What We Talk About When We Talk About Cosby
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't know, I'm never a fan of condemning someone based solely on allegations with obviously no evidence or he would have been charged years ago. The internet hate machine doesn't really need evidence to get going, and public outcry has been completely weaponized by certain ideological groups. Then again, this is always the sticky thing with rape as it's 90% of the time a "he said, she said" and Cosby has the much bigger voice, leading to a greater possibility of injustice.
I'm one that's known to separate good artistic works from the people that make them, and can still enjoy the Cosby show (which I saw on reruns on Nick at Night as a kid) and his comedy routines without really having to worry about whether or not the allegations are true.
I'm one that's known to separate good artistic works from the people that make them, and can still enjoy the Cosby show (which I saw on reruns on Nick at Night as a kid) and his comedy routines without really having to worry about whether or not the allegations are true.
This is probably the most pathetic example of the use of 'alleged' I've ever seen. You could take every one of them out of the piece and assume without context that Cosby had already been proven guilty.
So, y'know, instead of catapulting over the gun we kind of NOT assume shit, especially given the seriousness of the allegations. It's this kind of stuff that has unfairly screwed over people in the past.
So, y'know, instead of catapulting over the gun we kind of NOT assume shit, especially given the seriousness of the allegations. It's this kind of stuff that has unfairly screwed over people in the past.
This is why I try to maintain (if not necessarily achieve) a sort of objective eye when it comes to the real-life controversy of actors and the characters they portray. (Though it can become increasingly difficult, especially when the character/actors are portrayed in live action look alike or act alike).
To me, Bill Cosby in real life is different from Dr. Cliff Huxtable. I try to separate the two so I can judge each on their own merits. I may look up to Mr. Huxtable's character, but I can also condemn Mr. Cosby's actions in real life, if need be.
But, I'll also reflect the other sentiments posted here. I won't be able to judge what actually happened until we move past the allegations and into a court of law. These are serious accusations and I would like to see proof before I make a judgement. If Mr. Cosby is guilty, I hope he faces justice.
To me, Bill Cosby in real life is different from Dr. Cliff Huxtable. I try to separate the two so I can judge each on their own merits. I may look up to Mr. Huxtable's character, but I can also condemn Mr. Cosby's actions in real life, if need be.
But, I'll also reflect the other sentiments posted here. I won't be able to judge what actually happened until we move past the allegations and into a court of law. These are serious accusations and I would like to see proof before I make a judgement. If Mr. Cosby is guilty, I hope he faces justice.
If you don't want to believe the allegations against Cosby as they haven't been proved, I can certainly understand that. He is innocent until proven guilty; that's how our criminal justice system works. But I'd like to talk about this claim a little bit, because it's not true. People do awful things and their families never find out, or never want to find out, or can't face them.piscian said:
EDIT: I shared a story here originally, but even though I'm posting this through a throwaway, I've had a change of heart. This isn't my story to tell, even anonymously.
To summarize the important part: Stuff like this does happen. People are very uncomfortable confronting things like this and very, VERY comfortable pretending it isn't happening. And monsters don't walk around kicking puppies and cackling to themselves--they build relationships and friendships, either for the same reasons we do or to allow them to get away with preying on other people.
No, we don't. We like muckraking, but we defend celebrities, too--a lot. We like finding reasons they're not guilty, even if those reasons don't make sense, or justifying or excusing their behavior. We look for reasons to discredit the accuser instead of approaching the case with new eyes.
If I would ask anything of you, it's: do that.
Don't decide he's guilty. But don't, please, please, please don't, for the sake of all the people you know who have been sexually assaulted who haven't found the courage to tell you or anyone, decide he's innocent. Because that's what we all want to do.
This kind of talk of (older) celebrities being protected by fame is totally breaking down here in the UK. Type Jimmy Savville into google, and you will only find results about his horrific, disgusting, abhorrent crimes, along with dozens of other celebrities of his generation. DJ's, television presenters, even Rolf Harris, paedophiles; and every day we're finding more crimes attributed to such people. Saville unfortunately died before any justice could be dished out, but if it was anything like Rolf Harris's conviction, he would likely recieve a short prison sentence, despite the entire country despising him.
The police protected these people in the past and disregarded the victims. "He's on television!" To them, and most of the public, it was entirely impossible they would be capable of even the slightest wrongdoings. Now though as the truth comes out, we're seeing feeble apology after feeble apology from people who could have made a difference back then, but chose not to.
