What We Talk About When We Talk About Cosby

[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.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

I only have two things to say, which I haven't already on my facebook comment.

Kobe. Bryant.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

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.

Just answer the damn question. I am going through this rationally. Why are you willing to condemn these women while going on and on about the importance of innocence until proven guilty? You have no substantial evidence that they are lying, you have no substantial evidence that this is a case of mass hysteria, yet you are willing to make this judgement anyway, in violation of your own principles. Why?

And for the record, I swear because I don't fucking care, and I use caps because bold tags take time.

 

[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.

Just answer the damn question. I am going through this rationally. Why are you willing to condemn these women while going on and on about the importance of innocence until proven guilty? You have no substantial evidence that they are lying, you have no substantial evidence that this is a case of mass hysteria, yet you are willing to make this judgement anyway, in violation of your own principles. Why?

And for the record, I swear because I don't *** care, and I use caps because bold tags take time.

If you don't understand why the accuser must prove their accusation beyond just Hearsay which is where we are at then you're not thinking rationally. Simply saying "There's so many it must be true" is a fallacious argument, and that counter for it is that masses can be susceptible to mass hysteria like with the McMartins. If you care about justice then the accusers must prove their case against Cosby. Not use "Look there's so many it must be true".

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

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.

Just answer the damn question. I am going through this rationally. Why are you willing to condemn these women while going on and on about the importance of innocence until proven guilty? You have no substantial evidence that they are lying, you have no substantial evidence that this is a case of mass hysteria, yet you are willing to make this judgement anyway, in violation of your own principles. Why?

And for the record, I swear because I don't *** care, and I use caps because bold tags take time.

If you don't understand why the accuser must prove their accusation beyond just Hearsay which is where we are at then you're not thinking rationally.

I agree. Guess what? I never talked about that though. It has nothing to do with my issues with what you were saying so I did not mention it. I have made a couple passing statements about how I don't think the court of public opinion should be held to the innocent until proven guilty standard, but I never said that hearsay is enough to condemn Cosby. I never condemned Cosby. In this thread, I have only taken issue with the logic behind your arguments and accusations, and their inconsistency.

Simply saying "There's so many it must be true" is a fallacious argument, and that counter for it is that masses can be susceptible to mass hysteria like with the McMartins. If you care about justice then the accusers must prove their case against Cosby. Not use "Look there's so many it must be true".

You did not say it could be mass hysteria. You said it was. Why?

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Not sure how women from 20 years a go can prosecute, statute of limitations says 5 years. Still, I plan on waiting for the actual evidence before I say something. Better to have the facts than be wrong.

Back On Topic...

I think that separating fantasy from real life is a problem a lot of people seem to have. They think that any infraction (no matter how severe) is just cause to destroy all the good works they may have done. We should treat them as individual as possible. Don't let the bad impact the good they have done.

 

[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.

Just answer the damn question. I am going through this rationally. Why are you willing to condemn these women while going on and on about the importance of innocence until proven guilty? You have no substantial evidence that they are lying, you have no substantial evidence that this is a case of mass hysteria, yet you are willing to make this judgement anyway, in violation of your own principles. Why?

And for the record, I swear because I don't *** care, and I use caps because bold tags take time.

If you don't understand why the accuser must prove their accusation beyond just Hearsay which is where we are at then you're not thinking rationally.

I agree. Guess what? I never talked about that though. It has nothing to do with my issues with what you were saying so I did not mention it. I have made a couple passing statements about how I don't think the court of public opinion should be held to the innocent until proven guilty standard, but I never said that hearsay is enough to condemn Cosby. I never condemned Cosby. In this thread, I have only taken issue with the logic behind your arguments and accusations, and their inconsistency.

Simply saying "There's so many it must be true" is a fallacious argument, and that counter for it is that masses can be susceptible to mass hysteria like with the McMartins. If you care about justice then the accusers must prove their case against Cosby. Not use "Look there's so many it must be true".

You did not say it could be mass hysteria. You said it was. Why?

If you do not side with Innocent Until Proven Guilty then you side with an Inquisition Guilty Until Proven Innocent. There is no middle ground. Inquisitions are little more than Witch Hunts, and care little for justice.

You clearly missed context from the original post if you're still asking "Why?" like a that. Perhaps you could use learn to ask questions first before loosing your composure next time.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

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.

Just answer the damn question. I am going through this rationally. Why are you willing to condemn these women while going on and on about the importance of innocence until proven guilty? You have no substantial evidence that they are lying, you have no substantial evidence that this is a case of mass hysteria, yet you are willing to make this judgement anyway, in violation of your own principles. Why?

And for the record, I swear because I don't *** care, and I use caps because bold tags take time.

