I used to work at Temple University, and Bill Cosby was an institution there. He had attended the university, was a trustee, and was a regular presence at commencement ceremonies, where I met him, very briefly. Now, despite all the rape allegations, Temple is standing by him.
Learn a lesson from the other Pennsylvania state college west of you: we already saw Penn State’s reputation take a major hit from the Joe Paterno affair. Cosby may be popular and rich, but you should do the right thing, and do it early. Cut the ties.
Hmmmmm. Sounds oddly familiar.
Are you sure you didn’t mean Shermer and Dawkins, rather than Cosby and Temple? Easy mistake to make.
I suspect the Temple powers-that-be think they need Crosby more than Crosby needs them. He’s the most famous Temple alumnus (next most famous possibly being Noam Chomsky or Daryl Hall and John Oates). Temple may be hoping this whole rape thing will disappear in a few weeks or months and they can go back to being proud of Bill Cosby, Temple Alumnus.
I couldn’t agree more that Temple should not support Cosby. I know he hasn’t been convicted of any crime (yet — I hope it’s yet), but it’s looking pretty bad (he’s looking pretty darn guilty).
You know what though…I was about to type “universities shouldn’t support rapists” and I burst out laughing.
Of course, they shouldn’t, but they do, all the time. UVA and many, many others are under investigation for not fulfilling their responsibility under Title IX: failing to take rape/sexual assault allegations seriously, pressuring female college students to use their system vs. filing criminal charges (which tends not to find fault and/or not to punish and/or not to expel – simply ordering community service or the like), and firing or otherwise penalizing faculty members who speak out, thereby preventing a number of women (who must face their rapists on a daily basis on campus or leave) from getting an education.
PS: I didn’t know Noam attended Temple. I <3 Noam (by that I mean, I admire him a great deal)
In other news, Kraft Foods just announced that they will not be rescinding Cosby’s lifetime supply of Jello-Puddin’ Pops.
Jerry Sandusky, not Joe Paterno.
gmcard @5
While Sandusky was the rapist, Paterno was the guy who didn’t call the cops.
Dang, sounds like I need to stop buying their Mac&Pseudocheese.
Um, it’s Cosby. No “r”.
marilove @8
I sit corrected.
Al Dente @ 6
Paterno called the man in charge of the campus police department, as he was required to do, to report the second-hand information and to set up a meeting between that administrator, the school president, and the person who witnessed the abuse but who only gave Paterno an ambguous version of what happened.
Anyone still trying to assign blame to Paterno for the appallingly botched handling of Jerry Sandusky’s serial rapes is unwittingly abetting Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz and Tim Curley, the administrators who actively conspired to cover up the rapes. They would like nothing more than for people to put the blame on Paterno, as the famous name who is conveniently no longer around to defend himself. Spanier, Schultz and Curley deserve to be in prison, but they’re going to get out of it if people mistakenly believe Paterno orchestrated the cover-up.
Al Dente @9:
OT: You had me thinking of Crosby, Stills &Nash…
I suppose it is a good thing that these allegations are *finally* being aired and some level of action taken. I must admit to really enjoying Cosby’s recent appearance on The Daily Show. I didn’t realise that Jon Stewart was quietly avoiding a certain subject.
Though it really looks like he probably did these awful things, what the fuck? Let’s prove the guy guilty before going after the folks that still believe in due process, even if the evidence is mounting. Don’t crucify the Temple administration for standing by one of their most prominent and active alums just because there have been allegations. Folks are getting pissed because he hasn’t been “banned from attending athletic events?” Give me a goddamn break.
I realize that this probably won’t be a popular comment, and that I’m not in any way a frequent commenter here and will probably be dismissed as some sort of plant. I think that he more than likely is guilty of at least some or most of the crimes he’s accused of, but let’s let this thing play out before anyone calls for his head on a pike.
huh? I didn’t know pharyngula had a Paterno apologist. Don’t pull a “Dear Muslina” on JoePa.
kurtdoles @12
Fortunately, nobody has called for “his head on a pike.”
Putting that aside, how do you propose we “let this thing play out”? The statute of limitations has passed on any criminal or civil charges that could be brought, so there will be no trial, which is apparently the only thing short of a confession that you will accept.
So, in other words, do nothing, right?
@14, @12 — I think there’s a valid distinction to be made between disassociating and banning. If the tickets are publicly sold, or if various classes of alumni have certain rights to attend certain games, then Temple would need to scour the police reports across the country and make sure that none of its former students were convicted criminals, before allowing them to attend reunions or games or walk across the campus. Being a convicted criminal, or a likely criminal yet to be convicted, or a major asshole that everyone knows is a major asshole, is not prima facie a reason for a university to post guards at the gate scanning for your face in the crowd.
But for them to even consider using him for fundraising purposes or promoting him on recruiting brochures as among their famous alumni, giving him a seat of honor at commencement proceedings, etc., is now completely unacceptable. They must disassociate their institution from its most famous alumni, period. But if he buys a ticket for a basketball game, it’s kind of a stretch to insist they ban him unless they ban all other criminal alumni too.
@screechymonkey
I don’t know all of the details about dates or places, but NY doesn’t have a statute of limitations any more on rape in the first degree, which I think they could charge him with … Cosby Show was filmed in NY and some of his crimes date from that time, I believe.
screechymonkey @14
No, that’s not what I’m saying….I’m just not hot to jump on the media bandwagon and ban this guy from every aspect of public life until there’s some actual evidence presented. A caveat, I THINK THERE’S A HIGH PROBABILITY HE’S A DIRTBAG, and he’s more than likely guilty of at least MOST of what he’s been accused of, I believe that his accusers are probably telling the truth, but I’m not willing to to be his jury and executioner. What’s the statute of limitations on rape in all these cases? I must admit that I’m unaware. I just object to trying anyone in the media, that’s all. You’ve seen how this thing has spiraled out of control in the last few days.
All I’m advocating is a reasoned response, not piling on. Maybe I haven’t read as much about this case as you have, maybe there’s some ironclad proof (I admit that the number of accusations and details therein come pretty goddamn close), but I’m just not willing to condemn a person forever – whether it’s to the gas chamber or media obscurity – without the kind of proof that would convince a jury. Maybe I’ve watched “12 Angry Men” one time too many, but I refuse to absolutely condemn anyone in the realm of internet comments.
Ah, the famous “I’m not a bigot but….”.
Think about that for awhile, and get your attitudes consistent with the facts, or don’t bother to say anything that might be considered excusing or explaining the bad behavior…..
@18 Nerd of Redhead
Ad hominem away in lieu of actual arguments, honestly. Did you actually read anything I wrote? HE’S PROBABLY GUILTY. And if so, cast him out, punish him to the full extent of the law. I don’t care how funny “Bill Cosby: Himself” was. I’m not excusing anything. I’m just not willing to condemn anyone until all the facts are in, despite how it might look. Sorry if I don’t pass your personal FTB Purity Test.
“I’m just not willing to condemn a person forever – whether it’s to the gas chamber or media obscurity ”
Oh, heaven forfend. NOT MEDIA OBSCURITY!!!!!!!!