That said, alot, and oh BOY do I mean alot of people are being wrongly convicted of rape. It used to be real victims would be insulted for having the gall to say such things about celebrities. Now however that these convictions are being taken seriously, a lot of people are pretending they were raped for lawsuit money. Its disgusting, and they take credibility away from the real victims. Sure, a lot, A LOT of presenters in the 70s were rapists, like a ridiculous amount, but not all were.
AND NEITHER WAS KEN BARLOW!
The police protected these people in the past and disregarded the victims. "He's on television!" To them, and most of the public, it was entirely impossible they would be capable of even the slightest wrongdoings. Now though as the truth comes out, we're seeing feeble apology after feeble apology from people who could have made a difference back then, but chose not to.
That said, alot, and oh BOY do I mean alot of people are being wrongly convicted of rape. It used to be real victims would be insulted for having the gall to say such things about celebrities. Now however that these convictions are being taken seriously, a lot of people are pretending they were raped for lawsuit money. Its disgusting, and they take credibility away from the real victims. Sure, a lot, A LOT of presenters in the 70s were rapists, like a ridiculous amount, but not all were.
AND NEITHER WAS KEN BARLOW!
Cosby embraced a new public role as a voice of (socially) conservative scolding against elements of black pop culture -- railing against African-esque baby names and entreating young Black men in particular to "Pull [their] damn pants up!"
You know, I wonder how much of his social conservatism was a deliberate attempt to protect himself from public outrage by making the moneyed class see him as one of their own: so long as the rich kids saw him as part of their tribe, or at least, as one useful "Good People Know They Must Remain Deferential to Traditional Social Hierarchies" propagandist, Cosby was unlikely to become the next target for a coordinated attack campaign by conservative punditry.
***
I don't know, I'm never a fan of condemning someone based solely on allegations
One person making accusations may be mere allegations
Two or three persons may be the very unlikely but not entirely impossible event that one person's fame attracted several unstable people willing to do anything to get their fifteen minutes of glory.
Two God-Fucking Dozen people telling the same tale is a wealthy and powerful rapist who used his clout and money to treat several other Human Beings as if they were lifeless sex toys and get away with it.
You know, I wonder how much of his social conservatism was a deliberate attempt to protect himself from public outrage by making the moneyed class see him as one of their own: so long as the rich kids saw him as part of their tribe, or at least, as one useful "Good People Know They Must Remain Deferential to Traditional Social Hierarchies" propagandist, Cosby was unlikely to become the next target for a coordinated attack campaign by conservative punditry.
***
I don't know, I'm never a fan of condemning someone based solely on allegations
One person making accusations may be mere allegations
Two or three persons may be the very unlikely but not entirely impossible event that one person's fame attracted several unstable people willing to do anything to get their fifteen minutes of glory.
Two God-Fucking Dozen people telling the same tale is a wealthy and powerful rapist who used his clout and money to treat several other Human Beings as if they were lifeless sex toys and get away with it.
And yet, despite 2 dozen accusations, not a shred of proof good enough for a court of law to act upon has been brought forward. Think about that. 2 dozen rapes, throughout his life, wherein he leaves no physical evidence? In this day and age of DNA tests?Nixou said:
I ain't saying the man is innocent or guilty. I don't know. I'm just pointing out that, despite your ridiculous argument that 0 evidence x 24 people comes up to something more than 0 evidence x 3 people, which is... ridiculous, you don't know either.
OT: What even is this. The man, thus far, is guilty of nothing. This article feels... dirty. Gross. Like taking a picture of a random dude, putting it on posters, and leaving them up everywhere saying THIS MAN COULD RAPE YOU.
This is sleazy journalism guys. If you wanted to make the point that men in the past haven't been as susceptible to scandals as women (which... I don't know if that's really true), you could have chosen someone who was actually proven guilty or had video tape evidence, like that NFL guy, who got off light. Going after someone without anything more than allegations means you're contributing to damage to his reputation that may not even be warranted. I don't even give a damn about Cosby, but this... ugh.
Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Well at this point and time you pretty much make the fictional character "Doctor Heathcliff Huxtable" untouchable as the ideal mix that with the common sense message Cosby had/has done. This ideal or train of thought should be separated from the man himself. Destroying his legacy is all well and fine unless it destroys reasonable common sense ideas. Tho people will mindlessly rail against everything he was as people in groups tend to be short sighted....