If you don't understand why the accuser must prove their accusation beyond just Hearsay which is where we are at then you're not thinking rationally.

I agree. Guess what? I never talked about that though. It has nothing to do with my issues with what you were saying so I did not mention it. I have made a couple passing statements about how I don't think the court of public opinion should be held to the innocent until proven guilty standard, but I never said that hearsay is enough to condemn Cosby. I never condemned Cosby. In this thread, I have only taken issue with the logic behind your arguments and accusations, and their inconsistency.

Simply saying "There's so many it must be true" is a fallacious argument, and that counter for it is that masses can be susceptible to mass hysteria like with the McMartins. If you care about justice then the accusers must prove their case against Cosby. Not use "Look there's so many it must be true".

You did not say it could be mass hysteria. You said it was. Why?

If you do not side with Innocent Until Proven Guilty then you side with an Inquisition Guilty Until Proven Innocent. There is no middle ground. Inquisitions are little more than Witch Hunts, and care little for justice.

I just don't assume anything until I have enough evidence to convince myself. That's it. And your whole "no middle ground" thing is pretty bullshit. In a realistic situation, there is almost always some middle ground, or at least some ground other than the two far sides.

You clearly missed context from the original post if you're still asking "Why?" like a that. Perhaps you could use learn to ask questions first before loosing your composure next time.

Funny, because I have been asking this exact same question for a while, and you still haven't answered it. Why are you willing to condemn these women, say that their claims are false and that they are the result of mass hysteria, but not condemn Cosby, despite both arguments having equal supporting evidence?

I am composed. Your accusations to the contrary are a waste of fucking time. I was a dick earlier because I am a dick. I was a dick before then, I will be a dick after. You and your posts have nothing to do with my dickishness.

 

[Gizen]

To all the people saying that judgment needs to be reserved so as to maintain the belief of innocence until proven guilty...

That's kind of the problem.

The thing about sexual assault is that not only is it one of the most horrible crimes one can commit, it's also one of the most difficult to prove. Unless the person doing the assault is incredibly incompetent, a sexual assault case is almost always going to come down to 'he said, she said'. And, it's the truth that 'she said so' is usually not going to pass as evidence. At that point, what do you do?

How do you balance the alleged criminal's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty with the victim's right to the pursuit of justice? How do you stop a monster from committing heinous crimes when it's virtually impossible to prove he's committing them at all?

This is ultimately why sexual assault cases in the courts are virtually ALWAYS stacked against the victim, because the presumption of innocence means that the burden of proof is laid upon them. Ultimately their lives and reputation will almost always be dragged through the dirt if they try to see justice done, only for them to fail to get a conviction in the end.

Then people are always shocked by reports that sexual assault is so prevalent, so often goes unreported, and usually unpunished.

I have no good solution to this problem, nobody does. But, at the end of the day, if you have 20 or so completely unrelated people coming forward to say 'this guy raped me', and they're asking for justice, not money, then I think it's time to at least be giving THEM the benefit of the doubt, not the rich and powerful 'alleged' abuser who likely never will be, never even can be, punished by the courts regardless of how many people turn against him.

 

[TheRiddler]

Look, to all those citing the "innocent until proven guilty" thing, that really is exclusive to the law. And in the law, this is necessary, because this guilt (in the legal system) is backed up by concrete punishments, some of which cannot be taken back.

In my personal view, separate from the legal necessity of favoring the defendant, I see nothing wrong with allowing these charges leveled against Cosby (late enough that the statute of limitations will nonetheless protect him legally) to detract from my impression of him as a person.

 

[UberPubert]

The thing about sexual assault is that not only is it one of the most horrible crimes one can commit,

In your opinion.

Personally I would take sexual assault over being murdered or otherwise violently assaulted, or having my more expensive possessions destroyed, especially when said sexual assault leaves no signs of physical trauma (forced entry, restraint, physical coercion, etc.), DNA evidence (such as saliva, semen, etc) or the presence of drugs (such as ruphylin).

Because then it sounds a lot less like sexual assault and a lot more like sexual contact. Unwanted as it may be, it does not rate in my top five of "horrible" crimes.

it's also one of the most difficult to prove. Unless the person doing the assault is incredibly incompetent, a sexual assault case is almost always going to come down to 'he said, she said'.

If there's a complete lack of evidence or witness testimonial, then yes, that's what's going to happen. The same as if someone had five dollars stolen from them out of their pocket with no harm to their person and no evidence the dollar had actually been in their pocket in the first place, and the other person equally as likely to have owned the dollar.

Just because the severity of the crime is increased does not change the principle of the matter; if there is no way of knowing whether someone is guilty or innocent, it is better to presume innocence - especially when the possible sentence is so harsh.

You're walking the line between letting a criminal go free for something that has left no evidence behind and ruining an innocent person's life for no substantial reason.

How do you balance the alleged criminal's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty with the victim's right to the pursuit of justice?

You say "alleged criminal" but leave no ambiguity as to whether or not someone is a "victim". This is a red flag.

The alleged victim does have the right to the pursuit of justice: They have the right to go to the police, to have an investigation take place, and if there's anything substantive to support their claims, they have a right to prosecute the accused. The pursuit of justice does not guarantee a conviction, only a fair chance at seeing your day in court.

How do you stop a monster from committing heinous crimes when it's virtually impossible to prove he's committing them at all?

"he's" What an interesting choice of pronoun to describe people who commit sexual assault.

It's not virtually impossible to prove someone has commited such a crime, it is only virtually impossible to convict without any evidence, and that's true for any crime. If there's signs of physical assault, DNA evidence, drugs or eye witness testimony, then the chances of conviction increase to possible, also the same as any other crime.

This is ultimately why sexual assault cases in the courts are virtually ALWAYS stacked against the victim, because the presumption of innocence means that the burden of proof is laid upon them.

This is true for any crime, like the possible money theft I described above. It has nothing to do with sexual assault and everything to do with the most basic principles of law; it is the only thing that keeps "witch hunts" away.

Ultimately their lives and reputation will almost always be dragged through the dirt if they try to see justice done, only for them to fail to get a conviction in the end.

You could say the exact same thing about the alleged criminal, especially if the system was changed. The only defense someone has against being accused of sexually assaulting someone else is if they have proof they were not with the alleged victim during the time of the assault, or eyewitness testimony from a reliable source that it did not happen. That's about it - it's even less than what a victim of sexual assault could have.

Then people are always shocked by reports that sexual assault is so prevalent, so often goes unreported, and usually unpunished.

I wouldn't say "shocked" so much as disbelieving or skeptical, which is the normal response to something that is asserted without evidence.

I believe you're referring to "surveys" rather than reports, which typically have some kind of flawed method for determining what is or isn't sexual assault and/or rape due to misleading questions or an opt-in method of obtaining information (meaning a survey on rape and sexual assault gets a disproportionately higher number of rape and sexual assault victims because they go out of their way to answer it due to seeing it as an important issue due to personal experience. I dont' blame them for trying to change things, but it would seem unrepresentative of the general population)

I have no good solution to this problem, nobody does. But, at the end of the day, if you have 20 or so completely unrelated people coming forward to say 'this guy raped me', and they're asking for justice, not money, then I think it's time to at least be giving THEM the benefit of the doubt, not the rich and powerful 'alleged' abuser who likely never will be, never even can be, punished by the courts regardless of how many people turn against him.

Let's not misrepresent things: Cosby has settled out of court with two of his accusers, who seemed perfectly okay with just asking for money or dropping the case:
http://www.etonline.com/news/154160_timeline_of_bill_cosby_sexual_assault_allegations/

There's a difference between giving people the benefit of the doubt and condemning a man as a monster because a number of unprovable accusations surface many years after the alleged assaults took place, especially when the possibility they could be doing it for a great sum of money exists.

 

[Batou667]

To all the people saying that judgment needs to be reserved so as to maintain the belief of innocence until proven guilty...

That's kind of the problem.

... I think it's time to at least be giving THEM [the victims] the benefit of the doubt, not the rich and powerful 'alleged' abuser who likely never will be, never even can be, punished by the courts regardless of how many people turn against him.

I see where you're coming from, but I can't agree with this. Two wrongs don't make a right. That's such a basic principle of justice that most children are familiar with it. Yes, it's true that rape and sexual assaults in general have a dismal conviction rate, but abandoning fairness and due process of the law to bump convictions closer to parity with accusations (potentially at the expense of innocent defendants) is patently unjust.

It's natural to feel angry and frustrated with the low conviction rate. We all ought to be angry about that. But two wrongs will never equal a right. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the foundation of Western justice; erode that foundation and we've created a terrible precedent for due process of the law being optional.

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.

Ooh, Honey Badger Radio. That's going on my "to watch" list, cheers.

----

Some other random thoughts:

Celebrity is often a shield from criticism, but it also attracts criticism - some of it in the form of accusations, and some of those false ones. I don't think it's intellectually honest to look at Cosby's successful career and, as Bob did, conclude that Cosby's status harms his credibility as a defendant. There have been examples of people's careers being ruined by spurious or opportunistic allegations, and this process is sadly exacerbated by the well-intentioned support of people extending "benefit of the doubt" to the statistically-marginalised accusers. We could argue back and forth all day whether celebrity status has a net shielding effect or "bullet magnet" effect when it comes to allegations and slander, but I think even celebrities should be assumed innocent until proven otherwise.