MAAAAAYBE that wasn’t the best choice of either/or…..:)
A hit, a palpable hit!
An accusation is definitely not proof of guilt, but so many accusations? and with Cosby’s refusing to respond? I think that that should give people pause. Not that anyone should say he’s guilty and immediately cut all ties, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to temporarily suspend all events where he’s acting as any kind of role model until more information is uncovered.
kurtdoles:
Has it occurred to you to inform yourself more about rape and about the kind of conversations that occur when discussions people are accused of rape?
Here are some basic important facts:
There is social pressure for women to NOT report.
The legal system is stacked against the VICTIMS.
There aren’t that many false reports of rape.
And of course, there is the general policy of not blaming the victim and not outright ignoring victims in the name of True Skepticism because you have some knee-jerk desire to defend the rapist.
Also noteworthy:
This isn’t a courtroom. And there is certainly no executioner.
Spiraled out of control? You mean people actually talking about SEVERAL rape allegations and actually expressing negative opinions on the matter? HEAVENS FORBID!
Take your insinuations and fuck off.
1. There is no such thing as ironclad proof of much of anything.
2. There is no demand to “condemn forever”.
3. The conflation of “gas chamber” and “media obscurity” as punishments is completely bizarre.
4. Facts and reality are not solely dictated by courtroom verdicts.
I really hope you are just ignorant. Naive. Because all of the above has the potential fucking painfully dishonest otherwise.
Then you go and try to dismiss that. Which was my “I’m not a bigot, but *bigoted statementI*”.
Grow up, and realize it can be hard to take a position based on evidence and princile, because you might not like the results. But stop trying to have it both ways. Pick one side or the other.
You don’t know what an ad hominem is, apparently. Surprise surprise.
kurtdoles Present:
Oh yes, he is probably guilty. But you are then go on to say that all of us seem to be under the impression that he is absolutely guilty, and that you could never absolutely condemn anyone, and you need absolute proof to be sure, and so on and so forth. You might as well be saying “Well, were you there!!?!?!”.
Get this through your thick fucking skull, if you hear anything said to you here: THE LAW IS NOT PERFECT. The law is not the arbiter of all truth. The legal system is not the sole means of determining truth, nor even the best means. The law is fucking biased. The legal system puts victims through hell and regularly lets rapists off with little to no punishment. THE WORLD IS NOT FAIR. You put your blind faith in it, but it is just that: blind.
It would be awesome if Bill Cosby could be punished. But he likely won’t be. That doesn’t mean he is innocent.
“Probably Guilty” doesn’t warrant any form of condemnation? Really?
Go fuck yourself.
anteprepro @ 25
Well said
I’m glad we’re finally getting rid of that innocent until proven guilty shit.
And “Pick one side or the other”, doesn’t that just say it all.
kurtdoles,
You are being quite dishonest. There is no “head on a pike”. There is no one being a jury or executioner. There is no “piling on”.
Since you yourself say he’s “probably guilty”, how is what’s happening to him unfair?
thesoftmachine, #27
Ah, another dolt who doesn’t understand that “innocent until proven guillty” has to do with the justice system.
thesoftmachine:
Not. A. Courtroom.
For fuck’s sake.
Innocent until proven guilty is a LEGAL STANDARD to prevent false convictions. Because it acknowledges that the legal system ISN’T PERFECT. And holy shit is it not perfect, because even with that standard in place, IT STILL FAILS: http://www.innocenceproject.org/
But that still means that, in the name of our shitty, fallible legal system, a lot of actually guilty people get to walk free.
In the case of rape, in fact, 97% of all perpetrators, 75% of all those reported, and 66% of all of those who actually get arrested will walk away free.
But please, continue to lecture us for daring to not treat the entire fucking planet like we are only to permitted to speak once the court has made its ruling on a subject. Please, fucking continue, you fucking visionary.
kurtdoles:
So, if nobody is saying anything like this, who are you contradicting? Please don’t just spew out what’s happening in your imagination; get a fucking grip and actually have a conversation with actual people based on what’s actually the case.
I haven’t. What exactly is out of control? There are executioners and mock-jurors, who are going to banninate him?
What could you possibly mean by this? That enough has been said, so now we should all stop talking about it? What other kinds of responses are you talking about? I’d agree that not allowing him to attend sporting events, etc., is unreasonable, as explained above. But who here, of the people in this FTB hivemind you’re supposedly reacting against, is saying anything like that?
I await your ironclad, jury-convincing proof of somebody preparing a gas chamber for him. Even if I were absolutely certain he was guilty of every last accusation, I still wouldn’t think that would be a form of justice. So aren’t you implying here something which is actually horrific, while I’m not?
Regarding the second “point” (for lack of a better word), the dude already has media obscurity. He’s Bill fucking Cosby, for fuck’s sake. His popularity and his brand of humor has for a long time gotten pretty stale, independently of these accusations. He has no sacred right, as a once-and-still-mildly famous person, to continue being not-obscure. So if he loses that, I just don’t fucking care nor do I see how it could possibly matter to anyone. Besides, it’s not as if that means the Cosby Show or his stand-up routines or other work no longer exists, so I can’t imagine what you think you’ve lost here.
Why don’t you just say “I’m trolling.” You could then get your point across without writing so much bullshit, so that you could spend the time doing something more constructive. Masturbating, for example.
Oh, sorry, meant to have a second link for those stats:
https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
It even has a nice wittle picture graph for all the people who can’t be arsed to research this shit before spouting off to an audience of people who have had this conversation hundreds of times!
Thesoftmachine, If you want to give someone the benefit of the doubt, give it to the victim. Because what it sounds like is that you have a lot of empathy for someone we all believe is a rapist, but cannot for victims.
@ anteprepro (first and foremost), @ Nerd
You know, I actually see your points here. Honestly (really, I’m not pandering…). Maybe I’m too focused on and trusting of the ability of the system to effectively deal with situations like this, though I’d like to point out that the statement “There is no such thing as ironclad proof of much of anything” is painfully naive. “The legal system is not the sole means of determining truth, nor even the best means” is certainly one of the most honest statements I’ve read in quite some time.
“Go fuck yourself” and “fuck off” right back at ya, respectively, but you’ve actually helped me focus my opinion on this matter (WOW! AN INTERNET FIRST!), and for that I’m grateful. Though I’d like to point out that I never once called either of you two names, nor impugned your ability to reason….but I thank you for your candor, if not your delivery. I know you’re used to dealing with worse in these forums, so I understand completely.
Wouldn’t it be great if all internet conversations worked out like this?
(cue breath of fresh air….)
kurtdoles, Pharyngula is a rude blog, so the “fucks” come with the territory. Just an FYI.
Also:
Hah. Right back at you. The only ironclad proofs exist in the purest of logics and in mathematics. “Proof” is acknowledged to not really exist or even be important in most science, due to the statistical nature of it. Very high probability and convincing evidence is the key. Translate it, and that is basically the case for legal “proof” as well. They are not “absolutely” proving anything. You have probably heard of the terms “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “preponderance of evidence”. Well, that’s the courts ACTUALLY look for. This is quite different from “ironclad proof”. Quite different from absolutes.
And you are welcome if I did actually make you step back a little and think. Hopefully that works out nicely for you. If so, sorry for the rudeness, it comes with the blog. If not, sorry I wasn’t ruder, I have disappointed the blog.
@anteprepro
Again, a palpable hit!
I hope we can part as friends, at least until the next intractable debate over this-or-that….
(I can’t believe I was forced to defend someone that is basically indefensible….now I need a shower)
Shouldn’t this be how internet conversations work? Just saying….!
kurtdoles:
Let me just quote those statistics anteprepro shared with us all again:
Explain the current system’s “effectiveness” to me, because apparently we use different definitions.
There seems to be a lot of confusion between legality and morality recently. Whether it is freeze peach, innocent until guilty, or 2nd amendment as moral imperitive to own guns. We don’t really teach people about philosophy and ethics in school, but push a mythology of exceptionalism centered on our constitution, so I shouldn’t be surprised.
Being a Vulcan with a law book is a poor substitute to learning and listening to the people affected by our society’s choices.
@kurtdoles
I am a lawyer (not in the US) and so I have an instinctive reaction similar to yours, but I think it is inappropriate in this case. Cosby made his money, and Temple likes to ‘use’ him, in the media…in the spin-world of entertainment, where image is far more important than substance. Celebrities from the entertainment world create or are the subjects of created images that are, as best as I can tell, often very far from reality. Such seems to be the case with Cosby. When one attains fame and fortune from such non-real attributes as being a television or movie ‘star’, then one has no right to complain when one’s reputation is destroyed by plausible, if less than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ evidence. The evidence against him, that is in the public domain, certainly seems to have at least as much substance (I’d say far more substance) than the evidence that made him appear to be such a ‘good’ guy, and worth of his fame and fortune.
Those who live by projecting or allowing others to project false images of who they are have no right to complain, and are not entitled to your sort of ‘defence’, when what appears, on balance of probabilities, to be the truth comes out.
stillacrazycanuck 39:
Now there’s something I never considered. We judge public figures based on the available evidence all the time. So now we have new evidence in the form of these accusations, but we’re not allowed to revise our opinions because…..fame? Fuck that.
@ kurtdoles
Individual people are not courts of law. Nobody here has the power to strip Bill Cosby of any freedoms. Individual people are not obligated to wait for the legal system to reach a verdict before forming an opinion and acting on it. Individual people are entirely at liberty to believe women when they say they’ve been raped because we know that 90+% of the time, when a woman says she’s been raped, IT’S BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN.
This whole “let’s wait for the courts” bullshit? Is propping up the system. The courts don’t give a shit about rape. Most rape cases never even make it to court and those that do rarely convict. Fuck, there are situations where they have VIDEO and they still can’t get a jury to convict. The standard defense against a rape charge is “look at what a slutty mcslut slut my accuser is”. Cops go to great lengths to discourage victims from reporting at all. They get stonewalled at hospitals if they try to get a rape kit done. Rape kits by the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS sit untested in warehouses all over the country. Judges reduce the sentences of convicted rapists because the accuser didn’t act like a victim. And on and on and on. And you want people wait for the courts before condemning him? That means he doesn’t fucking GET condemned. Nope, sorry. I’ll use my own judgment and condemn him now, thanks very much and you can go whine about it somewhere else.
I dunno about cutting ties, but I certainly wouldn’t recommend “standing by him”. Yes, he’s not convicted of anything, but his reputation is down the toilet already and doubling down on him seems like a mistake.
Going back to Penn State for a moment – for most of the time in question Sandusky was not on the staff, was just another citizen strolling into the locker rooms. Paterno, on the other hand, was the one with the legal and the moral responsibility for what went on in his department. Hell, there was probably something in his contract, however vaguely worded.
Thus, Paterno and Sandusky both to blame is a perfectly reasonable and legally supportable analysis.
Anyway, Cosby and all the similar cases have identified the next task for the campaigning sisters and brothers in the US – to get those ridiculous statutes of limitation lifted so that a crime of violence or a series of crimes which follow the same pattern can always be prosecuted. That way, refusing to investigate, subjecting victims to pressure and hiding rape kits in faraway warehouses will not be available as impediments to – guess what! – yes, equal justice for all.
I conclude: On the public moral outrage scale, once a human being passes maturity horizon, rapey stuff slumps from several-steps-above-genocide level to doesn’t-even-register level. That’s entirely natural since the value of a human being, especially a female (or female-bodied) one, drops precipitously with age. Only logarithmic scales can appropriately convey the difference.
Adult women are clearly more burden than asset to society; their contributions are invaluable, which is obviously synonymous with unworthy of recognition, let alone compensation. Like the house gnomes of Cologne, women’s accomplishments are supposed to be invisible in the background, hence a given (save for a few token exceptions). In return for having loads of disadvantages and hardly any real advantages, women are supposed to shut up and not complain.
(Why yes, they should be grateful for all that unwanted attention they are getting, and that “surprise sex” that is more blessed to give than to receive. Complaining is a sign of weakness and also oppressive and cruel at the same time, somehow. Criticism is a male monopoly, because women are doing it wrong due to being naturally illogical and stupid and deceitful.)
From the male point of view, it’s entirely fair that women are nothing and men everything, and that’s the only view that counts in a world where men are still in control. Because might makes right and the world is just and Social Darwinism rocks, at least for those whose opinion matters.
Something something Judeo-Christian heritage something. But totally compatible with atheism and science somehow. Don’t ask me, I didn’t make the rules.
Depressing.
The only comfort I can offer is that the increasingly desperate dudebro reactions are a symptom that they’re realising that history is not on their side. Just like the religious fundies, they’re awfully insecure, lacking the self-confidence of winners.
Hey, we made it until comment #12 before the usual “don’t do anything before a court verdict has been spoke, because it there isn’t one then retroactively nothing happened” started.
kurtdoles
In other words you don’t believe that women are people who can testify truthfully to what has happened to them, i.e. give evidence. B*tches be lying, am I right?
thesoftmachine
Did you see the huge statue of Justitia right in front of the doors before you entered here?
No?
That’s because we’re not in a fucking court. The fact that somebody has not been tried in court does not change the facts.
But since kurtdoles already brought out the Goodwin, let me say this:
Do you know who’s also never been convicted in court?
Hitler!
Oh, or the 9/11 terrorists
Or Osama bin Laden
Or, to put it a different way… Say your ten-year-old said, “Don’t ask Jennifer to babysit us; my friend said she stole stuff out of his mom’s jewelry box and slapped his little brother really hard for waking up and crying while she was kissing her boyfriend”. Would you wait until she was formally convicted in court of the theft and the battery before deciding she wouldn’t make a good babysitter, or would you say, “Hey, I don’t know all the facts; maybe she had a good reason to take something out of the jewelry box and maybe his brother was being a real brat and maybe the boyfriend was just bringing her schoolwork over”? I mean, fair’s fair and benefit of the doubt and innocent until proven guilty, right? Or maybe you’d think, “Hey, Jenny sounds like trouble and I don’t think it’s a good idea to have her over here even though the only witnesses were little kids”? That’s kind of where we’re at.
