Okay, so for those unfamiliar, Bill Cosby has been accused by multiple women over the last month or so of having raped them (the dates of the rapes vary, however most of the accusations are from a decade ago or longer). Source for further reference
I understand how important it is to not immediately dismiss alleged victims of sexual assault, and I also understand that sexual assault is often a traumatizing and life shattering experience, so not all assaults will be immediately reported.
That said, I don't understand what sort of reasonable solution is expected in this instance. We're talking about decade + old rape cases. The likelihood of being able to find even a shred of forensic evidence that would hold up in court is practically non-existent. Past that, you just have testimony of the victims, meaning it's (literally) a he says - she says case. While the number of victims coming forward seems to imply guilt, five people without proof still means there's no proof.
Part of me understands that if he is guilty, then the only recourse is through the court of public opinion, but the other half of me despises that method as it's contrary to everything our legal system was founded on. It just seems like there's no good answer here.
Thoughts?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
The likelihood of being able to find even a shred of forensic evidence that would hold up in court is practically non-existent. Past that, you just have testimony of the victims, meaning it's (literally) a he says - she says case. While the number of victims coming forward seems to imply guilt, five people without proof still means there's no proof.
To nitpick, the legal system doesn't require forensic evidence. A conviction can be predicated solely on testimony. If the jury believes that the testimony of the "five people without proof" is reliable and the contrary evidence (for example, Cosby's testimony) is unreliable, and they believe this to the point that they're convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" (in a criminal case) then they can convict.
Now, in many "he said she said" cases the jury will refuse to convict, and I think that's often the right thing to do. But there's no blanket rule that requires so-called "hard evidence" of guilt.
Okay, so for those unfamiliar, Bill Cosby has been accused by multiple women over the last month or so of having raped them (the dates of the rapes vary, however most of the accusations are from a decade ago or longer). Source for further reference
...
Thoughts?
Allegations of Bill Cosby's as a rapist go far longer than the past month. The allegations have only gained national traction in the past month or so, but the accusations have been around since at least 2005 (I want to say 2004, but 2005 is close enough and I don't want to research that hard right now). I was a diehard Cosby fan until about 2008...ish when I first heard about the allegations as rumors.
Generally speaking, if Bill Cosby is guilty, I doubt at this point enough evidence can be gathered to get a conviction, and Cosby will likely slip through the cracks and suffer the consequences through social ostracizing (but regardless of his innocence or guilt, that's a nightmare double-edge sword in of itself and not by any measure an ideal outcome).
But a better question is what lessons can be learned from this because Bill Cosby will not be the last cultural icon that is accused of (I'm trying to remain neutral here and assume innocence until guilt proven*) abusing his power over other people.
*This is an essential part of the problem because it would go a long ways to explain why it's taken so long for these accusations to gain traction as a relevant possibility. While I believe that burden of proof should rest on the accuser, it does create a stigma for an accuser, especially common in abuse (rape is in this subset) cases, because there are discouraging stories of disbelief based on bias and wondering if victims are con artists. That's... a terrifying possibility for someone pursing justice against their attacker.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I actually liked Bill Cosby a lot, and am quite disturbed to see these allegations crop up. I don't even remember the allegations from years ago, mostly because I don't pay attention to entertainment news outside of the actual product for movies.
If these are true, I feel that the women should press charges and should have done so a long time ago. I'm sorry, but at some point you have to find a way for justice for yourself without being a vigilante. If you have to write a book, then write a book or something to make the pain go away.
This reminds me of the Michael Jackson pedophile cases, it's so convoluted even after all these years I know Jackson is a damaged man but I still don't whether he was a pedophile.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
I'm unwilling to entertain these allegations personally. It might be popular to champion womens' rights and think the worst of Mr. Cosby.
But I find that it awful that a person's reputation can be tarnished by mere allegation decades later. There might be a lack of forensic evidence, but the fact is to many
Mr. Cosby is already guilty. At this point, his reputation and legacy are suffering without any possible means for him to prove himself innocent. The court of public opinion
does not convict based on evidence.
One might argue with so many women coming out of the woodwork now, at least some of the allegations must be true.
But I see a flip side to this argument. It means that all these women were previously incapable of asserting their claims at the time of the incident.
I'm no fan of Mr. Cosby. I've never watched or listened to any of his programs. But what I dislike is that none of these women were capable enough to press charges at the time of incident.
Are you telling me that not one woman was independent, strong, or capable enough to hold this guy accountable at the time it happened? Every one of them was too afraid?
Everyone of them was too emotionally handicapped, brutalized, or incompetent?
How can no one have the courage to speak up?
It might be an unpopular opinion to put the onus on the victims. But from a practical matter I think it absolutely necessary. For three reasons:
1. Safety of additional victims. Assuming he is guilty. This deference we give to victims silence only further enables the perpetrator to commit more crimes.
If the first victim spoke out publically in a timely manner, would there be an additional 25 subsequent victims?
2. Evidence. Evidence goes bad. Witnesses forget.
3. Prevention of false accusations. Let's look at all these alleged victims another way. Let's say Cosby is guilty. Fine. We''re gonna convict this guy to hell. Done. Now that that's out of the way, were EVERY one of the allegations true? Because if they were not, that too is a crime and it should not be overlooked. You can't just allege rape or sexual allegation and get away with it if you were lying.
3. Prevention of false accusations. Let's look at all these alleged victims another way. Let's say Cosby is guilty. Fine. We''re gonna convict this guy to hell. Done. Now that that's out of the way, were EVERY one of the allegations true? Because if they were not, that too is a crime and it should not be overlooked. You can't just allege rape or sexual allegation and get away with it if you were lying.
I don't think that's actually a crime unless you file a false police report or lie under oath. Other than those cases, I think it's a civil matter of slander/libel.
dont know if the rape allegations are true, but at the very least Cosby seem shady to me (dont buy the stereotype crap ANY character on-screen)
it may not be straight up rape, but i can see this as the same that happen with Julian Assange (read the case and victims declaration, its abuse but not rape).
what i´m trying to say is that to me this range anywhere from Jimmy Savile (the worst escenario) to Julian Assange (the "best" case).
pd: about Michael Jackson, that was a completetly differente thing, MJ was a guy with serious mental issues.
Allegations were made before that speech. I find this theory unlikely.
It's possible in principle for interested parties to dredge up old allegations and splatter them all over the media at a later date for political gain.
However, I find it unlikely that parties in 2014 would suddenly have an interest in discrediting a speech made in 2004.
It is weird that this is a hot topic in the news all of a sudden. But the "Pound Cake" speech is certainly not the reason why. From what I can tell, the furor really was just sparked by an accuser in a video that went viral. And in a way, the randomness of that is far more disturbing than any conspiracy theory.
what i´m trying to say is that to me this range anywhere from Jimmy Savile (the worst escenario) to Julian Assange (the "best" case).
The "best" case is, of course, that he is entirely innocent. Let's try to keep in mind through all of this that he has not been convicted of anything. Do I think he's innocent? Not really. Where there's this kind of smoke, there's usually fire. But even the mere possibility that the media and public may be crucifying an innocent man bothers me a hell of a lot. It has happened before. The mob cannot be allowed to elevate itself above the due process of the law.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Let's try to keep in mind through all of this that he has not been convicted of anything. Do I think he's innocent? Not really. Where there's this kind of smoke, there's usually fire. But even the mere possibility that the media and public may be crucifying an innocent man bothers me a hell of a lot. It has happened before. The mob cannot be allowed to elevate itself above the due process of the law.
sure, emphasis on the words "to me".
and while of course there is always false accusations, i cant remember a case when several (lets say +10 people) accused one person and was all fake, and even on this case, i could get more in the conspiracy theory (to prevent a politician win an election, like the strauss kahn scandal).
But cosby? nah i think its either abuse of power (like Assange).
Unless it's related to women's/minority/gay rights!
Which is also weird, because the principle of due process and equal protection under the law is the greatest safeguard of minority rights. The fact that we get extrajudicial firestorms about these things tells me that minority rights have the support of the majority. They're not "minority rights" anymore in the sense of being unpopular. And this is a wonderful thing in its own right, of course. But a mob is still a mob, even when it's attacking an accused bigot or rapist rather than a gay or black person. Real progress doesn't mean pointing mobs at the right targets - it means no more mobs.
Unless it's related to women's/minority/gay rights!
Which is also weird, because the principle of due process and equal protection under the law is the greatest safeguard of minority rights. The fact that we get extrajudicial firestorms about these things tells me that minority rights have the support of the majority. They're not "minority rights" anymore in the sense of being unpopular. And this is a wonderful thing in its own right, of course. But a mob is still a mob, even when it's attacking an accused bigot or rapist rather than a gay or black person. Real progress doesn't mean pointing mobs at the right targets - it means no more mobs.
I actually don't think it's weird at all.
For the most part, people are blind when it comes to their own "crusades". Since they're the victims, they can do no wrong, and every action they take is merely leveling the playing field. I guess it's related to the ideological Marxism being discussed in that other thread.
As a result- mob action is ok, as long as it supports MY "crusade". Unfairly targeting a certain group is ok, as long as it supports MY "crusade", and vice versa.
And they're completely blind as to the fact that their grievances had legitimacy BECAUSE they were targeted in a similar manner.
It's a real cluster**** of emotions and a great number of cognitive bias.
But I think an underlying conclusion about mob justice can be drawn from looking deeper into Bill Cosby's allegations and other people allegedly like him: mob justice is unpredictable and can change on a whim. Not to mention even if mob justice points in the right place, there's no gauge on it executing what would be called the necessary and reasonable outcome. And this is regardless of his guilt or innocence. "Mobs" glance over bad things all the time just like overreacting to allegations.
Not to mention even if mob justice points in the right place, there's no gauge on it executing what would be called the necessary and reasonable outcome. And this is regardless of his guilt or innocence.
Yeah, it's just arbitrary. Pop culture basically just reached into a hat full of the names of accused celebrity rapists and abusers - "Sean Penn", "Rick James", "Roman Polanski" - and randomly pulled out "Bill Cosby" as the one to hate on for a while. The rest will have to wait their turn, if they ever get one.
And I say "for a while" because odds are it will most likely blow over in a six months to a year without having accomplished anything real. Chris Brown kept his head down and eventually rehabilitated his image; Cosby probably can too. Biggest complication is probably the simple fact that he's 77 and may die before he can do it.
I'm running out of different ways to say: this is not justice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm running out of different ways to say: this is not justice.
At least regarding me, this situation has never been about whether or not this is justice. What's happening to Bill Cosby is bad publicity. And I'm curious about how much that old saying holds true, "There's no such thing as bad publicity." I think as long as Bill Cosby stays out of court, he'll weather this storm, but I don't think he'll ever fully recover his image. I think he's going to stand out from others for longer because his accomplishments and his boasting of his accomplishments and values (I will admit one of my favorite part of Cosby's act was his lack of cursing) will never be completely out of question. Hypocrisy is one of the biggest sins in the United States.
Bill Cosby choosing to remain silent (literally) is his personal best option. I said earlier about there being (unlikely) any forensic evidence to convict him, and there's exactly as much evidence to exonerate him as well. The public has a short attention span, and as long as Bill Cosby stays out of court, it won't matter to him when the public moves onto the next crusade.
((I guess there's only so many ways I can say: I think we're on the same page on at least the public.))
Allegations were made before that speech. I find this theory unlikely.
It's possible in principle for interested parties to dredge up old allegations and splatter them all over the media at a later date for political gain.
However, I find it unlikely that parties in 2014 would suddenly have an interest in discrediting a speech made in 2004.
It is weird that this is a hot topic in the news all of a sudden. But the "Pound Cake" speech is certainly not the reason why. From what I can tell, the furor really was just sparked by an accuser in a video that went viral. And in a way, the randomness of that is far more disturbing than any conspiracy theory.
The thing is, he has continued to hold those beliefs and talk about them publicly.
From looking at some cnn pieces, looks like the TV stations that were going to be showing his programming or launching new material are backing out. This seems like less of a "weathering the storm" and "the dude is sunk"
I did find something amusing where a guy claimed that Cosby was going to try and join the Catholic Church since thats pretty much the only place old rapists can avoid punishment, source
From looking at some cnn pieces, looks like the TV stations that were going to be showing his programming or launching new material are backing out. This seems like less of a "weathering the storm" and "the dude is sunk"
The worst part about this is not Bill Cosby being shorted some cash (Lord knows he can absorb the loss, especially since NBC has to pay him a rather large chunk of change just for the privilege of canceling his project with them). No, the worst part is all the other actors and actresses that appeared regularly on the Cosby show and were getting residuals.
Now, thanks to mob justice a lot of people totally unrelated to the scandal are losing paychecks.
I did find something amusing where a guy claimed that Cosby was going to try and join the Catholic Church since thats pretty much the only place old rapists can avoid punishment, source
I appreciate the joke, but lets try not to open that particular can of worms here... please?
I think I agree with most people here. We have due process and for me I am not going to take an acuser's word without evidence and I certainly don't think cosby should be presumed guilty based on an accusation with no evidence. It's kind of sad that an accuser can ruin someone's career/life just by their word alone. That's wrong and definitely not justice.
Related to the discussion of due process and the court of public opinion. What do people here think about the Adrian Peterson case? Criminally the matter is closed, the punishment has been settled, but the NFL will not reinstate him to play probably out of fear of backlash and possible loss of endorsements.
I can get behind Wheaties not putting AP on their boxes anymore or any other commercial deal directly related to AP... but is it really necessary to take away this guy's job for an act that legally got him a misdemeanor and a fine? As members of the public is that really what we should be demanding? "If you employ this guy we won't buy your goods and services" seems like a pretty steep demand for the public to put on a business.
So, while I'm not for trying someone in the court of public opinion, I can see why companies wouldn't want to work with him in the middle of this. Actors and comedians are a brand, for better or worse. Whether or not the allegations are justified, Cosby's brand is tainted right now and associated with Sexual Assault.
Related to the discussion of due process and the court of public opinion. What do people here think about the Adrian Peterson case? Criminally the matter is closed, the punishment has been settled, but the NFL will not reinstate him to play probably out of fear of backlash and possible loss of endorsements.
I can get behind Wheaties not putting AP on their boxes anymore or any other commercial deal directly related to AP... but is it really necessary to take away this guy's job for an act that legally got him a misdemeanor and a fine? As members of the public is that really what we should be demanding? "If you employ this guy we won't buy your goods and services" seems like a pretty steep demand for the public to put on a business.
If you're okay with Wheaties not wanting him as part of the brand, why do you think the Vikings would want him as part of theirs? He has a contract with both organizations and is a public face of both brands because of his job with them.
Professional Sports teams are brands just like any other. Peterson's job at Wheaties was to pose for pictures so people can look at him and Wheaties can sell products and his job at the Vikings was run real good while people watch so the Vikings can sell product, what's the difference between the two?
The thing is, he has continued to hold those beliefs and talk about them publicly.
Yes, Cosby has opinions that are controversial on the left and in the black community. And Hannibal Buress' routine did sound like it was prompted in part by annoyance at the hypocrisy: "It’s even worse because Bill Cosby has the ****ing smuggest old black man public persona that I hate". But that's clearly all it was: annoyance. Buress was not knowingly initiating a character assassination campaign. There's no way he could have predicted that his speech would go viral. He was just ranting, as comedians do all the time.
The worst part about this is not Bill Cosby being shorted some cash (Lord knows he can absorb the loss, especially since NBC has to pay him a rather large chunk of change just for the privilege of canceling his project with them). No, the worst part is all the other actors and actresses that appeared regularly on the Cosby show and were getting residuals.
Now, thanks to mob justice a lot of people totally unrelated to the scandal are losing paychecks.
To be fair, that's not really a consequence of mob justice. If Cosby were actually tried and convicted, those other actors and actresses would still be hurt the same way. It's just an unfortunate truth that crime hurts the people around you.
So, while I'm not for trying someone in the court of public opinion, I can see why companies wouldn't want to work with him in the middle of this. Actors and comedians are a brand, for better or worse. Whether or not the allegations are justified, Cosby's brand is tainted right now and associated with Sexual Assault.