As one of the commentators in one of Bob's links mentioned, there's no "happy ending" here, there's no "win" situation. Either over a dozen women were raped, or an innocent man just got over a dozen false accusations. That's... not good, to say the least. I see the wisdom of Bob's staying out of the front-line of discussion but I wish he'd gone one further and not commented at all until Cosby's guilt or innocence has been proven. Any speculation before that point is just faintly ghoulish wishing for our preferred "lesser" evil to have occurred.

And finally, Patricia Hernandez is a repugnant human being. I'd like to see how graciously and decorously she would react to a rape allegation.

 

[Bruce]

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 *** 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.

Ad Populum Fallacy. Just because a lot of people believe something to be true doesn't make it true.

Two dozen people saying he did the same thing to them, that are in fact consistent with each other is not argumentum ad populum.

Argumentum ad populum is a large number of people believe it is true because a large number of people believe it. If a large number of people say he drugged and raped them personally, it is not argumentum ad populum, it is corroboration.

Particularly given the similarities between their stories.

Further one should note that 14 of the women brought a civil suit against him which he settled in 2006, while another two shared similar stories with nothing to gain from it because the statute of limitations ran out.

That is in fact the major problem with prosecuting this particularly kind of crime - in a lot of cases the statute of limitations has run out.

So why did they let it do that? Because of, lets face it, you. Or more accurately people like you. What is your instinct when you hear about these allegations? Dismiss and belittle the people making them. Now multiply yourself out by a million, think of exactly how your attitude translates to anybody making an allegation, particularly against such a powerful figure.

And then put yourself in their shoes. You have just been raped, you can make accusations, they will hit the newspapers, and you will have to deal with a million people just like you, reacting in exactly the same way you did.

Think about how much fun that must be.

 

[SilverUchiha]

I'd be willing to believe Cosby is innocent if he'd just speak up about the whole damn thing. The fact he is not only not talking about it, but asking people to not talk about it and trying to keep it off the record is, in so many ways, really damning of his situation. His lack of openness on a topic he wants to look innocent on makes him look all the more guilty and is what's killing his public image more than anything else.

I never really liked Cosby much. Never hated, but wasn't really ever entertained by him. I think his comedy and humor and existence in mainstream was bigger just before I was born and when I was old enough to possibly appreciate it I was more interested in other things and didn't really care about him.

 

[Gizen]

To all the people saying that judgment needs to be reserved so as to maintain the belief of innocence until proven guilty...

That's kind of the problem.

... I think it's time to at least be giving THEM [the victims] the benefit of the doubt, not the rich and powerful 'alleged' abuser who likely never will be, never even can be, punished by the courts regardless of how many people turn against him.

I see where you're coming from, but I can't agree with this. Two wrongs don't make a right. That's such a basic principle of justice that most children are familiar with it. Yes, it's true that rape and sexual assaults in general have a dismal conviction rate, but abandoning fairness and due process of the law to bump convictions closer to parity with accusations (potentially at the expense of innocent defendants) is patently unjust.

I'm not saying abandon fairness and throw Bill Cosby in jail. I'm not even saying to convict Cosby, since a conviction requires going by the law, for which evidence must always be required. I'm more referring to people's knee jerk reaction being to say 'well, until they have evidence he raped them (which for a variety of reasons they can not actually get), I'm gonna just say that they're lying'. You can't get a legal conviction of a crime without evidence, but you can at least treat the victims of that crime with enough respect to not accuse them of bullshitting just to ruin the man's reputation, since the odds of them all lying are drastically lower than the odds that what they're saying is the ugly truth.

Sorry if I wasn't clear about that before.

It's especially noteworthy when the women aren't suing so they're not out for cash, and Cosby hardly has a super active career at the moment without which he'd be crippled financially. He's already had a long, successful career, such that even if he was tarnished, he's not actually going to lose much, vs. the women who otherwise have literally nothing to gain except for an extremely feeble hope of having some minor degree of justice served.

 

[Nazulu]

I'd be willing to believe Cosby is innocent if he'd just speak up about the whole damn thing. The fact he is not only not talking about it, but asking people to not talk about it and trying to keep it off the record is, in so many ways, really damning of his situation. His lack of openness on a topic he wants to look innocent on makes him look all the more guilty and is what's killing his public image more than anything else.

There is too much to assume I reckon. I heard he was told to stay silent from his lawyer, and maybe with a lack of experience he feels it might be a better idea. Or maybe he's become very uneasy from it all and was told to keep it down so to not set off any new alarm bells. I mean, what could he possibly say to defend himself? It would have to be evidence to counter the times of when those women said they were raped otherwise it would mean diddly squat really.