So about all of this sexual assault...

[RedRockRun]

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.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

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.

 

[Saelune]

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.

 

[kitsunefather]

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.

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?

 

[Saelune]

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.

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.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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?

 

[kitsunefather]

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.

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.

 

[Saelune]

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.

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.

 

[Burnswell]

I'm hearing some "all members of are responsible for '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.

 

[kitsunefather]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Saelune]

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?

 

[theamazingbean]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Erttheking]

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.

 

[Vanilla ISIS]

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 ************." 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.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

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.

 

[Erttheking]

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.