Anyone who believes this blog is a courthouse trial should wait to be called before testifying.
Anyone who is commenting without being called from the bench to do so is acknowledging that this is neither a trial nor a courthouse, that there is no judge or jury, that there will be no verdict and that we can pronounce no sentence.
You’re welcome.
One can compare this case with OJ Simpson and Roman Polanski, who have not been found guilty in a court of law (OJ was acquitted and Polanski fled the country before sentencing). People seem to have no problem forming an opinion of their guilt.
The Onion is on top of things…
Re K-machine @ #49
It is my information that Polanski agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge in return for a suspended sentence. The plea bargain was rejected by the judge in the case and Polanski fled the country , fearing he would be convicted and sent to the slammer. He fled to France which refused to extradite him back to California
As for Simpson, there was a strong circumstantial case against him which did not depend on he said she said testimony. In the Cosby case, the only evidence against Cosby is he said she said testimony (and so far he ain’t saying anything). The Cosby and Simpson cases are not similar.
“He said, she said” testimony, colnago? Really?
Fuck right off.
(Also: It is more like “6 Women say, he refuses to say anything and quietly settles a few cases out of court”. But who cares about details? http://time.com/3592547/bill-cosby-rape-allegations-timeline/)
Why is it that in any case of “he said/she said”, the “he said” is considered the default truth of the matter?
And why is it that it doesn’t matter *how* many she’s there are, their statements are never given any sort of weight?
Good point, Tashiliciously Shriked.
He said: “Nothing happened”
She said: “Bullshit, he raped me!”
Amazingly, the fence-sitters shift on this issue. They usually love them some Golden Mean “the truth is somewhere in between” bullshit.
Amazingly also, they never seem to factor into the equation that in this scenario, rapist or not, innocent or guilty, the “he said” WILL ALMOST ALWAYS BE “Nothing Happened”. So who gives a shit about the “he said”!!? The entire purpose of framing it as a “he said, she said” is to cast doubt on the woman, on the victim. Without at all acknowledging the obvious: There is little reason for the women to lie, and EVERY reason for the man to.
Re #51 and #52
(Also: It is more like “6 Women say, he refuses to say anything and quietly settles a few cases out of court”. But who cares about details?
Actually, it is my information that it is more then 6. However, I made no value judgments. IMHO, there is sufficient smoke here that there is little doubt that it is being caused by fire. My only point was that the comparison between Cosby and Polanski/Simpson was invalid.
Why is it that in any case of “he said/she said”, the “he said” is considered the default truth of the matter?
It is in the courtroom because of the presumption of innocence and the requirement for a guilty verdict to be beyond a reasonable doubt. As any prosecutor will tell you, he said she(s) said cases are tough to prove in a courtroom where the case hinges on the credibility of the complainant and the defendant. The situation has improved in many states because of rape shield laws which prevent the defendant’s lawyers from bringing into court evidence of the prior sexual activities of the complainant. However, the laws also severely restrict the admission of evidence of prior sexual activities of the defendant. This was evident in the case in Florida many years ago of Kennedy family relative William Kennedy Smith, who was accused of rape. The judge ruled in the case that evidence of prior sexual activities of both Smith and the complainant were inadmissible.
colnago:
Actually, you only said that the comparison to Simpson was invalid. You never said that for Polanski, explicitly. Which was good for you, because that is a fucking ridiculous conclusion. Cosby settled on two cases too, you pedantic, handwringing fuckwad.
We. Are. Not. Talking. About. Court.
Fucking fuck.
colnago80 @50:
the “only” evidence against Cosby. Way to minimize the fact that 15 women (of them, Barbara Bowman, Janice Dickinson, Andrea Constand, Joan Tarshis, Tamara Green, Beth Ferrier, Therese Signese, and Louisa Mortiz have all gone public with their accusations. Also, Carla Ferrigno has accused Cosby of trying to sexually assault her back in 1967) have accused him of sexual assault. Way to play with the same tropes of Rape Culture that dismiss allegations of sexual assault on the grounds of “he said/she said”. Way to side with the man (because ultimately, that’s what people who bring up “he said/she said” are doing. They never side with the woman. It’s always siding with the man, bc B*tches be lyin’ amirite?)
****
Tashiliciously Shriked @52:
Good question. That’s something that Barbara Bowman touched on in her recent article at The Washington Post. She says that people didn’t believe her story (or the fact that 13 women were set to testify against Cosby prior to him reaching a settlement with Andrea Constand). It took comedian Hannibal Buress publicly calling out Cosby during a stand-up act for a public outcry to ensue. Woman says she was sexually assaulted by a celebrity?
No public outcry.
Man calls out celebrity rapist?
Public outcry.
Once again we see that women simply are not believed. Their lived experiences are treated as unimportant. Only the words of men matter. By god I hate that.
I think the TMZ article makes a mistake by opening with Cosby Bill Cosby still being “welcome at all Temple University sporting events”. As he’s never been convicted of a crime, there’s no reason he can’t buy a ticket and sit in the stands like anyone else. But the real issue is that he’s on the board of trustees. The multiple allegations are serious enough to merit removing him from the board, and they ought to do that. They ought also not to grant him any special privileges or access, nothing more than what any other ticket buying patron can get. Sadly, they’re clearly more worried about losing the money he donates, and likely has written into his estate, than about supporting victims, which is just an awful statement for a university to me making, particularly right now.
Indeed, and this kind of thought seems hopelessly confused anyway. I put some weight on the claim that a person making an accusation is telling the truth. They might not be, because they’re lying or mistaken (or tricked by an evil demon, etc.), and I have to consider those possibilities as reducing the chances they’re telling the truth. But without countervailing evidence reducing the probability, overall this means I get an increase from the evidence I do get of the person having some credibility and making some such credible allegation. So if it started out low before I ever heard the accusation, the chances increase when this credible person makes a credible accusation to that effect. That Cosby merely says something (or that he doesn’t say anything at all!) doesn’t give me much to work with, because it’s very likely that a guilty person will try to conceal their guilt. If, on the other hand, some kind of evidence is provided to that effect, then it’s fair to treat it as such, still balanced against the high likelihood that a guilty person will try to conceal their guilt.
So, it increases the likelihood that I had before, based on the evidence that I actually have. That’s separate from the total balance of probabilities. Maybe, after this increase, it’s still under 50% that he’s guilty, but in no sense does “he said/she said” mean we’re permanently stuck in the middle, or at any particular place on the spectrum no matter what new evidence comes in, until by some kind of magic it jumps to zero or one. Nor does that mean that only when we reach either of those extremes can we finally make a “rational” decision, based on the results we have at hand. It’s not rational but positively stupid to sum this whole process up as “he said/she said” and pretend as if we’re in some state of pure ignorance until the magic happens (who knows what the fuck that would be), and then of course distort the meaning of “innocent until proven guilty” with just as much illogical vigor to actually believe the accused is likely to be innocent.
