So about all of this sexual assault...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

undeadsuitor:

Thaluikhain:

Also, people are assuming right away that he's guilty, which seems odd. Not that long ago, people were giving Cosby the benefit of 50+ doubts, Takei doesn't even get one...at least from some people. I suspect there are people hostile to Takei using this as an excuse.

You have to remember both Spacey and Takei sexually assaulted men, and is thus 200 times more icky and gross to the common person

as opposed to powerful men taking advantage of women under their thumb which is a tuesday (and pretty much the dream for every working class man forever)

Did you really just accuse every working class male of wanting to take advantage of women?

Strictly speaking, yes innocent until proven guilty absolutely.

Off topic, liberals promulgated this environment with their "listen and believe" nonsense, it is absolutely hilarious watching it bite liberals in the ass.

Hollywood is full of this sort of gossip which makes you wonder why the heck doesn't it get reported to the police? Or maybe it did?

theamazingbean:
Strictly speaking, yes innocent until proven guilty absolutely.

Off topic, liberals promulgated this environment with their "listen and believe" nonsense, it is absolutely hilarious watching it bite liberals in the ass.

Yeah, how dare liberals actually punish people who do wrong. I mean, we cant all be Fox News and actively promote sexual assault.

Saelune:

theamazingbean:
Strictly speaking, yes innocent until proven guilty absolutely.

Off topic, liberals promulgated this environment with their "listen and believe" nonsense, it is absolutely hilarious watching it bite liberals in the ass.

Yeah, how dare liberals actually punish people who do wrong. I mean, we cant all be Fox News and actively promote sexual assault.

I think, to put it less antagonistically, can you now understand why people were against the "listen and believe" narrative? That a single declaration should not be treated as the sole evidence necessary to presume guilt?

Hollywood is like Ouroboros. All the biggest libs come out of Hollywood, yet libs have, for the last few years, been ceaseless in criticizing Hollywood for not casting enough blacks and women, not giving enough blacks awards, and now sexually harassing women.

Saelune:

theamazingbean:
Strictly speaking, yes innocent until proven guilty absolutely.

Off topic, liberals promulgated this environment with their "listen and believe" nonsense, it is absolutely hilarious watching it bite liberals in the ass.

Yeah, how dare liberals actually punish people who do wrong. I mean, we cant all be Fox News and actively promote sexual assault.

I think it's quite an interesting and telling projection from a certain mindset that shows a far higher priority in maintaining 'connections' with those who share social ideologies and could go quite a way to explaining why many conservatives still vote for people who abuse children and get away with a lot of unacceptable shit. It would seem it's the letting go and assumed idea of association that is such an insurmountable obstacle.

kitsunefather:

Saelune:

theamazingbean:
Strictly speaking, yes innocent until proven guilty absolutely.

Off topic, liberals promulgated this environment with their "listen and believe" nonsense, it is absolutely hilarious watching it bite liberals in the ass.

Yeah, how dare liberals actually punish people who do wrong. I mean, we cant all be Fox News and actively promote sexual assault.

I think, to put it less antagonistically, can you now understand why people were against the "listen and believe" narrative? That a single declaration should not be treated as the sole evidence necessary to presume guilt?

Pragmatically, this way will likely harm less innocent people. And as others have pointed out, more likely many of these people will only be socially punished but not legally so. I love Takei, and doubt his guilt, but I think he can take way more hits than all the women (and some men) sexually abused by people like Weinstein. The real problem is that the people abused by oh say, O'Reily or anyone working for Fox News who by re-hiring him (and only firing him cause it cost them some ad revenue) are now condoning sexual assault outright.

I think a few rich celebrities are a fair sacrifice for however many nameless folk who dont have to hide anymore.

Right-wingers can be as smug as they want, but that smugness comes at being a hypocrite.

Saelune:

kitsunefather:

Saelune:
Yeah, how dare liberals actually punish people who do wrong. I mean, we cant all be Fox News and actively promote sexual assault.

I think, to put it less antagonistically, can you now understand why people were against the "listen and believe" narrative? That a single declaration should not be treated as the sole evidence necessary to presume guilt?