The legal system is what it is. People didn't stop talking about OJ or Casey Anthony as if he was guilty after he was acquitted. The fact is that if given a certain amount of money, fame, power, etc. that it makes you very hard to touch, legally. We all like to pretend like the justice system is blind to these things and that there are no systemic problems, but there are. That doesn't mean Cosby is guilty of everything he is accused of, but it does mean that if he did it wouldn't be that hard to get away with it. His silence only works to condemn him, though. As much as the birther nonsense was nonsense- it only reached the level that it did because Obama was unwilling to address it on any real level. If accusations are silly then it should be very easy to disprove them, or otherwise explain the situation in a way that is convincing. Not just a lawyer statement saying how absurd it all is.
I know how hard it is to come out and accuse public figures who'd wronged you especially if you know about the historical sex abuse in england.
But this? I can't help but be defensive of Cosby not because of his status but because it just so happens to pop up once again when he decides to get back and potentially boost the industry and his profile, these claims weren't there when he was doing charity work, they didn't come out when the trouble in Philadelphia was big and you only got a few sound bites of these allegations on the internet. When he was mostly out of the public eye did this flare up like a bad rash.
I know he settled out of court for many of these allegations, on the assumption that he didn't do it I don't think he should have paid but I know just how easy the west can destroy a black man, so I understand. but but when he goes about making more money these women decided to put a stop to that seeing as they can't put him in prison for "what he did".
At this point, at this level this it's all just sleazy and it's like they're trying to keep him down.
*Sigh* I don't know. I tend to believe no side in these cases, so for now i'll maintain that.
But this? I can't help but be defensive of Cosby not because of his status but because it just so happens to pop up once again when he decides to get back and potentially boost the industry and his profile, these claims weren't there when he was doing charity work, they didn't come out when the trouble in Philadelphia was big and you only got a few sound bites of these allegations on the internet. When he was mostly out of the public eye did this flare up like a bad rash.
I know he settled out of court for many of these allegations, on the assumption that he didn't do it I don't think he should have paid but I know just how easy the west can destroy a black man, so I understand. but but when he goes about making more money these women decided to put a stop to that seeing as they can't put him in prison for "what he did".
At this point, at this level this it's all just sleazy and it's like they're trying to keep him down.
*Sigh* I don't know. I tend to believe no side in these cases, so for now i'll maintain that.
Ad Populum Fallacy. Just because a lot of people believe something to be true doesn't make it true.Nixou said:
You should look up the McMartin Preschool Trial if you believe many accusations mean assuming guilt is appropriate. Unless you think thinks the Devil himself was involved in the acquittal. If that's what you believe then there is no hope for you with this rabbit hole.
Until there is a trial, and conviction based on the evidence this is little more than mass hysteria. One person made a claim in 2005, and a whole bunch of women, who happen to be more susceptible to mass hysteria, came out with an identical claim. Had their claims had a sense of natural variance, been made in chronological order, or had evidence then I'd be more inclined believe them.
There have been a couple of cases of essentially that happening on college campuses. One listed every male-sounding student name as a "potential rapist" at University of Maryland, Oberlin had a "Rapist of the Month" poster by Take Back the Night, at Brown in 1990 and Columbia this year "Rapist Lists" were written on bathroom walls.Supahewok said:
More on topic, I found a YouTube video that talks about the Cosby mess from wildly different perspectives than Bob's, there's apparently a part 2 coming soon, as well.
And yet, despite 2 dozen accusations, not a shred of proof good enough for a court of law to act upon has been brought forward
Which would never have been the case had he not been as wealthy and well connected as he is.
***
Think about that. 2 dozen rapes, throughout his life, wherein he leaves no physical evidence? In this day and age of DNA tests?
In case you failed to notice it, CSI is a work of fiction, in this real day and age, the handling of forensic evidences in the USA joke [http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/federal-review-stalled-after-finding-forensic-errors-by-fbi-lab-unit-spanned-two-decades/2014/07/29/04ede880-11ee-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html]
***
Ad Populum Fallacy. Just because a lot of people believe something to be true doesn't make it true.
It's not "a lot of people believe something and may be wrong": it's "A lot of people say «This guy raped ME»" the only way for all of them to be wrong is for all of them to be either liars or insane, and given how rare false accusations of rape are, the chances that so many liars and lunatics spontaneously ganged up on one single individual is so infinitely small as to be irrelevant.
***
You should look up the McMartin Preschool Trial
The McMartins were not powerful millionaires noticed after browbeating dozens of people into silence over a period of several decades before countless dupes bamboozled by fictional characters they played on TV started to play internet apologist.
Which would never have been the case had he not been as wealthy and well connected as he is.
***
Think about that. 2 dozen rapes, throughout his life, wherein he leaves no physical evidence? In this day and age of DNA tests?
