What We Talk About When We Talk About Cosby

[bjj hero]

What We Talk About When We Talk About Cosby

Separating the television personality from the real life figure is a challenge with a scandal like this one.

Read Full Article

You always seem to come down on the side of your celebrities in America. I guess Americans just love a winner.

Look at the allegations around R-Kelly. Michael Jacksons defence was along the the lines of "I only plied other peoples children with alcohol, nothing more. OJ Simpson walked. Look at how celebs fawn over Roman Polanski and and Woody Allen after some very nasty allegations. I could go on. This is nothing new, I was more shocked this has gained some traction with Cosby.

Then there are people like uk presenter John Lesley who was never charged with anything but never worked again. Also, what sort of a system lets you settle out of court for a rape allegation? I remember something about truth, something and the American way but the middle bit escapes me.

 

[jbucksnb]

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.

I mainly lurk here, but I had to sign in to ask something. Rape is a crime, something that should be reported to the proper authorities. School administrators aren't proper authorities for this. I understand it's difficult to go to the police, but that's what the situation is for. Taking a rape case to a college disciplinary committee is frightening and demeans actual sexual assault. If the guy's actually guilty of rape, he shouldn't just face discipline from the school. It should be a legal matter. But if he's not, then there's no legal recourse to fight what a closed-room committee says (my school, for example, doesn't allow lawyers in on hearings).

 

[Souplex]

(or however close a Z-list internet fixture like myself can get)

Bob, we need to talk about this. You're one of the bigger draws on one of the bigger sites on the InterWebs. You're A-list.
I know it's not as funny to be A-list, but you should just accept it already.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

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.

I mainly lurk here, but I had to sign in to ask something. Rape is a crime, something that should be reported to the proper authorities. School administrators aren't proper authorities for this. I understand it's difficult to go to the police, but that's what the situation is for. Taking a rape case to a college disciplinary committee is frightening and demeans actual sexual assault. If the guy's actually guilty of rape, he shouldn't just face discipline from the school. It should be a legal matter. But if he's not, then there's no legal recourse to fight what a closed-room committee says (my school, for example, doesn't allow lawyers in on hearings).

The proper authorities may be even more dismissive though, and considering the campus authorities have access to anywhere on the premises of the school, they actually may have an easier time investigating than the police.

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.

Yes, blame it on the hysterical womenfolk. We can't assume that one guy is a horrible person, instead we must assume numerous women are mentally unbalanced, based on just as little fucking evidence. We don't need to question them or anything, we can just assume that they are all bonkers because this case vaguely resembles another one that happened, while the same logic cannot be used to condemn Cosby based on the similarities between this case and Saville. Consistency is the least to ask when you start demanding that the court of public opinion follow the rules of innocence until proven guilty.

This is sleazy journalism guys.

Good thing it's an opinion column then.

 

[medv4380]

Yes, blame it on the hysterical womenfolk. We can't assume that one guy is a horrible person, instead we must assume numerous women are mentally unbalanced, based on just as little *** evidence. We don't need to question them or anything, we can just assume that they are all bonkers because this case vaguely resembles another one that happened, while the same logic cannot be used to condemn Cosby based on the similarities between this case and Saville. Consistency is the least to ask when you start demanding that the court of public opinion follow the rules of innocence until proven guilty.

Without a legal trial, and evidence to examine I will most definitely blame the hysteria. How about the similarities between this and the McMartins?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Yes, blame it on the hysterical womenfolk. We can't assume that one guy is a horrible person, instead we must assume numerous women are mentally unbalanced, based on just as little *** evidence. We don't need to question them or anything, we can just assume that they are all bonkers because this case vaguely resembles another one that happened, while the same logic cannot be used to condemn Cosby based on the similarities between this case and Saville. Consistency is the least to ask when you start demanding that the court of public opinion follow the rules of innocence until proven guilty.

Without a legal trial, and evidence to examine I will most definitely blame the hysteria. How about the similarities between this and the McMartins?

The similarities between this case and the McMartins are just as valid as a basis for condemning a bunch of random women as the similarities between this case and the Saville case.

So tell me, why are you willing to condemn two dozen women in the court of public opinion on insubstantial evidence but not Cosby?