Pragmatically, this way will likely harm less innocent people. And as others have pointed out, more likely many of these people will only be socially punished but not legally so. I love Takei, and doubt his guilt, but I think he can take way more hits than all the women (and some men) sexually abused by people like Weinstein. The real problem is that the people abused by oh say, O'Reily or anyone working for Fox News who by re-hiring him (and only firing him cause it cost them some ad revenue) are now condoning sexual assault outright.

I think a few rich celebrities are a fair sacrifice for however many nameless folk who dont have to hide anymore.

Right-wingers can be as smug as they want, but that smugness comes at being a hypocrite.

So... it's okay for certain people to be sacrificial lambs, regardless of their innocence or guilt, because of their social class? What about their political affiliations?

That seems a bit.. unjust, doesn't it?

kitsunefather:

Saelune:

kitsunefather:

I think, to put it less antagonistically, can you now understand why people were against the "listen and believe" narrative? That a single declaration should not be treated as the sole evidence necessary to presume guilt?

Pragmatically, this way will likely harm less innocent people. And as others have pointed out, more likely many of these people will only be socially punished but not legally so. I love Takei, and doubt his guilt, but I think he can take way more hits than all the women (and some men) sexually abused by people like Weinstein. The real problem is that the people abused by oh say, O'Reily or anyone working for Fox News who by re-hiring him (and only firing him cause it cost them some ad revenue) are now condoning sexual assault outright.

I think a few rich celebrities are a fair sacrifice for however many nameless folk who dont have to hide anymore.

Right-wingers can be as smug as they want, but that smugness comes at being a hypocrite.

So... it's okay for certain people to be sacrificial lambs, regardless of their innocence or guilt, because of their social class? What about their political affiliations?

That seems a bit.. unjust, doesn't it?

Life is unfair. If you want to defend innocent people being sexually assaulted though, thats your choice. Not theirs, but yours.

kitsunefather:
I think, to put it less antagonistically, can you now understand why people were against the "listen and believe" narrative? That a single declaration should not be treated as the sole evidence necessary to presume guilt?

Why? People (or rather, random nobodies on the net) are allowed to presume whatever they want based on whatever they want. Judges and police et al work rather differently, of course.

In any case, if we are instead of believing accusers, we are to disbelieve them, are we not presuming them to be guilty of false accusations? Why is that better?

Saelune:

kitsunefather:

Saelune:
Pragmatically, this way will likely harm less innocent people. And as others have pointed out, more likely many of these people will only be socially punished but not legally so. I love Takei, and doubt his guilt, but I think he can take way more hits than all the women (and some men) sexually abused by people like Weinstein. The real problem is that the people abused by oh say, O'Reily or anyone working for Fox News who by re-hiring him (and only firing him cause it cost them some ad revenue) are now condoning sexual assault outright.

I think a few rich celebrities are a fair sacrifice for however many nameless folk who dont have to hide anymore.

Right-wingers can be as smug as they want, but that smugness comes at being a hypocrite.

So... it's okay for certain people to be sacrificial lambs, regardless of their innocence or guilt, because of their social class? What about their political affiliations?

That seems a bit.. unjust, doesn't it?

Life is unfair. If you want to defend innocent people being sexually assaulted though, thats your choice. Not theirs, but yours.

That's a cowardly tact, but I accept it.

It is my choice to defend people who are being sexually assaulted.

Are you saying it is your choice to persecute people who are unjustly accused of crimes they didn't commit? At what pay bracket does that become unconscionable?

I'm for advocating for evidence, and reason. In the case of Weinstein, we have multiple people and a history of hints from people bound by libel laws. In the case of Takei we have his appearances on the Howard Stern show saying that if someone seemed shy or unwilling, he'd give them a "not so gentle" grab of the genitals. Both are fairly damning to me, in regards to the veracity of the claims made.

I'm not saying, however, that people who make claims should be pilloried as liars. When a claim gets shown to be false, though, it damages the veracity of every other claim, whether we like it or not.

kitsunefather:

Saelune:

kitsunefather:

So... it's okay for certain people to be sacrificial lambs, regardless of their innocence or guilt, because of their social class? What about their political affiliations?

That seems a bit.. unjust, doesn't it?