In case you failed to notice it, CSI is a work of fiction, in this real day and age, the handling of forensic evidences in the USA joke [http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/federal-review-stalled-after-finding-forensic-errors-by-fbi-lab-unit-spanned-two-decades/2014/07/29/04ede880-11ee-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html]
***
Ad Populum Fallacy. Just because a lot of people believe something to be true doesn't make it true.
It's not "a lot of people believe something and may be wrong": it's "A lot of people say «This guy raped ME»" the only way for all of them to be wrong is for all of them to be either liars or insane, and given how rare false accusations of rape are, the chances that so many liars and lunatics spontaneously ganged up on one single individual is so infinitely small as to be irrelevant.
***
You should look up the McMartin Preschool Trial
The McMartins were not powerful millionaires noticed after browbeating dozens of people into silence over a period of several decades before countless dupes bamboozled by fictional characters they played on TV started to play internet apologist.
I don't know where Bob is coming from about Cosby being protected from mockery; the only exposure I've had to anything connected to him in the decade or so that he's been out of the spotlight were the episodes of The Simpsons and Family Guy that made fun of his rants about black culture and being out-of-touch with society.
"YASEE, THE KIDS THESE DAYS, THEY LISTEN TO THE RAP MUSIC, WHICH GIVES THEM THE BRAIN DAMAGE! ZIP-ZOP ZOOBIDEE BOP! ...POKEYMAN?!! WITH THE POKEY AND THE MAN AND THE THING WITH THE GUY COMES OUT OF THE THING..."
As far as I can tell, the man has been fair game for some time now and I'm kind of surprised this didn't break sooner.
"YASEE, THE KIDS THESE DAYS, THEY LISTEN TO THE RAP MUSIC, WHICH GIVES THEM THE BRAIN DAMAGE! ZIP-ZOP ZOOBIDEE BOP! ...POKEYMAN?!! WITH THE POKEY AND THE MAN AND THE THING WITH THE GUY COMES OUT OF THE THING..."
As far as I can tell, the man has been fair game for some time now and I'm kind of surprised this didn't break sooner.
[citation neededProtoChimp said:
Jimmy Savile, look it up. The man abused dozens of children over a period of decades, it was known about at the time by people in the media, politics, and the police yet it was repeatedly covered up and none of the allegations made within his lifetime were allowed to get anywhere near the courts. Only after the vile old shit finally died was the story allowed to come out, and frankly I doubt it would have been allowed out even then if not for the fact that parts of the BBC were involved in covering up his behaviour and a lot of the modern media and political establishment love any story that damages the BBC.piscian said:
People assume celebrity makes it more likely your improprieties will be discovered, but it depends entirely on who makes the discoveries, if the wrong people find out a celebrity is a paedo or a rapist they'll happily cover it up to protect their own reputation or that of their organisation if said celebrity was involved with them, other people will indulge in victim blaming because of their own archaic attitudes towards rape, others still will react as you have and simply refuse to believe it's true and so cover it up to protect a person they consider as having been wrongfully and maliciously accused. People also forget that a lot of this alleged behaviour happened years ago, in the days before literally almost everybody carries a high resolution camera in their pocket everywhere they go, and the balance of power between tabloid media and "household name" popular celebrities was different.
While I don't condone this kind of behaviour...I can understand why it happens. [http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119] College rapists are almost never punished even if caught and, in a lot of places, a victim will have to go up against an administration dismissive of rape or keen to cover up the scale of the problem, plus large numbers of their fellow students who will see them as a whiny "regretful slut" or accuse them of disloyalty, on top of the normal issues with police that don't take rape seriously.Schadrach said:
Everyone should be innocent until proven guilty, and I have serious issues with people who just assume a man is a rapist/paedophile simply because they've been accused of it - but you can't pretend these issues exist in a vacuum, the reality is that regardless of what people say, when the times comes a LOT of people are still dismissive of rape victims, and even in the few cases where the victim is taken seriously, does find officials willing to fight on their behalf, and there is physical evidence of the rape, even after they go through a court case in which THEY will often be put on trial moreso than the rapist, both the defence team and the media accusing them of being a drunken promiscuous slut and any number of other things, even then many rapists will walk away without being convicted.
The McMartins were convicted of molesting children in the name of Satan. Problem was the accusers were suffering from Mass Hysteria. They believed that they were raped in the name of the devil. It's a pretty common problem with Mass Hysteria, and I would expect a television personality to get dragged into a case of mass hysteria more than the nobody McMartins since Mass Hysteria is actually contagious though Media.Nixou said: