What We Talk About When We Talk About Cosby

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

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

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 grew up with bill cosby. As a white kid I never looked up to him as a cultural "black" figure. My father was very cultured and impressed upon me anything he could find of cultural quality despite us being in borderline poverty. So depsite being in my early 30s when it comes to comedy I'm well aquainted with Spike Jones and Doctor Demento. When crap like Sam Kinison was popular and and the 80-90s were full of schtick and lowbrow comedy Bill Cosby was a fairly clean smart comedian and made thoughtful jokes about real life like "chocolate cake for breakfast" and "but Dad I'm Jesus christ".

This whole thing has really infuriated me. The entire scandal has tried to make him out to be some sort of monster which is comparable to Area 51 conspiracy theory and only works because it's social tabloid garbage. Did he take advantage of women? We'll never know. Not a single shred of evidence has ever been presented. This is not to say he didn't do anything but it's impossible he could be this boogieman he's being made out as and yet never been caught. He's been married this whole time and has 5 normal kids you know? I guess he must be some Dexter level genius psycho right? :/

People like tearing down celebrities. That's the core it. Something to gossip about. We raise people up because we like to see them fall.

It doesn't affect me. This doesn't change a single word he ever said. Hb calls him a hypocrite. and? Even if anything of it was true He's a hypocrite whos still right.

You can do smart comedy. You can be smart and black and not have any tie to some sort of ethereal "black culture". You don't have to look up to TI or Jay-z or malcolm x or anybody. Leaves don't give a shit what color they are from season to season why should you?

Its unfortunate that not everyone with a voice practices what they preach. While the allegations against Bill Cosby are horrifying, I still think what he said then has merit, even if it came from a hypocrite.

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.

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

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.

piscian:
This is not to say he didn't do anything but it's impossible he could be this boogieman he's being made out as and yet never been caught. He's been married this whole time and has 5 normal kids you know? I guess he must be some Dexter level genius psycho right? :/

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.

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.

People like tearing down celebrities. That's the core it. Something to gossip about. We raise people up because we like to see them fall.

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.

cpukill:
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.

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!

Another comments section missing the point. So much so one of the posts, its a case of Poe's Law, as I can't tell if they're really so strongly missing the point or that they have no sense of irony about what they're saying.

I remember a few years ago hearing on the news, ever so briefly, about somebody accusing Bill Cosby of rape. And then I never heard of it again. I never really knew him through the Cosby show or anything - I knew why he was famous, but he had never impacted me. It was really a non-event, but it happened around the same time as a rape allegation against Ben Roethelisberer, and it started to make me question the appearances celebrities, and how much better we treat them. I mean, we tear down Britney Spears for making mistakes as a mother because we see those mistakes and people get satisfaction from feeling that they're better than her, despite all her money, but with accusations just so dark regarding accusations of evil actions, people would rather pretend that it couldn't be true, that its not possible, that the smiling face that they've come to know hid a grim reality behind it. I was in New Jersey when Penn State broke, and while it wasn't ground zero, there were just so many damn sympathizers that I damn near got myself expelled on multiple occassions. The moment that stuck out most to me was somebody saying "Joe Paterno died of a broken heart", and nearly the entire class, including the teacher, sympathizing with that sentiment. These are the people who threw a riot when he was fired for participating in a conspiracy to cover up mass child rape, and I think the worst part about all of this is that I don't know how we can reach these people when they're clearly so vehemently attached to the idea that the celebrity that they had worshipped was flawed, let alone did some monstrous.

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.

Nixou:

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?

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....

Well at least it's not just BBC stars from the 70's and 80's. :P

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.

Nixou:
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.

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.

Supahewok:
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.

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.

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 is a shameful joke

***

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.

ProtoChimp:
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.

[citation needed

piscian:
This is not to say he didn't do anything but it's impossible he could be this boogieman he's being made out as and yet never been caught.

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.

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.

Schadrach:

Supahewok:
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.

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.

While I don't condone this kind of behaviour...I can understand why it happens. 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.

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.

Nixou:

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.

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.

MovieBob:
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.

Ark of the Covetor:

While I don't condone this kind of behaviour...I can understand why it happens. 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).

MovieBlob:
(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.

jbucksnb:

Ark of the Covetor:

While I don't condone this kind of behaviour...I can understand why it happens. 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.

medv4380:

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.

Supahewok:

This is sleazy journalism guys.

Good thing it's an opinion column then.

Revnak:

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?

medv4380:

Revnak:

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?

Souplex:

MovieBlob:
(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

cpukill:

Alcaste:

cpukill:
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.

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).

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.

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.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here