 

[castlewise]

(or however close a Z-list internet fixture like myself can get)

Bob, we need to talk about this. You're one of the bigger draws on one of the bigger sites on the InterWebs. You're A-list.
I know it's not as funny to be A-list, but you should just accept it already.

MovieBob is a major contributor at a successful (?) gaming site. Z list is pretty accurate. For comparison http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/escapistmagazine.com and http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/cnn.com

 

[Alcaste]

Should we just start referring to MovieBob as the Patricia Hernandez of the Escapist? Because all this (alleged) rape talk screams click-bait sensationalism.

I bet everything regarding sensitive, adult topics is "click-bait sensationalism" to you, isn't it? Things like this need to be discussed, not squelched just because it makes you uncomfortable.

Snip

Speaking of bait, looks like I fell for it. I'm not going to apologize for what I said, because it's still relevant, but you have my condolences over the hardships that you've had to endure. Please, don't bait people into your trap to try to make them feel bad with hypocrisy. It won't work.

 

[Aitamen]

Personally, there are so very few people worthy of actual praise (offhand I can think of Steve Mann, Gremlin, and Mr. Rogers, with a smattering after that), that this isn't really surprising. I don't see a problem with condemning the person and their work. Whatever benefit Cosby had is already in the books, and that has its own meaning. Today, we can gladly tear it apart for it's harm that it's doing, and for the man himself if it's accurate.

In an age when supporting a person's work frequently means supporting the person, with traffic and pageviews and the like being worth something, we should be doing this a lot more frequently. Like... I can't stand that people watch Lindsey Stirling's stuff, given her connections to LDS and other anti-LGBT groups. I don't know why the idea of "judge art, not artists!" is a thing, given that it's not really possible to do so from a monetary sense, and the core of what we *should* be doing is educating ourselves about products and fighting against bullshit with our wallets...

(I'm not sure about Cosby's story, and whatever work he did was well enough outside my view that I've never seen him as anything other than an obnoxious twat unfamiliar with modern tech and morals, so I'm commenting on the general view, not really on him specifically, as I don't know the good he did to give a valid view of both sides).

 

[Karadalis]

I like how theres an (alleged) put infront of the accused name.. but no (alleged) infront of the victim, infact not a much is talked about the "alleged" victims kept for something among the lines of "some women in the past accused him of rape and nothing came of it, surely because of the patriarchy". It seems that the new code of cunduct is being followed with gnashed teeth.

Innocent until prooven guilty. And seeing that some of these women accusing bill cosby where all to ready to drop their fingers pointing at him when he threw money at them makes this whole thing seem rather suspicious.

 

[Darth_Payn]

Soooooooo, what was Bob's point in all this? Is he defending or condemning Cosby here?
You gotta admit, it is suspicious that so many women came out of the woodwork to make these claims of something 20+ years ago. I will not jump on board the "GUILTY!" bandwagon until a verdict is rendered. Because in this country, being innocent until proven guilty, like Judge Dredd, is THE LAW.

 

[medv4380]

Yes, blame it on the hysterical womenfolk. We can't assume that one guy is a horrible person, instead we must assume numerous women are mentally unbalanced, based on just as little *** evidence. We don't need to question them or anything, we can just assume that they are all bonkers because this case vaguely resembles another one that happened, while the same logic cannot be used to condemn Cosby based on the similarities between this case and Saville. Consistency is the least to ask when you start demanding that the court of public opinion follow the rules of innocence until proven guilty.

Without a legal trial, and evidence to examine I will most definitely blame the hysteria. How about the similarities between this and the McMartins?

The similarities between this case and the McMartins are just as valid as a basis for condemning a bunch of random women as the similarities between this case and the Saville case.

So tell me, why are you willing to condemn two dozen women in the court of public opinion on insubstantial evidence but not Cosby?

Cosby is the accused, and under the US Justice system he is innocent until proven guilty. That means that the burden of proof lies with his accusers, and all doubt unless they can prove otherwise. If they could prove otherwise they would have a court case, and ALL doubt lies with the accusers of any crime.

 

[totheendofsin]

perhaps is the lawyers blood in me, but I'm not comfortable with how crimes, especially crimes as horrible as rape, are often tried in the court of public opinion rather than an actual courtroom. Because public opinion is impossible to sway one way or the other, once they've decided whether you're guilty or innocent that's it.

At the same time though I can sympathize with those who are making the allegations, as I understand it it's really difficult to convict someone of rape, doubly so if that people has a significant amount of money like Cosby, so it's tempting to simply go to the public and try to ruin their reputation rather than spend a ton of money and not even have a guarantee that the person will be punished.

As for if I think he did it or not, well innocent until proven guilty of course but I do think it's plausible he raped some, if not all of the women, however I feel it's equally plausible that some of the women are simply making up allegations for 15 minutes of fame and the possibility that Cosby will pay them to stop talking about it.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Yes, blame it on the hysterical womenfolk. We can't assume that one guy is a horrible person, instead we must assume numerous women are mentally unbalanced, based on just as little *** evidence. We don't need to question them or anything, we can just assume that they are all bonkers because this case vaguely resembles another one that happened, while the same logic cannot be used to condemn Cosby based on the similarities between this case and Saville. Consistency is the least to ask when you start demanding that the court of public opinion follow the rules of innocence until proven guilty.

Without a legal trial, and evidence to examine I will most definitely blame the hysteria. How about the similarities between this and the McMartins?

The similarities between this case and the McMartins are just as valid as a basis for condemning a bunch of random women as the similarities between this case and the Saville case.

So tell me, why are you willing to condemn two dozen women in the court of public opinion on insubstantial evidence but not Cosby?

Cosby is the accused, and under the US Justice system he is innocent until proven guilty. That means that the burden of proof lies with his accusers, and all doubt unless they can prove otherwise. If they could prove otherwise they would have a court case, and ALL doubt lies with the accusers of any crime.

You are not doubting them. You are accusing them of being hysterical. There is a substantial difference. Also, this is not a court of law, it is the court of public opinion.

 

[Kameburger]

You know what, I think we need to stop publicly lynching everyone before there is even a trial? I understand that we have a tendency to side with the accuser as often it sends a terrible message to side with someone who is being accused of something as unforgivable as rape, but we are seriously hitting a stage in our society where our mob mentality is allowed to take over in a matter of seconds. And when this mob rule takes over, we defend it because we are meant to. We sit in a world where once we establish a moral high ground, no one cares about the system or the facts. They enshrine their first impression, and then lash out like corned raccoon's when challenged.

Philosophically there is a reason that our legal system emphasizes that the burden of proof is on the accuser. Meaning that someone is innocent until proven guilty. The philosophical reason is precisely because simply accusing people is enough to inflict a lot of damage onto someone, and it gives a strong outlet for those who wish to, to take advantage of the system.

I am not saying Rape claims are what ever % true or false, I'm not even really talking about rape. But Michael Jackson was accused the same way and nothing was ever proven, and now whether its true or not his memory will be forever tarnished by the accusations made against him. With Cosby, there has been no evidence, and no trial, and we run this risk of the same thing happening over and over and over again. If you are going to publicly shame someone for what ever reason, back it up.

If you have been wronged and the system isn't able to protect you because there is no proof, my heart bleeds for you, but at the same time, I don't think out legal system is useful if being accused is all it takes to effectively exile someone from normal society. Public sentiment does little to impact the facts of a case. Ever.

 

[Baresark]

This whole thing makes me uncomfortable. I see articles like this on the reg these days and they seemingly seek a triumph of emotion over reason. We all want to see criminals of all kinds pay their dues. I would love to see every rapist thrown in jail and the key thrown away. As a society, we cannot work off of people's words alone. If you do not go to the police immediately after the event or to a doctor to get checked, it's a real tragedy and it sucks, but words are not enough. In a society built on reason, witch hunts cannot be condoned. I would love to see Bill Cosby be shown to be guilty and thrown in jail more than anything.

Also, I can't help but think Bob is over-estimating the importance of Bill Cosby to "all of black society". To think that one man somehow speaks to and about a whole sector of society is bullshit. It's literally the ramblings of an over educated white guy about something he doesn't know anything about.

 

[medv4380]

Yes, blame it on the hysterical womenfolk. We can't assume that one guy is a horrible person, instead we must assume numerous women are mentally unbalanced, based on just as little *** evidence. We don't need to question them or anything, we can just assume that they are all bonkers because this case vaguely resembles another one that happened, while the same logic cannot be used to condemn Cosby based on the similarities between this case and Saville. Consistency is the least to ask when you start demanding that the court of public opinion follow the rules of innocence until proven guilty.

Without a legal trial, and evidence to examine I will most definitely blame the hysteria. How about the similarities between this and the McMartins?

The similarities between this case and the McMartins are just as valid as a basis for condemning a bunch of random women as the similarities between this case and the Saville case.

So tell me, why are you willing to condemn two dozen women in the court of public opinion on insubstantial evidence but not Cosby?

Cosby is the accused, and under the US Justice system he is innocent until proven guilty. That means that the burden of proof lies with his accusers, and all doubt unless they can prove otherwise. If they could prove otherwise they would have a court case, and ALL doubt lies with the accusers of any crime.

You are not doubting them. You are accusing them of being hysterical. There is a substantial difference. Also, this is not a court of law, it is the court of public opinion.

Read the original post. I am claiming that taking a large number of claims as proof that the claim is true is because Mass Hysteria not hysteria can reasonably explain said phenomena. Accusations alone are not evidence nor are they proof of anything.

Also, the Court of Public opinion can be an immoral Inquisition like Italy used to be with guilty until proven innocent, or it can be the less immoral adversarial model with Innocent Until Proven Guilty. I oppose foolish models prone to witch hunts.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Yes, blame it on the hysterical womenfolk. We can't assume that one guy is a horrible person, instead we must assume numerous women are mentally unbalanced, based on just as little *** evidence. We don't need to question them or anything, we can just assume that they are all bonkers because this case vaguely resembles another one that happened, while the same logic cannot be used to condemn Cosby based on the similarities between this case and Saville. Consistency is the least to ask when you start demanding that the court of public opinion follow the rules of innocence until proven guilty.

Without a legal trial, and evidence to examine I will most definitely blame the hysteria. How about the similarities between this and the McMartins?

The similarities between this case and the McMartins are just as valid as a basis for condemning a bunch of random women as the similarities between this case and the Saville case.

So tell me, why are you willing to condemn two dozen women in the court of public opinion on insubstantial evidence but not Cosby?

Cosby is the accused, and under the US Justice system he is innocent until proven guilty. That means that the burden of proof lies with his accusers, and all doubt unless they can prove otherwise. If they could prove otherwise they would have a court case, and ALL doubt lies with the accusers of any crime.

You are not doubting them. You are accusing them of being hysterical. There is a substantial difference. Also, this is not a court of law, it is the court of public opinion.

Read the original post. I am claiming that taking a large number of claims as proof that the claim is true is because Mass Hysteria not hysteria can reasonably explain said phenomena. Accusations alone are not evidence nor are they proof of anything.

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.

You are claiming that they are hysterical (Mass Hysteria is still hysteria, as useless of a term as that may be). Where is your fucking proof? How is it actually anymore substantial than that of the people comparing this to Saville?

Also, the Court of Public opinion can be an immoral Inquisition like Italy used to be with guilty until proven innocent, or it can be the less immoral adversarial model with Innocent Until Proven Guilty. I oppose foolish models prone to witch hunts.

Fine. I find such an absolute stance to be problematic myself, but fine, go ahead and think that way. Better to have ideas than apathy.

The problem is you aren't thinking that way at all. You feel just fine condemning these women without substantial enough evidence to satisfy a court of law. GIVE ME A FUCKING EXPLANATION.

 

[medv4380]

snip

There's no sense in continuing this if you can't keep your language, and caps under control. Give it a day to calm down to think rationally. Then we may continue.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

lets talk about this exact situation happening with two other comedians... there's a jim jefferies special in which he describes a night in a hotel room with a coked out movie star comedian who got very rapey. While there is no 100% sure identification of this individual, the possibilities have been narrowed down to David Cross, Robin Williams, and Tim Allen, the latter of which seems most likely.