I’ve actually found that in about 99,99% of the cases that can be termed “he said/she said” involving sexual assault, she said is correct without reservation.
Multiple “she’s” don’t really add much to the odds, but do make me sick to my stomach that this has been going on for so long.
But, then again, I am a rational human being who takes evidence and history into account.
Tashiliciously Shriked: It should add to the odds for people who are Oh So Skeptical, though. But they are apparently far too Skeptical to factor in testimony from many women as more than a single item of “she said” evidence.
I mean, fuck, the borderline innumerate. Let’s say wimmenz lie, far more frequently than logic or facts dictate. Say only 80% of rape allegations are accurate. Say only 50%. Say only 25 goddamn percent. So what are the odds, in these three scenarios, that three women would all be liars? That five? Ten? Fifteen?
80%: .8% for three, .03% for five, .00001% for ten, .000000003% for fifteen
50%: 12.5% for three, 3% for five, 0.1% for ten, .003% for fifteen
25%: 42% for three, 24% for five, 5.6% for ten, 1.3% for fifteen.
So either these bullshitters think that more than 3/4ths of rape allgegations are bullshit, or that having a 1% chance or less of 15 women lying is sufficient enough to trust that the man is guiltless and the women are just filthy liars. Or they just can’t think properly. But I suppose I repeat myself.
If Cosby was accused of these assaults under Canadian law there would be no statute of limitations on these serious crimes. He would be persecuted to the full extent of the law. I think this is a good thing. I don’t understand how time can take away a person’s responsibility for their actions. With victims of sexual abuse, people are often filled with shame and fear to come forward, especially decades ago when the authorities would have just ridiculed anyone who would accuse a popular public figure like Cosby of such crimes.
Here is a good article by the CBC about our laws and how they differ from American ones. If you read the comments you will see that there is the same rape apologetic culture that is festering all over unfortunately.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bill-cosby-accusers-face-legal-limits-in-u-s-unlike-in-canada-1.2841564
@40 I suggest you either re-read my post or take remedial reading training, or both.
It’s also worthy to note that the Catholic Lobby has been a driving force in the US to keep the statute of limitations intact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/us/sex-abuse-statutes-of-limitation-stir-battle.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Re anteprepro @ #55
The dissimilarity between Cosby and Polanski is that the latter agreed to plead guilty to the statutory rape charge so, in fact, it is no longer a he said she said as he admitted that he had sex with an underage girl. The issue of consent is irrelevant.
Re #59
Oh yeah, how about the Duke lacrosse players? By the way, citation need for for your claim. From the attached link, it appears that your claim is wildly exaggerated.
http://goo.gl/tMz1gF
Re eveningchaos 63
There is no statute of limitations in most US jurisdictions for homicide charges. See the Martha Moxley case in Connecticut where Michael Skakel was charged with her murder some 25 years after the crime took place.
However, there is a legitimate argument for such a statute. For instance, if a potential defendant is charged years after the crime occurred, how would he/she go about proving an alibi. Who the fuck can remember where he/she was at a particular time on a particular date 5 years ago?
colnago, you are wrong and yet so confidently, arrogantly, loudly wrong, in defense of fucking rape.
That was settled out of court because it was only a civil lawsuit.
Wikipedia:
The only fucking difference in the two is that one was settled out of court because it was a civil lawsuit while the other resulted in a plea bargain, the equivalent situation in a criminal trial, because it was a criminal case. They are essentially the same fucking thing, you smarmy, rape apologizing, fuckwit.
Fuck. Off.
colnago80
Yo moron. Tashiliciously Shriked didn’t claim to be citing any particular statistics, just their own experience. Your article that you linked, says 8-10% false claims. Do you get what that means, fuckwit? That means 90-92% are true. That means about 90% of the time, when a woman claims she was raped, it’s because she was. That means that, absent any other evidence, a rational person believes the accuser. The Duke lacrosse team doesn’t undo that. They’re simply part of that 8-10%.
stillacrazycanuck @62:
Actually, I think you’re off here. I don’t believe that FossilFishy was criticizing your post. His comment @40 seems to be criticizing the idea that some (not you) have that Cosby’s fame is somehow a factor in whether or not to believe the allegations against him.
****
Colnago80 @64:
One example of a false rape allegation out of the thousands upon thousands of legitimate ones? Yeah, I’m still going to believe women when they say they’ve been raped.
By the way, for those who might be mistaken into thinking colnago is intellectually honest and capable of reason, you might want to reconsider. Some of you may be like me and vaguely remember the nym. May I help you recall a thread that they trolled four months ago or so? One of the few previous contributions I could find of theirs to the site.?
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/07/20/no-more-us-support-for-israel/
Normally I would quote some snippets, but suffice it to say that colnago defended glorious Israel using the same hyperskepticism they are using here, with an additional bonus of accusing Pharyngulites of being anti-semites and Godwinning the thread right out of the gate.
In case anyone needed to be reassured that colnago was a disgusting and disingenuous troll.
Seven of Mine @67:
To add to this…
That 8-10% figure doesn’t mean that in those cases the victims were lying. There are other factors that contribute to a false rape claim (victims recanting or insufficient evidence to pursue an investigation).
Tony @ 70
I believe the statistics quoted in the linked article actually use the term “unfounded” and not “false.” And you’re right, it varies by police department what they’ll tag as false. It could be anything from only claims that are actual lies to literally EVERY. CLAIM. I remember a couple years ago it was in the news that West Virginia (I think) officially changed its policy from defaulting all rape claims to false in the wake of Stuebenville.
Ah yes, duke lacross.
name two more cases of false rape allegations. I double-dog dare you, motherfucker. And i further say thar for every two you find, i can find ten real ones dismissed as false because of duke.
If you can use one case to cast doubt on all, why cant we use *the rest of the cases since that have been true*? I mean if we assume all wimminz be lying, we cause far more harm than if we assume all rape claims are true.
Not to mention that the duke case has more to do with a mentally ill person who was most probably a victim of sexual assault in the past than whatever it us yoy want to use it for
Phone posting is a chore ;_;
Tash, YES.
Also the irony of using duke (one he) to dismiss every other major rape allegation in the press (many shes) in reply to a comment about how one he said is worth more than numberless she saids
And again I ask, how many of these men dismissing 15 women’s accounts in favour of the one man’s are also sneeringly dismissive of Islamic law setting the worth of one woman’s testimony at less than a man’s? And again I say, at least they’re defining it absolutely. In our culture, the number of women needed to outweigh a man’s testimony is “one more than there are.”
I should make a fucking macro of it.
@ colnago80;
I want you to consider what you have been saying on this thread, and the impact such attitudes have when replicated by many persons such as yourself across civil society. @ 50 you wrote;
I imagine you feel that this is merely some method of being fair and equitable between the two parties, but (as pointed out by several other commenters) you are ignoring the specific facts and social context of this situation. Firstly, there is the point that in cases of rape and sexual assault it is rare for there to be other witnesses; sexual predators make a point of seeking to isolate their victims before an attack, so dismissing all claims without corroborating testimony from a third party amounts to dismissing the vast majority of rape allogations out of hand, which effectively declares open season on women for predators.