Yeah, companies have to do what's best for their bottom line. They're not obligated to produce or air shows that will lose them money. And the people at home are not obligated to watch shows that will make them uncomfortable. The problem is the sudden firestorm that produced this situation, not how people react to it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So, while I'm not for trying someone in the court of public opinion, I can see why companies wouldn't want to work with him in the middle of this. Actors and comedians are a brand, for better or worse. Whether or not the allegations are justified, Cosby's brand is tainted right now and associated with Sexual Assault.
Related to the discussion of due process and the court of public opinion. What do people here think about the Adrian Peterson case? Criminally the matter is closed, the punishment has been settled, but the NFL will not reinstate him to play probably out of fear of backlash and possible loss of endorsements.
I can get behind Wheaties not putting AP on their boxes anymore or any other commercial deal directly related to AP... but is it really necessary to take away this guy's job for an act that legally got him a misdemeanor and a fine? As members of the public is that really what we should be demanding? "If you employ this guy we won't buy your goods and services" seems like a pretty steep demand for the public to put on a business.
If you're okay with Wheaties not wanting him as part of the brand, why do you think the Vikings would want him as part of theirs? He has a contract with both organizations and is a public face of both brands because of his job with them.
Professional Sports teams are brands just like any other. Peterson's job at Wheaties was to pose for pictures so people can look at him and Wheaties can sell products and his job at the Vikings was run real good while people watch so the Vikings can sell product, what's the difference between the two?
Sorry I forgot to make an important distinction. Currently the NFL itself is preventing Adrian from playing. The teams in the NFL have no say. I believe he should be reinstated so the Vikings can decide what they want to do with them and if they release him then it would be up to the other 31 teams to decide whether or not any of them wish to take on his baggage. Right now the league itself is saying they don't want to deal with him which given the number of other criminals the NFL does allow to play seems very double standard.
I understand how important it is to not immediately dismiss alleged victims of sexual assault, and I also understand that sexual assault is often a traumatizing and life shattering experience, so not all assaults will be immediately reported.
That said, I don't understand what sort of reasonable solution is expected in this instance. We're talking about decade + old rape cases. The likelihood of being able to find even a shred of forensic evidence that would hold up in court is practically non-existent. Past that, you just have testimony of the victims, meaning it's (literally) a he says - she says case. While the number of victims coming forward seems to imply guilt, five people without proof still means there's no proof.
Part of me understands that if he is guilty, then the only recourse is through the court of public opinion, but the other half of me despises that method as it's contrary to everything our legal system was founded on. It just seems like there's no good answer here.
Thoughts?
To nitpick, the legal system doesn't require forensic evidence. A conviction can be predicated solely on testimony. If the jury believes that the testimony of the "five people without proof" is reliable and the contrary evidence (for example, Cosby's testimony) is unreliable, and they believe this to the point that they're convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" (in a criminal case) then they can convict.
Now, in many "he said she said" cases the jury will refuse to convict, and I think that's often the right thing to do. But there's no blanket rule that requires so-called "hard evidence" of guilt.
Generally speaking, if Bill Cosby is guilty, I doubt at this point enough evidence can be gathered to get a conviction, and Cosby will likely slip through the cracks and suffer the consequences through social ostracizing (but regardless of his innocence or guilt, that's a nightmare double-edge sword in of itself and not by any measure an ideal outcome).
But a better question is what lessons can be learned from this because Bill Cosby will not be the last cultural icon that is accused of (I'm trying to remain neutral here and assume innocence until guilt proven*) abusing his power over other people.
*This is an essential part of the problem because it would go a long ways to explain why it's taken so long for these accusations to gain traction as a relevant possibility. While I believe that burden of proof should rest on the accuser, it does create a stigma for an accuser, especially common in abuse (rape is in this subset) cases, because there are discouraging stories of disbelief based on bias and wondering if victims are con artists. That's... a terrifying possibility for someone pursing justice against their attacker.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
If these are true, I feel that the women should press charges and should have done so a long time ago. I'm sorry, but at some point you have to find a way for justice for yourself without being a vigilante. If you have to write a book, then write a book or something to make the pain go away.
