The Andrew Torrez Situation
Cancelling on the internet has become a ritual at this point. A powerful person does a bad thing, their community shuns them, and they complain on Joe Rogen. We have seen it too many times by now. But some cancelations were less justified than others: James Charles “tried to trick straight men into thinking they’re gay”; Contrapoints used a voiceover by a trans porn actor with the wrong trans politics; Linsey Ellis said something about Avatar.
I’m writing this when Andrew Torrez of the podcast Opening Arguments (OA) is being accused of sexual misconduct. A few women and one man said he behaved in ways that made them feel uncomfortable in various ways. One woman said he aggressively touched her without her consent. Most details aren’t out yet, and we will probably learn more in the near future. But I think that given the details that are out, and the response of the community, I have some points worth exploring right now.
I want to talk about two of the tropes of cancelling that Contrapoints identified a while back: The Assumption of guilt, and the Transitive property of cancellation.
Assumption of guilt is usually framed as “Believe victims”. We assume there is an inherent imbalance in these situations - society assumes innocence, which deters women from coming forward. Lefty spaces created a norm to counter that, which assumes victims say the truth. We all understand this is problematic and can be exploited, but so is the alternative.
But “Believe victims” in our story is combined with a Great Untruth: “Always trust your feelings”. This is a framework put forth by the Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt in their book “Coddling of the American mind”. In it, they argue that in some lefty spaces people are encouraged to use their emotional experience of an event to interpret it. This is best exemplified by some (but not all) of the examples given for micro-aggressions. When an offensive interpretation of an event is available, and a person experienced it as offensive, then that person was harmed. This is independent of the intension or the actions taken by the other party.
Thinking this way is obviously bad for your own psychology. But it’s also bad for a community dealing with an accusation. You are not only expected to believe a persons version of events, but their interpretation of them. Don’t just “believe victims”, assume guilt.
In our story, a few women came forward with damming texts messaged showing that Andrew is a creep and an abuser. But if you spend your time reading them, you won’t find anything. Literally nothing. “Read the transcript” as they used to say.
And please do! This is bad media comprehension to simply trust me, a random person online. Read it. A person on reddit compiled a complete list. If you would read them you will see that Andrew told one woman that he “stalked” her Facebook pole dancing videos, and would be happy receive pictures of any part of her body she feels comfortable with. He wrote one other woman that he once had sex while listening to a Cure song. A normal person can feel uncomfortable during an interaction like these. That’s completely normal. But it is still a minor conflict between texting adults. Not abuse or predatory behavior. Even if there is a pattern to it.
But it is abuse if you believe the interpretation of the women posting these texts. They were hurt, therefore they were abused. Assumption of guilt and emotional reasoning.
As I mentioned earlier there is one woman, a former consensual partner of Andrew, who had a worst allegation. She wrote:
“My chief complaint against Andrew Torrez is that on more than one occasion, he aggressively initiated physical intimacy without my consent. When he did this, I would either say no and try to stop it, or I would let myself be coerced into going along with it.”
This could be very bad, and it can also be nothing at all. We cannot tell from this information. This description of events can describe something close to rape, and an unwanted kiss between sexual partners. Its vague and unspecific, which could happen for many reasons. Some are completely understandable (she might not want to talk about it), and some less so.
But taken together we have specific allegations with receipts that in total amount to normal conflict between adults, and a single non-specific accusation. Does this mean Andrew was wrong? I don’t think we can tell.
But tell the OA community did. Andrew left the podcast, and the Facebook community was broken. People practice the assumption of guilt, and Andrew was let go from all of his podcasts. Everyone assumes he is a creep. Anyone suggesting otherwise was blocked from the Facebook community.
It is important to note that people behind closed doors, like Thomas Smith which co-hosts OA, probably know more than we do. And Thomas did make a statement promising he is “… working as hard as [he] possibly can to provide you the answers you deserve”.
I honestly thought that he meant to explain the allegation: what Andrew did, and a reasoned decision to cut ties with him. But Thomas didn’t do this, because this is not the answers he felt he should provide. Andrew is already guilty. That’s done. But now, someone else’s life are on the line…
As hours gone by, more allegations agains Thomas started popping up on Facebook. He knew all this time and did nothing. He could have stopped the “Abuser”. There were a lot of posts of this kind on Facebook. People started leaving the OA Patreon. This is what contrapoints called the “transitive property of cancellation”. Being associated with Andrew meant you had to disavow him. Otherwise you are also an abuser.
So Thomas gave us answers. He uploaded a recording of himself crying and talking about a time 2 years ago when Andrew touched him inappropriately on the lower hip, and mention that similar things happened at different times when Andrew was drunk. He felt violated when it happened and texted his wife about it.
If you have two eyes, it is clear what is happening here. Thomas was worried about his livelihood; If he did something wrong, the podcast is dead. So under a lot of stress, he made himself into another victim. This explains why he couldn’t say anything before: victims are under a lot of pressure to shut up. This is why we should completely forgive him.
I’m not saying that Thomas was lying, or that he didn’t feel very violated by Andrew’s actions. But I think he had a bigger obligation to the community and to Andrew. He needed to tell us what he knows, and explain his actions. What he did instead is to shield himself from criticism while never taking a stance. Does he believe Andrew abuse these victims? Is he withholding judgment? Did he know or suspect any of this?
Following the news that Thomas was also a victim, the tone on Facebook took a π-radian shift. No one is suspecting Thomas of wrongdoing, and Andrew is now officially an Abuser. Thomas finalized the cancellation of his co-host to save himself.
In this situations, the community behaves like a mob. Everyone seems to think the same things. When you look into the details yourself, they don’t seem to match, but there are a lot of tweets and a lot of threads, and everyone is so sure. Don’t fall for it. On Facebook, the current stated policy is to block and remove anyone not assuming guilt. There are no opposing views because they aren’t allowed to exist.
Learning this sad lesson about the community, I probably won’t be listening to OA anymore. but I guess I’m looking forward to Andrew’s appearance on Joe Rogen.
Correction: An earlier version of this article said Andrew touched Thomas on his leg. In the recording Thomas says he was touched on his lower hip.