Secondly, we already have statistics (including the article you linked to @ 64) for ‘he said she said’ situations with regard to rape, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, what ‘she said’ is accurate – most of the time, when a woman says she was raped it is because she was raped. False rape allegations exist, but they are a comparative rarity. It makes no sense to assume that the woman must be lying when the preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise, unless one has an agenda to disbelieve women on a point of principle that is utterly unrelated to the evidence.
It is also not a case of ‘he said she said’ at all – multiple women have come forward to accuse Crosby of various sexual assaults over a period of many years, so you are not calling into question the word of one woman with regard to one incident (as problematic as that would be), but are instead positing a fantastically unlikely conspiracy among a group of women to craft similar lies to destroy one man, all done with no discernable motive on the part of the women in question.
There is also your post @ 54 to consider;
As has been repeatedly stated by many other commenrers, Pharyngula is not a courtroom. It is utterly unreasonable to apply legal standards of proof to a conversation on a blog forum about this case, and serve only to stifle discussion.
Bearing all this in mind, I think you need to consider what effect statements such as this – replicated across countless forums of conversation every time the topic of rape and sexual assault comes up over decades – has on rape survivors. It hammers home the message that, as women, they will never be believed, while every effort will be made to excuse and minimise the actions of their attacker. When people like yourself react to accounts of rape with hyperskepticism and double standards masquerading as ‘fair play’, you effectively discourage rape survivors from coming forward to report these crimes – you silence them. In the process, you create cover for rapists by casting a pall of doubt over the trustworthiness of women simply for being women. You act as an ally for sexual predators.
Ask yourself; is that really how you want to live your life?
Example:
I am a false rape allegation
Oh god, i remember when rhat was linked here the furst time. It still makes me sick
Duke fucking Lacrosse.
It’s always Duke fucking Lacrosse.
The very fact that you dipshits can always only come up with that one example, but you do so often because there are dozens of prominent and thousands of “ordinary” cases each year should tell you something about proportions here.
Honestly, you’re like the idiots arguing against seatbelts because once in a million times somebody dies in their car because they cannot get out of the car.
That’s how you know you are arguing with a disingenuous person who is likely an MRA. The love Duke fucking Lacrosse.
Re anteprepro @ #66
I don’t know all the details of the 2006 incident but the fact that they settled out of court does not necessarily mean that Cosby raped her. Contrary to popular belief, there are other reasons for two parties settling out of court. In particular, the cost of litigation can be onerous and information embarrassing to both parties can be revealed. See
Bryant vs Faber in Colorado where it would have been very disadvantageous for both parties to go to court. Both parties had skeletons in their closets which they would prefer not to have revealed. And by the way, I don’t know what happened in that hotel and neither does anyone else other the Bryant and Faber. I do know that it appears, based on forensic evidence, that Faber committed perjury in her testimony under oath in an in-camera hearing in the judges chamber which was the reason for her declining to testify. No way an outstanding attorney like Lin Wood would have allowed her to testify without a grant of immunity which would have discredited anything she might say on the witness stand.
colnago80, you’re going to hurt someone whipping those goal posts around like that. It’s all fun and games til someone loses an eye.
*waits for the reply*
It’s a good thing you mention this. I was putting together a syllogism, which deduced that it must logically be true. As airtight as that might have been, it would be a waste of time to look for a logical contradiction like that. Thank you for teaching us this valuable lesson and not wasting our time at all. Now I’ll just go back to thinking he probably raped her.
Re consciousness razor @ #85
Based on what we are now hearing, I agree with you that he probably did rape her. My only point was that citing an out of court settlement as ipso facto implying the truth of the accusation should be avoided.
Re #83
I fail to see how the goal posts were moved. The case of Bryant vs Faber was a perfect example of he said she said, which was the topic under discussion and a textbook example of how one should not infer the truth of the accusation based on a settlement in a civil case.
I see youre avoiding duke now
Wonder why
colnago80 @ 86
Cosby’s out of court settlements were brought up to correct a misrepresentation of yours, i.e. that the Cosby situation is a) he said/she said and b) not comparable to Polanski’s case. Nobody was inferring shit from the settlement. You only made it about that after you were proved wrong.
Re #87
What would you like me to say about the Duke lacrosse case? OK I will say something. I would first point out that Amanda Marcotte continued to proclaim the guilt of the 3 players long after it became clear that the case was a crock. Similarly, Wendy Murphy and James Curtis continued to proclaim that Bryant was guilty and that Judge Terry Ruckriegle erred in ruling that the defense could produce evidence of Faber’s sexual activity for the period of 72 hours prior to her examination and the taking of a rape kit at the hospital on the day following her encounter with Bryant. This after the evidence of her apparent perjury.
You brought it up, one would think you’d have something to say
And did you miss my post about aaid case?
Re #88
Sorry, the difference between the 2006 Cosby case and the Polanski case is quite evident and I in no way, shape, form, or regard was I proved wrong. As I understand it, aside from the fact that one was a civil case and the other a criminal case, at no time did Cosby admit his guilt and, as I have previously stated, agreeing to an out of court settlement can not be taken as an admission of same. Polanski admitted his guilt and agreed to a plea bargain which was rejected by the judge in the case. If you fail to see the difference between the two cases, then I can’t help you.
Seven of Mine got it precisely at 88. The settlement is exactly as indicative of actual guilt as a plea deal: It hints towards guilt but it isn’t a slam dunk, because it is an obvious, calculated strategy.
colnago:
Relevance?
What the ever-living fuck? You are now just making me fucking embarrassed for you. Congratulations.
Re #72
How about William Kennedy Smith? He was found not guilty by the jury which didn’t believe his accuser beyond a reasonable doubt.
colnago:
That’s really your only quibble left. That’s it. Your other argument is obvious bullshit. And the kicker: the quote above is information that I WAS THE FIRST ONE TO BRING UP. As in, it was not your original fucking argument.
You are fucking pathetic.
Re anteprepro @ #92
Your ignorance of the legal system is most profound. Just for your information, a negotiated settlement out of court by two parties in a civil case does not require the defendant to admit to anything. A plea bargain in a criminal case requires the defendant to admit his guilt in open court and also requires the concurrence of the judge, neither of which is required in an out of court settlement in a civil case. This is aside from the fact that a criminal case requires the proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt while a civil case carries the lower standard of preponderance of the evidence. Even I, a non-lawyer, know this.
colnago, think for one fucking minute: imagine that reality exists outside of the courtroom. I am sure this is mind boggling thought experiment to you, but try your hardest. S
So from this perspective, what is settling out of court? The accused partially conceding the point to the accuser in a civil case.
So from this perspective, what is a plea bargain? The accused partially conceding the point to the accuser in a criminal case.
So, why does Polanski analogy fail again!?
The burden of proof details is irrelevant to the above, by the way. Don’t even know why you are bringing it up. You don’t seem to be reading very well. I think cleverbot would do better.
So the difference is essentially that a few specific words were not spoken. Wow, that’s pretty Earth-shaking.