Life is unfair. If you want to defend innocent people being sexually assaulted though, thats your choice. Not theirs, but yours.

That's a cowardly tact, but I accept it.

It is my choice to defend people who are being sexually assaulted.

Are you saying it is your choice to persecute people who are unjustly accused of crimes they didn't commit? At what pay bracket does that become unconscionable?

I'm for advocating for evidence, and reason. In the case of Weinstein, we have multiple people and a history of hints from people bound by libel laws. In the case of Takei we have his appearances on the Howard Stern show saying that if someone seemed shy or unwilling, he'd give them a "not so gentle" grab of the genitals. Both are fairly damning to me, in regards to the veracity of the claims made.

I'm not saying, however, that people who make claims should be pilloried as liars. When a claim gets shown to be false, though, it damages the veracity of every other claim, whether we like it or not.

I want the bad people to be punished and the innocent to be protected. But we cant be all or nothing about it cause otherwise it will be nothing. Believe it or not, this is all a major step forward. Yes, we now need to ensure that false accusations dont prevail, but we should not let that be an excuse to deny true ones.

If people are going to outright oppose speaking out, then you are defending sexual assault.

And uh, I know someone else who liked to "grab em by the [genitals]". No right-winger has any ground to stand on here if they are going to pretend to be high and mighty.

I'm hearing some "all members of <X Group> are responsible for [Specific individual]'s actions" around and I'm wondering how that can ever be a defensible position unless the group is defined as an open proponent of that behavior.
If Takei did what he's accused of doing does being American, Japanese, Liberal, Trekkie, Gay, an Actor, a Singer or a proponent of putting food photos on Instagram mean we get to associate anyone in any of those groups with that inappropriate behavior?
The only group that could be blamed is "People for the encouragement of inappropriate non-consentual groping" but as I don't think PEING is a real group you're going to have to blame him and him alone. Same thing goes for everyone. You're an individual, you're not responsible for anything someone else did just because you're alike in some way. It's lazy thinking.

Saelune:
I want the bad people to be punished and the innocent to be protected. But we cant be all or nothing about it cause otherwise it will be nothing. Believe it or not, this is all a major step forward. Yes, we now need to ensure that false accusations dont prevail, but we should not let that be an excuse to deny true ones.

If people are going to outright oppose speaking out, then you are defending sexual assault.

And uh, I know someone else who liked to "grab em by the [genitals]". No right-winger has any ground to stand on here if they are going to pretend to be high and mighty.

It isn't about right or left, on my end.

And I agree with you. I'm an advocate for "trust but verify" when it comes to most things (a happenstance of a tinfoil hat upbringing). I also agree we can't be "all or nothing" on it; I'm saying that we (or, better, allow some kind of investigative body to) take a moment, douse our pitchforks, and evaluate claims based on evidence and reason.

What we should be doing is using this as a rally cry for people to come forward when it happens and to go to the police. To file criminal charges. Maybe start a letter campaign to SAG and ask why these actresses weren't being protected from people who were apparently known predators? Start a letter campaign to California legislators to extend the statute of limitations on these kinds of crimes, maybe.

If you want to defend the innocent and punish the guilty, "listen and believe" is more of a platitude than an action. Advocating for a judicial process, for union representation, and for legal punishment is going to go a lot further towards these goals.

For me, I think this should get people lighting a fire under SAG to actually protect the people who are required to be its members. Maybe use some of its money to require a SAG rep at any private meeting between talent and a producer or casting agent, or even any professional meeting the talent has.

kitsunefather:

Saelune:
I want the bad people to be punished and the innocent to be protected. But we cant be all or nothing about it cause otherwise it will be nothing. Believe it or not, this is all a major step forward. Yes, we now need to ensure that false accusations dont prevail, but we should not let that be an excuse to deny true ones.

If people are going to outright oppose speaking out, then you are defending sexual assault.

And uh, I know someone else who liked to "grab em by the [genitals]". No right-winger has any ground to stand on here if they are going to pretend to be high and mighty.

It isn't about right or left, on my end.

And I agree with you. I'm an advocate for "trust but verify" when it comes to most things (a happenstance of a tinfoil hat upbringing). I also agree we can't be "all or nothing" on it; I'm saying that we (or, better, allow some kind of investigative body to) take a moment, douse our pitchforks, and evaluate claims based on evidence and reason.