This reminds me of the Michael Jackson pedophile cases, it's so convoluted even after all these years I know Jackson is a damaged man but I still don't whether he was a pedophile.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
But I find that it awful that a person's reputation can be tarnished by mere allegation decades later. There might be a lack of forensic evidence, but the fact is to many
Mr. Cosby is already guilty. At this point, his reputation and legacy are suffering without any possible means for him to prove himself innocent. The court of public opinion
does not convict based on evidence.
One might argue with so many women coming out of the woodwork now, at least some of the allegations must be true.
But I see a flip side to this argument. It means that all these women were previously incapable of asserting their claims at the time of the incident.
I'm no fan of Mr. Cosby. I've never watched or listened to any of his programs. But what I dislike is that none of these women were capable enough to press charges at the time of incident.
Are you telling me that not one woman was independent, strong, or capable enough to hold this guy accountable at the time it happened? Every one of them was too afraid?
Everyone of them was too emotionally handicapped, brutalized, or incompetent?
How can no one have the courage to speak up?
It might be an unpopular opinion to put the onus on the victims. But from a practical matter I think it absolutely necessary. For three reasons:
1. Safety of additional victims. Assuming he is guilty. This deference we give to victims silence only further enables the perpetrator to commit more crimes.
If the first victim spoke out publically in a timely manner, would there be an additional 25 subsequent victims?
2. Evidence. Evidence goes bad. Witnesses forget.
3. Prevention of false accusations. Let's look at all these alleged victims another way. Let's say Cosby is guilty. Fine. We''re gonna convict this guy to hell. Done. Now that that's out of the way, were EVERY one of the allegations true? Because if they were not, that too is a crime and it should not be overlooked. You can't just allege rape or sexual allegation and get away with it if you were lying.
I don't think that's actually a crime unless you file a false police report or lie under oath. Other than those cases, I think it's a civil matter of slander/libel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_Cake_speech
Just how Herman Cain was conveniently caught up in a sex scandal during the presidential primaries.
Why argue against someones view point when you can just shut them up by making them look like a horrible person.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
Allegations were made before that speech. I find this theory unlikely.
it may not be straight up rape, but i can see this as the same that happen with Julian Assange (read the case and victims declaration, its abuse but not rape).
what i´m trying to say is that to me this range anywhere from Jimmy Savile (the worst escenario) to Julian Assange (the "best" case).
pd: about Michael Jackson, that was a completetly differente thing, MJ was a guy with serious mental issues.
However, I find it unlikely that parties in 2014 would suddenly have an interest in discrediting a speech made in 2004.
It is weird that this is a hot topic in the news all of a sudden. But the "Pound Cake" speech is certainly not the reason why. From what I can tell, the furor really was just sparked by an accuser in a video that went viral. And in a way, the randomness of that is far more disturbing than any conspiracy theory.
The "best" case is, of course, that he is entirely innocent. Let's try to keep in mind through all of this that he has not been convicted of anything. Do I think he's innocent? Not really. Where there's this kind of smoke, there's usually fire. But even the mere possibility that the media and public may be crucifying an innocent man bothers me a hell of a lot. It has happened before. The mob cannot be allowed to elevate itself above the due process of the law.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Unless it's related to women's/minority/gay rights!
sure, emphasis on the words "to me".
and while of course there is always false accusations, i cant remember a case when several (lets say +10 people) accused one person and was all fake, and even on this case, i could get more in the conspiracy theory (to prevent a politician win an election, like the strauss kahn scandal).
But cosby? nah i think its either abuse of power (like Assange).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I actually don't think it's weird at all.
For the most part, people are blind when it comes to their own "crusades". Since they're the victims, they can do no wrong, and every action they take is merely leveling the playing field. I guess it's related to the ideological Marxism being discussed in that other thread.
As a result- mob action is ok, as long as it supports MY "crusade". Unfairly targeting a certain group is ok, as long as it supports MY "crusade", and vice versa.
And they're completely blind as to the fact that their grievances had legitimacy BECAUSE they were targeted in a similar manner.
It's a real cluster**** of emotions and a great number of cognitive bias.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/19/it-s-not-just-cosby-hollywood-s-long-list-of-male-scumbags.html. I know it was briefly touched upon, but Bill Cosby is not the latest or even all that unique in celebrities that allegedly abuse their status.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/20/newsflash-bill-cosby-is-not-cliff-huxtable.html
Bill Cosby's legacy is already suffering, and this article raises an interesting question if Cliff Huxtable should suffer for Bill Cosby's actions (like how anecdote from me and my friends: all Tom Cruise characters suffer).