Actually, no, I still do not see the relevance of that, in determining how it affects the likelihood of him actually being guilty (since admitting guilt has nothing to do with it).
colnago, if you agree that Cosby was likely guilty of rape, THEN WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE? Why the fuck are you here to dance around and play word games specifically in order to dismiss criticism of Cosby if you admit that he probably did it? Gibbering shitweasel.
Thank you for prima facie evidence that the system and juries take the words of lying males over non-lying females. You proved our point, not yours. You lie and bullshit.
And you lie, bullshit, and deflect like a lawyer, but it never makes your point. Try citing third party evidence, not just alluding to it.
consciousness razor @ 97
Surely not, since as everyone knows, no false admissions of guilt have ever been made in any case whatsoever… :p
Re #99
Gee, you declare William Kennedy Smith to be guilty. Did you follow the case or watch it on TV (I believe it was one of the first trials televised). If you didn’t you have quite a crust making that accusation as it is based on total ignorance. Just for the record, I didn’t follow the case closely, being otherwise engaged at the time. I suspect that Smith was probably guilty but probably doesn’t get it done.
So what about “beyond reasonable doubt” is beyond “probably”? It sure as hell isn’t “definitively beyond any possibility of error”.
Re anteprepro @ #96
So from this perspective, what is settling out of court? The accused partially conceding the point to the accuser in a civil case.
So from this perspective, what is a plea bargain? The accused partially conceding the point to the accuser in a criminal case.
Absolutely and positively wrong. In no way, shape, form or regard is settling out of court in a civil case conceding anything. Agreeing to a plea bargain isn’t partially conceding the point. It’s getting up in open court before the judge and admitting, yeah, I did it. Nothing partial about it. You seem to be amazingly ignorant for a grown man/woman.
Hey folks, let’s see if I construct a colnago 80 post! Let’s see:
“RE 101
Habeas corpus!
Lee Harvey Oswald!
Benghazi!
Hitler biscuit!
Duke Lacrosse!
NOOOOOOOOOOPE”
I think that looks about right. Mission accomplished.
Get what done? Science gets done with probably. Everyday beliefs get done with probably. About the only thing that doesn’t get done with probably is Jesus flying out of my ass and injecting a mathematical proof directly into your mind to give you a fucking revelation of pure, unadulterated, absolute, metaphysical certitude.
Fucking sophists.
antepro @ 104
Yours is rather too convincing, I think.
colnago, you seem to have yet again ignored the fact that we are supposed to be, hypothetically, looking from the controversial point of view that entirety of human existence has not been recorded by court stenographers.
Or, to argue in your style:
Nope nope contempt of court nope nope Adolph nope prosecution nope nope Mary Kay Letourneau nope nope nope
For fuck’s sake, this is like pigeon chess.
Again, colnago, WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE?
Re consciousness razor @ #105
By getting it done refers to getting a guilty verdict which requires guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Probably is far less then beyond a reasonable doubt. However, probably may get it done in a civil case which is preponderance of the evidence. According to the article in Wiki, apparently the accuser in the William Kennedy Smith case didn’t file a civil action against him, although he did settle a case out of court involving accusations of sexual harassment.
Re anteprepro @ #107
Excuse me, the issue involving Cosby is very much a legal issue as the statute of limitations on both civil and criminal actions has apparently run out. However, his reputation has suffered a huge hit, which will probably cause his wallet to suffer.
Re anteprepro @ #108
Mary Kay Latourneau? Why not bring up Debra Lefave?
colnago80, you fucking idiot, answer me this one question: Is Bill Cosby automatically not a rapist if he is never convicted of rape in court?
We are discussing what Bill Cosby HAS DONE, not what his fucking court record is, you fucking pissant.
How many times does this need to be fucking explained? How fucking thick you are?
diana6815 @3:
He didn’t. As a child, he attended an experimental school run by Temple.
colnago80:
Damn, it’s like you are parodying yourself on my behalf now.
I am calling it now: colnago80 is a spambot designed by the ID network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_Discovery
Called it. We have an MRAss.
Legalities have nothing to do with his raping women. You are trying to provide a smokescreen, but I notice you coughing an awful lot as your smoke blows back in your face. Typical of MRA/liberturd/RWA types, you have the problem that you think the more you talk, the more sense you make. But here, the more you talk, the more we laugh at you. BwahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
anteprepro,
He’s saying that rapists should get away with it when their victims cannot get justice in a courtroom. What else could he be saying.
I’ve tossed around Richard Dawkins’s tweet about women who “want to be in a position to accuse a man of rape” and he’s saying the same thing. Dawkins is a writer. He’s also a clear communicator. That’s what he is famous for.
*Trigger Warning*
Has he ever said that he thinks Shermer did not fuck a blotto young woman? No. Has he stated clearly that fucking a woman without her consent isn’t rape? Has he said that being incoherently intoxicated is consent? No. He said that if I (a woman) want to be able to accuse a man of rape (the man’s guilt is not specified) I better take care not to be intoxicated. (Again by whose hand is not even specified. Not that it matters. Still, FFS.)
I can’t accuse him. Not, I can’t be raped. I cannot accuse my rapist.
I’m angry. Hell, I’m livid. Anyone who tells me not to be can consider my opinion of them to be (for what it’s worth) extremely low.
do you know how many raped children that have come through my life? How many raped special needs adults have come through my husbands? My own children were nearly sent to live with a pedophile. THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN OUR COURTROOMS!
Systematic bigotry is real and it is so pervasive that people deny it because they cannot even see it. They don;t want to see it. They deny they see it. That reminds me of things I cannot even legally tell you.
The part that makes my blood positively boil is that this is a problem that needs a solution yesterday and we can’t even start fixing it because we people fight tooth and nail to deny the problem exists.
If I hear one more man tell me when it’s OK to rape me and when it is OK for me to say a man has raped me I will scream. This is not OK. How are we still debating whether or not this is OK?
How are the people saying that this is not OK still being compared to Nazis ans terrorists?
How are the same people who send volleys of hate mail every time a rape, case of harassment or sexism still denying that it is not one shirt that is the problem, just like it is not one snowflake that makes an avalanche? How?
No, I don’t feel charitable. I feel like getting drunk. But I better not, because if when I do some man decides to rape me, I can never accuse him.
If I do and 14 other women do, you’ll all need to treat us like liars even when you do not believe we are, just like our friend colnago80. Just like out thinky king Dawkins.
Thems the rules y’all. Simmer down and get used to them. /s
Jackie, that was what really needed to be said here. I get so caught up in the games these assholes play that I sometimes lose sight of the state of affairs that their handwaving and inanities are deployed in defense of. Great post. And this:
That hits me deep. I know how much of this shit is out there and my heart bleeds. It is so fucking tragic, and when assholes like those who have popped up in this thread start licking the boots of the legal system in order to continue silencing victims….disgust, despair, really, there are no words.
@62 stillacrazycanuck
I think maybe you need to reread post #40 because I’ve read it a couple of times now and it seems to me the commenter is agreeing with you.
@103 “Absolutely and positively wrong. In no way, shape, form or regard is settling out of court in a civil case conceding anything.”