What we should be doing is using this as a rally cry for people to come forward when it happens and to go to the police. To file criminal charges. Maybe start a letter campaign to SAG and ask why these actresses weren't being protected from people who were apparently known predators? Start a letter campaign to California legislators to extend the statute of limitations on these kinds of crimes, maybe.

If you want to defend the innocent and punish the guilty, "listen and believe" is more of a platitude than an action. Advocating for a judicial process, for union representation, and for legal punishment is going to go a lot further towards these goals.

For me, I think this should get people lighting a fire under SAG to actually protect the people who are required to be its members. Maybe use some of its money to require a SAG rep at any private meeting between talent and a producer or casting agent, or even any professional meeting the talent has.

Except it is about right or left for people like the person I initially quoted and which you jumped in on.

I am being aware of things. My bias is in favor of Takei, but I cant let that blind me if he does turn out to be guilty. But nor can others let their bias defend people like O'Reily and Trump.

Speaking of, I would have more faith in our judicial system if it did not protect murderous racist cops and if our government did not have a sex offender leading it.

Saelune:

theamazingbean:
Strictly speaking, yes innocent until proven guilty absolutely.

Off topic, liberals promulgated this environment with their "listen and believe" nonsense, it is absolutely hilarious watching it bite liberals in the ass.

Yeah, how dare liberals actually punish people who do wrong. I mean, we cant all be Fox News and actively promote sexual assault.

What the hell are you talking about? Liberals have zero monopoly on punishing criminals. Also not a monopoly but certainly a much bigger market share on suspending the rule of law because of accusations and feelings. Your best counterexample is "well conservatives don't immediately cut all ties with people who were accused of doing stuff". Yeah, now you understand why.

theamazingbean:

Saelune:

theamazingbean:
Strictly speaking, yes innocent until proven guilty absolutely.

Off topic, liberals promulgated this environment with their "listen and believe" nonsense, it is absolutely hilarious watching it bite liberals in the ass.

Yeah, how dare liberals actually punish people who do wrong. I mean, we cant all be Fox News and actively promote sexual assault.

What the hell are you talking about? Liberals have zero monopoly on punishing criminals. Also not a monopoly but certainly a much bigger market share on suspending the rule of law because of accusations and feelings. Your best counterexample is "well conservatives don't immediately cut all ties with people who were accused of doing stuff". Yeah, now you understand why.

Well ofcourse. If Liberals had a monopoly on punishing criminals, the police wouldnt get away with racist murders and Trump would be in jail.

"Dont immediately cut all ties"? How about cut ties to save money, then re-establish those ties with a blatantly guilty sex offender?

Saelune:

Speaking of, I would have more faith in our judicial system if it did not protect murderous racist cops and if our government did not have a sex offender leading it.

You do realize neither of those is actually true, right? Liberal talking points != reality.

theamazingbean:

Saelune:

Speaking of, I would have more faith in our judicial system if it did not protect murderous racist cops and if our government did not have a sex offender leading it.

You do realize neither of those is actually true, right? Liberal talking points != reality.

If you want to deny facts, thats on you.

WeepingAngels:

undeadsuitor:

Thaluikhain:

Also, people are assuming right away that he's guilty, which seems odd. Not that long ago, people were giving Cosby the benefit of 50+ doubts, Takei doesn't even get one...at least from some people. I suspect there are people hostile to Takei using this as an excuse.

You have to remember both Spacey and Takei sexually assaulted men, and is thus 200 times more icky and gross to the common person

as opposed to powerful men taking advantage of women under their thumb which is a tuesday (and pretty much the dream for every working class man forever)

Did you really just accuse every working class male of wanting to take advantage of women?

Is "office boss with a slutty secretary that sucks at office work but is great at sucking dick" not a boilerplate office fantasy?

I'm not accusing every man on the planet of rape, but I am saying that a large number of sexual fantasies involve the other person in a subordinate position to themselves

theamazingbean:
Strictly speaking, yes innocent until proven guilty absolutely.

Off topic, liberals promulgated this environment with their "listen and believe" nonsense, it is absolutely hilarious watching it bite liberals in the ass.

Bite in the ass? How? I'm not a tribalistic at all costs type who votes for presidents who talk about grabbing people in the pussy. I care more about making sure sexual assault isn't a consequence free crime than making my side look good, thank you very much.

If Takei did this, and I hope he didn't, it shouldn't be swept under the rug.

Right now, anyone can say anything about anyone and it's going to be treated at least somewhat seriously.
"Johnny Depp fucked my mother in 1991, the motherfucker." Sure, why not?
It's going to stop once one of these accused rich and powerful people hires a great lawyer, sues the accuser and wins.
It's Hollywood we're talking about here, these people have the means to do it.
Spacey, for example, has a net worth of $80 million and he can use some of that money to get his career back if he feels like it.
I would do it even if I was guilty because most of these accusations are years old and can't be proven.

erttheking:

theamazingbean:
Strictly speaking, yes innocent until proven guilty absolutely.

Off topic, liberals promulgated this environment with their "listen and believe" nonsense, it is absolutely hilarious watching it bite liberals in the ass.

Bite in the ass? How? I'm not a tribalistic at all costs type who votes for presidents who talk about grabbing people in the pussy. I care more about making sure sexual assault isn't a consequence free crime than making my side look good, thank you very much.

If Takei did this, and I hope he didn't, it shouldn't be swept under the rug.

Because if he denies it (which he has) it makes him a hypocrite and ruins his credibility as any sort of advocate for sexual abuse movements. I don't know if Takei ever talked about the whole listen and believe thing though.

Even beyond that, accusations like these ruin people's credibility regardless. The best example I can think of is Angus Deaton and Whose Line Is It Anyway. He got photographed in a bondage themed brothel with cocaine. Afterward the show suffered because half of the entertainment was the back-and-forth between Deaton and the panel and after the scandal any joke Deaton made at the expense of the panel members could be countered with a joke about hookers or blow and he had no comeback. At one point I think Paul Merton (one of the two regular panelists) had the front page of the newspaper the story was on printed on a t-shirt and wore it on the show. It wasn't really funny anymore amd verging on depressing so they let Deaton go.

While I doubt Takei will be much affected since all he basically does now is attack Trump for easy retweets, Louis CKs career is basically over.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

erttheking:

theamazingbean:
Strictly speaking, yes innocent until proven guilty absolutely.

Off topic, liberals promulgated this environment with their "listen and believe" nonsense, it is absolutely hilarious watching it bite liberals in the ass.

Bite in the ass? How? I'm not a tribalistic at all costs type who votes for presidents who talk about grabbing people in the pussy. I care more about making sure sexual assault isn't a consequence free crime than making my side look good, thank you very much.

If Takei did this, and I hope he didn't, it shouldn't be swept under the rug.

Because if he denies it (which he has) it makes him a hypocrite and ruins his credibility as any sort of advocate for sexual abuse movements. I don't know if Takei ever talked about the whole listen and believe thing though.

Even beyond that, accusations like these ruin people's credibility regardless. The best example I can think of is Angus Deaton and Whose Line Is It Anyway. He got photographed in a bondage themed brothel with cocaine. Afterward the show suffered because half of the entertainment was the back-and-forth between Deaton and the panel and after the scandal any joke Deaton made at the expense of the panel members could be countered with a joke about hookers or blow and he had no comeback. At one point I think Paul Merton (one of the two regular panelists) had the front page of the newspaper the story was on printed on a t-shirt and wore it on the show. It wasn't really funny anymore amd verging on depressing so they let Deaton go.

While I doubt Takei will be much affected since all he basically does now is attack Trump for easy retweets, Louis CKs career is basically over.

...Wait, how is he a hypocrite? I honestly don't know how this makes him a hypocrite. There's a line between taking accusations of sexual assault seriously and crucifying everyone who is accused of it regardless of context, I know I've never advocated for the former. As for accusations hurting people no matter what, well, what are we supposed to do? We can't just make it so that all accusations are dismissed.

And CK, well, he kinda flat out said he did it and that it was wrong, if his career is ruined, he's the one that put the final nail in the coffin there.

Vanilla ISIS:
It's going to stop once one of these accused rich and powerful people hires a great lawyer, sues the accuser and wins.

Possibly, but some rape victims can be very determined in going after their attackers.

Rose McGowan has been after Weinstein for years. Apparently he hired security companies run by ex-Mossad agents to harass her and that didn't work.

A lot of victims will likely be frightened back into silence, yeah, but only takes a few who speak out to get the ball rolling.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

erttheking:

theamazingbean:
Strictly speaking, yes innocent until proven guilty absolutely.

Off topic, liberals promulgated this environment with their "listen and believe" nonsense, it is absolutely hilarious watching it bite liberals in the ass.

Bite in the ass? How? I'm not a tribalistic at all costs type who votes for presidents who talk about grabbing people in the pussy. I care more about making sure sexual assault isn't a consequence free crime than making my side look good, thank you very much.

If Takei did this, and I hope he didn't, it shouldn't be swept under the rug.

Because if he denies it (which he has) it makes him a hypocrite and ruins his credibility as any sort of advocate for sexual abuse movements.

I'd agree this ruins his advocacy. But denying isn't hypocracy yet (as he isn't guitly yet.) The whole 'listen and believe' thing doesn't negate a person's right to defend themselves as some pundits might make you think. It's that a story should be listened to and checked for validity before being dismissed.

To the OP: Stuff happens. I imagine that, until it affected a media personality that you liked, you didn't care. You may have even gleefully joined in on the bashing of the accused.

People love outrage, scandal and a reason to hate on someone, especially if that someone embodies or espouses a belief they don't share.

Basically Slipknot put it best People=Shit

kitsunefather:
I think, to put it less antagonistically, can you now understand why people were against the "listen and believe" narrative? That a single declaration should not be treated as the sole evidence necessary to presume guilt?

I don't think anyone ever advocated actually treating one accusation as the sole evidence necessary to establish guilt. It was more about not dismissing these kinds of allegations out of hand.

Sexual assault allegations against celebrities are uncomfortable for fans of those celebrities. They want to believe that their idols are decent people. Even if they don't acknowledge it consciously, they're thinking of reasons to not believe an allegation before they even hear the details.

The correct response is not to assume that all allegations are true. It is to give all allegations the same weight. People will readily accept allegations against people they don't like, but jump through hoops to find ways to exculpate the people they do. The point is to break out of that mold and stop letting your opinion of a celebrity's public image cloud your judgment. Give the allegations the same credit you would if the participants were complete strangers.

It's a pretty @#$%ed up situation all the way around.

On one hand, there's no lack of evidence that people who have been victims of sexual abuse have had a terrible time of it in the U.S. for a long, long time. (I'm not saying it's been sunshine and rainbows elsewhere, mind you, just that I don't have the frame of reference.) Colleges, churches, and other entrenched bureaucracies have been exposed covering up allegations of sexual abuse. Trials exposed victims to the tender mercies of mass publicity while defenders simultaneously sought to reveal anything that might be taken as weakness of judgement or character, smearing victims while re-opening often traumatic wounds. The simple fact of the matter is that when an abuser is known to the victim (as is usually the case), suddenly everyone in both peoples' social circles is going to be looking at them in a different light- and with the status quo being something many want to staunchly defend, many in that social circle are going to want to believe that it couldn't be true, that it's exaggerated, that the accusations are being made up.

On the other hand, a false accusation- and there have been some- can utterly ruin someone's life, even if it never goes to trial. The Atlantic did a multi-part piece about the fallout of the "51% belief in guilt" standard on college campuses, and some of the stories are utterly horrifying. "Victims" coached to believe that inconclusive or vague memories were signs of assault; counselors trained to wrongly interpret such signs as proof. People who were thrown out of college or denied scholarships because of accusations even the alleged victims themselves vehemently denied.

There's a not-at-all-quiet trend to believe that accusations of sexual abuse don't deserve the "innocent until proven guilty" standard, and in the meantime, the damage that can be done to someone by an accusation can make an actual legal accusation and the consequences seem positively gentle by comparison. Losing a career or a business you've spent decades making, a reputation you've worked hard to earn, your future because you can no longer attend classes- to pretend these are trivial matters is to approach the matter in a willful and arrogant ignorance.

It is unfortunate that we cannot seem to find a middle ground on these matters- we either treat every accusation as not merely valid but sacrosanct in the name of protecting the victim, or we treat victims with more cruelty and intense scrutiny than the person who may have actually committed a terrible crime.

No one wants to be the person who "coddles rapists". But we've gone so far the other way as to render going through the actual legal process in some cases irrelevant and unnecessary- the accusation alone is enough to ensure the accused will be punished.

And yet if the accused is guilty, how can we expect the victim to keep going to classes when their attacker will be present? How can we hesitate if there's a pattern of abuse that will continue in inaction?

If we were better people, we could protect someone who might be a victim and watch over someone who might be an assailant without preemptively passing judgment in the process. But we're not, and I don't think we're going to become so any time soon.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

, Louis CKs career is basically over.

I doubt it. The man was able to self finance a TV show out of pocket and sell it through his own website. He sells all his specials and albums through his own website and he sells tickets to his show through his website. His career will probably take a hit but as long as there's people to buy his stuff he's big enough that he doesn't need a middle man to sell it through.

Besides, as a comedian he makes jokes about rape and how much better white people have it. The extremes on both sides have decided he's the worst long ago because he's a beta cuck SJW rape apologist racist.

Callate:
No one wants to be the person who "coddles rapists".

A lot of people don't seem to mind. Again, Trump was accused of sexual assault and became PotUS, Polanski never denied raping a kid and went on to have a long career, the community of Steubenville etc.

In any case, it's not just a matter of leaning towards punish the guilty or leaning towards protect the innocent, there is also a massive lack of interest and resistance to getting anything done. In the US, for example, most rape kits aren't tested, people collect the samples, and put them into storage and throw them out when they need the room for something else. Private charities are having to try and collect the slack, because the authorities don't seem to care.

Thaluikhain:
A lot of people don't seem to mind. Again, Trump was accused of sexual assault and became PotUS, Polanski never denied raping a kid and went on to have a long career, the community of Steubenville etc.

In any case, it's not just a matter of leaning towards punish the guilty or leaning towards protect the innocent, there is also a massive lack of interest and resistance to getting anything done. In the US, for example, most rape kits aren't tested, people collect the samples, and put them into storage and throw them out when they need the room for something else. Private charities are having to try and collect the slack, because the authorities don't seem to care.

It's never easier not to care than when money is at stake. Staff, lab testing, and storage are all money that instead could go to things that make many people feel safer- officers on patrol, military-style hardware.

"Safer" until it's you or your family member who needs a rape kit, anyway.

I totally agree that it's ridiculous and cruel that private charities should need to do such a thing. And it's one more thing that prevents victims from coming forward with formal, legal complaints, which shouldn't be the case.

If Taekei comes out as straight, would that help? :P

Saelune:

theamazingbean:

Saelune:

Speaking of, I would have more faith in our judicial system if it did not protect murderous racist cops and if our government did not have a sex offender leading it.

You do realize neither of those is actually true, right? Liberal talking points != reality.

If you want to deny facts, thats on you.

I am not a Trump fan but can you provide me with information on the law he has broken/the crime he committed that warrants Trump being put in jail (as another user above said)? Sure, he's a moron/jock/sleazeball/whatever but being those is not a crime. If he has actually commited sexual assault, the justice system will pass the only judgement that should matter. Not you, not me, not the mob - only the law. Otherwise, there would be nothing but chaos.

As for the police part of your statement, you are insinuating that all cops (or at least a good proportion of them) are racists. This is something you cannot say without providing evidence that this is the case (and I dont mean some pie chart someone has knocked up - I mean figures and convictions of such).

undeadsuitor:
Is "office boss with a slutty secretary that sucks at office work but is great at sucking dick" not a boilerplate office fantasy?

I'm not accusing every man on the planet of rape, but I am saying that a large number of sexual fantasies involve the other person in a subordinate position to themselves

That's a flawed argument. You could argue the polar opposite with the teacher/student fantasy (a fantasy every bit as common as the one you have given an example of). Or the nurse/patient fantasy too. Both tend to be female teacher/nurse

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here