But I think an underlying conclusion about mob justice can be drawn from looking deeper into Bill Cosby's allegations and other people allegedly like him: mob justice is unpredictable and can change on a whim. Not to mention even if mob justice points in the right place, there's no gauge on it executing what would be called the necessary and reasonable outcome. And this is regardless of his guilt or innocence. "Mobs" glance over bad things all the time just like overreacting to allegations.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
And I say "for a while" because odds are it will most likely blow over in a six months to a year without having accomplished anything real. Chris Brown kept his head down and eventually rehabilitated his image; Cosby probably can too. Biggest complication is probably the simple fact that he's 77 and may die before he can do it.
I'm running out of different ways to say: this is not justice.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
At least regarding me, this situation has never been about whether or not this is justice. What's happening to Bill Cosby is bad publicity. And I'm curious about how much that old saying holds true, "There's no such thing as bad publicity." I think as long as Bill Cosby stays out of court, he'll weather this storm, but I don't think he'll ever fully recover his image. I think he's going to stand out from others for longer because his accomplishments and his boasting of his accomplishments and values (I will admit one of my favorite part of Cosby's act was his lack of cursing) will never be completely out of question. Hypocrisy is one of the biggest sins in the United States.
Bill Cosby choosing to remain silent (literally) is his personal best option. I said earlier about there being (unlikely) any forensic evidence to convict him, and there's exactly as much evidence to exonerate him as well. The public has a short attention span, and as long as Bill Cosby stays out of court, it won't matter to him when the public moves onto the next crusade.
((I guess there's only so many ways I can say: I think we're on the same page on at least the public.))
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
The thing is, he has continued to hold those beliefs and talk about them publicly.
This is from 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaLcQeFLcek
Sometime before 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t28XbxNOd_A
I cant date this but it is before 2008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGqlrVmVULc
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
I did find something amusing where a guy claimed that Cosby was going to try and join the Catholic Church since thats pretty much the only place old rapists can avoid punishment, source
The worst part about this is not Bill Cosby being shorted some cash (Lord knows he can absorb the loss, especially since NBC has to pay him a rather large chunk of change just for the privilege of canceling his project with them). No, the worst part is all the other actors and actresses that appeared regularly on the Cosby show and were getting residuals.
Now, thanks to mob justice a lot of people totally unrelated to the scandal are losing paychecks.
I appreciate the joke, but lets try not to open that particular can of worms here... please?
I can get behind Wheaties not putting AP on their boxes anymore or any other commercial deal directly related to AP... but is it really necessary to take away this guy's job for an act that legally got him a misdemeanor and a fine? As members of the public is that really what we should be demanding? "If you employ this guy we won't buy your goods and services" seems like a pretty steep demand for the public to put on a business.
If you're okay with Wheaties not wanting him as part of the brand, why do you think the Vikings would want him as part of theirs? He has a contract with both organizations and is a public face of both brands because of his job with them.
Professional Sports teams are brands just like any other. Peterson's job at Wheaties was to pose for pictures so people can look at him and Wheaties can sell products and his job at the Vikings was run real good while people watch so the Vikings can sell product, what's the difference between the two?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
To be fair, that's not really a consequence of mob justice. If Cosby were actually tried and convicted, those other actors and actresses would still be hurt the same way. It's just an unfortunate truth that crime hurts the people around you.
Yeah, companies have to do what's best for their bottom line. They're not obligated to produce or air shows that will lose them money. And the people at home are not obligated to watch shows that will make them uncomfortable. The problem is the sudden firestorm that produced this situation, not how people react to it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sorry I forgot to make an important distinction. Currently the NFL itself is preventing Adrian from playing. The teams in the NFL have no say. I believe he should be reinstated so the Vikings can decide what they want to do with them and if they release him then it would be up to the other 31 teams to decide whether or not any of them wish to take on his baggage. Right now the league itself is saying they don't want to deal with him which given the number of other criminals the NFL does allow to play seems very double standard.