I have to disagree with you here, pardner. I sure as hell would never enter into any kind of a settlement with someone accusing me of rape … unless I thought there was a chance I would lose in court. He’s not conceding anything in a legal sense, but you need to learn to read between the lines.
2 things.
No, I didn’t preview. If you think that undermines what I wrote, your opinion does not matter to me.
If he wanted to specify, he’s had the time and he’s had the platforms to do so. He doubled down. Have faith enough in your hero to believe he means what he says.
Nice to know that col was a waste of carbon
@ Jackie:
It never fails to amaze me that Dawkins Fans can simultaneously argue “he’s the greatest communicator EVAR” and “but that’s not really what he meant, let me explain it to you”.
Also, thanks for #116. Just yeah, that.
TRIGGER WARNING
When you have had to sit next to a child molester and listen to him say to a judge that the baby’s family dropped the charges anyway and that since he never got to rape that one kid he thought he was grooming to rape online, he should not be on the sex offender registry or you have looked in the eyes of the 5 year old whose mother said she “seduced” her boyfriend, you can shut the fuck up. Really. You need to sit your ass down and listen. You don’t know shit.
Seriously, any Vulcan skeptic asshole reading this: I dare you to go volunteer at CASA or a rape crisis center and still say this shit about calming our tits and acting like “rational” people. The facts say we are right. You have just spent you lives blissfully unaware of how the world works and you need to go find out.
I did foster care. Kids who stayed with me often locked the bathroom door when they bathed. Guess how many people I’ve seen go to jail for what caused that?
You know what else you can do? You can go give a man a bath who has the mentality of an 18 month old and who has been raped throughout his life in an state institution. Guess how many people I’ve even seen fired for shit like that?
Clueless people talk like they are so hard and so above it all. They call us fragile and pompous and idiots. That’s rich. Those soft headed, candy assed, ignorant douche bags need to climb down here with the rest of us and take a look around.
Amen jackie
Have muffins and hugs
colnago80, #109
Good. It’s the least he deserves for sexually assaulting and/or raping over a dozen women.
Don’t you think?
Here’s something about the system these people don’t know:
The people who know what’s going on are not allowed by law to talk about it.
This reminds me of Dawkins’s Law: Those who cannot speak about oppression are the only ones who are allowed to speak up about it.
The rapists get to tell their stories. The social workers, lawyers, judges, victims and their support network cannot. If they did, they media wouldn’t report it. If it does and the truth makes it through the crucible to the public, they respond like our troll or they send threats.
But in saying that, I muzzle famous, wealthy white dudes, so I guess I’m the bad guy.
@Rob Grigjanis
thanks for the clarification :-)
sigurd jorsalfar @119,
We know, right? This is not difficult. In the strict Vulcan-legal-logical-technical sense settling a case does not necessarily mean conceding or admitting anything. But it is undeniable that settling is simply not consistent with what an innocent being would do, and so we can, should and must read between the lines. We must conclude that he is almost certainly not innocent because his behavior is not consistent with what an innocent person would do.
It makes sense for the victim to want to avoid a trial but not an innocent being. The victim will definitely have their story picked apart and doubted by people who have no understanding of victim psychology and no relevant lived experience. They will try to say that her behavior is not consistent with how they expect a victim to react and therefore she is lying. Which is victim-blaming and which supports rape culture by discouraging future victims from coming forward.
Thank you for the hugs but I will be having cupcakes. My oldest son loves cooking and especially Alton Brown. He just discovered Cupcake Wars. He’s been asking me all about cupcakes and how fast we can make them. I’m apparently going to be eating alot of cupcakes and I’m OK with that. :P
You should have seen his face when I told him we already have everything we need to make icing.
I feel like Prof. Snape. Welcome to Potions, young WIZZARD!
We are Plethora @128
Yes. And I’m always hearing how we all need to shut up and stop talking about these rape allegations because it’s just so damaging to the reputation of the poor guy who’s been accused. But if Cosby’s reputation was so valuable, why didn’t he fight for it in court? Apparently it’s supposed to be very valuable to us, but as for the actual owner of that reputation it’s perfectly understandable that he would decide it’s not really worth spending too much money over, so that’s why he settled.
This has been known for years. He’s still a rich, famous, well loved, respected man. Shit, it has been said that if it were not for The Cosby Show that Pres. Obama may never have had a chance at the presidency and you know what? I think that might be true.
This guy was bigger than Mr. Rogers for kids of my generation. I dare anyone here to pretend they don’t know the Picture Pages song. He’s an icon. When I was in grade school I could recite his stand up by heart. He changed TV in the 70’s and every 80’s kid loved him. I saw him live. He enchanted the audience. He is good at his craft. When he dies this will go away just like it did for Michael Jackson. 14 rapes will not put a dent in his legacy. You are concerned about the wrong person. He’s the bad guy who not only gets away, but get’s away and goes down in history as a hero.
Some people’s sympathies are so screwed up.
Jackie
You’re on fire, you’re kick-ass.
You’re a brave person on the net, but you’re a much braver person in your every day life when you look those kids in the eye and try to make up for the horrors others did to them.
+++
colagno
So you are either too dishonest or too stupid to understand that “not guilty by the standard of the court because that bar was hung very high for a reason” is not the same as “innocent because they actually didn’t do this?”
colnago80 is a spambot designed by the ID network
No, he’s also a crazy tribal fascist who likes to weigh in about Israel always being right, that it should push its settlements to complete ethnic cleansing, and anyone who disagrees with him is a racist.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-,
Thanks so much. I’m really not tough though. (I’m tougher than the people who protect their fee-fees with denial, but that is a low bar.) I burnt out hard and I don’t do that sort of work anymore. I was never good at coping with it and finally I admitted to myself that if I didn’t call it quits my brain was going to crumble like a cookie. There are people who can do it all day everyday, no problem their entire adult lives. I’m not one of them.
I have my kids for keeps now and the knowledge that they are safe. I never have to say goodbye. That feels good. That, I can live with. :)
So, this university wants to keep receiving Cosby’s money so badly, they’re not thinking about the BAD advertising they are receiving. All those young people looking for a college, checking out Temple and seeing ‘Bill Cosby, Temple’s favourite son”.
Let’s wait and see how that works out for them. Obviously, female students are going to pause before enrolling. Just imagine how the administration may treat you should you have cause to complain of sexual assault. Also, I would be worried about how many male students are thinking “excellent, Temple supports raping women while they are drugged/incapacitated by alcohol.”
Going to look at kitten videos now.
@Jackie the social justice WIZZARD!!!
Thank you for your passionate comments and your work with abuse victims.
Someone should print out your comments, especially #123, and tape them to Richard Dawkins’ forehead or something. That is what being a passionate feminist looks like, professor Dawkins. American women deal with domestic violence and sexual assault like women everywhere else on the planet, along with the silencing and denial. Because it’s not as open and as blatant as it is in other countries doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
UMass Amherst has cut ties with Cosby:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/27/showbiz/bill-cosby-umass-amherst/index.html?hpt=hp_c2