarly strong?

Ginsburg: Yes. Say this is bad behavior. You should not engage in it and I will not submit to it. But I think it is easier today because there are numbers to support the woman who says so. We no longer hear as often as we did in the past, she’s making it up.

Rosen: What is your advice to men in this new regime where people are trying to behave well and figure out what the new norms are?

Ginsburg: Just think how you would like the women in your family to be treated, particularly your daughters. And when you see men behaving in ways they should not, you should tell them this is improper behavior.

Rosen: There is a debate both among women and among men about what sort of behavior should be sanctionable, and one group is saying that it’s wrong to lump together violent behavior like Harvey Weinstein with less dramatic forms of sexual misconduct and others say that all misconduct is wrong and should be sanctioned.

Ginsburg: Well, there are degrees of conduct, yes. But any time a woman is put in a position where she is inferior, subordinate, there should be—she should complain, she should not be afraid.

Rosen: What about due process for the accused?

Ginsburg: Well, that must not be ignored and it goes beyond sexual harassment. The person who is accused has a right to defend herself or himself, and we certainly should not lose sight of that. Recognizing that these are complaints that should be heard. There’s been criticism of some college codes of conduct for not giving the accused person a fair opportunity to be heard, and that’s one of the basic tenants of our system, as you know, everyone deserves a fair hearing.

Rosen: Are some of those criticisms of the college codes valid?

Ginsburg: Do I think they are? Yes.

Rosen: I think people are hungry for your thoughts about how to balance the values of due process against the need for increased gender equality.

Ginsburg: It’s not one or the other. It’s both. We have a system of justice where people who are accused get due process, so it’s just applying to this field what we have applied generally. 

Rosen: Some women also fear backlash. They worry that women may have less opportunity for mentorship at work because guys are afraid of interacting with them. Is this valid or not?

Ginsburg: Well, let me ask you—as a man—do you think that you will be hesitant to encourage women because of the #MeToo movement?

Rosen: On the contrary, I have felt, like many men, sensitized to the plight of women by hearing these stories and it seems like an entirely salutary thing.

Ginsburg: Yes

The full conversation was streamed live on Feb 12, 2018 and is available at

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, was born in Brooklyn, New York, March 15, 1933. She married Martin D. Ginsburg in 1954, and has a daughter, Jane, and a son, James. She received her B.A. from Cornell University, attended Harvard Law School, and received her LL.B. from Columbia Law School. She served as a law clerk to the Honorable Edmund L. Palmieri, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, from 1959–1961. From 1961–1963, she was a research associate and then associate director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure. She was a Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law from 1963–1972, and Columbia Law School from 1972–1980, and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California from 1977–1978. In 1971, she was instrumental in launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU’s General Counsel from 1973–1980, and on the National Board of Directors from 1974–1980. She was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980. President Clinton nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat August 10, 1993.

RBG: Highly Anticipated Documentary About Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be Released in May