Sexual Abuse/Assault in the News

[playwithfire]

The main point I'm really trying to make is that the approach is so very much not binary. A lack of belief for allegations does not require an inherent dismissal of those allegations, nor does a lack of dismissal require belief.

I was responding to DC's suggestion that we distrust all anonymous accusations on the grounds of anonymity and clarifying what I meant, wasn't a philosophical comment on the truth of anonymous claims

[Harry Seaward]

I was responding to DC's suggestion that we distrust all anonymous accusations on the grounds of anonymity and clarifying what I meant, wasn't a philosophical comment on the truth of anonymous claims

I'm not being philosophical, I'm being precise in language to draw a line between different ideas that are always conflated. Distrust isn't the same thing as dismissal. Skepticism isn't always paired with the MRA "She should file an official notarized legal document or she's lying." shit. But to a good chunk of the crowd usually involved in these conversations, skepticism or refusal to take a stance is treated basically the same as flat out saying the accusations are false.

[playwithfire]

Yeah, but you quoted me responding to DC, not to you, where I was contextualizing my take on a very specific thing, where I was using the words somewhat interchangeably, and within that context I don't think the difference between the two holds that much semantic value.

[icklekitty]

Because, like I said before, it's a topic where people respond very passionately as a sort of reflexive reaction to a lifetime of social power imbalance so people are just primed to destroy the life of an abuser without entertaining the idea that a story might be false because they feel like that's questioning the victim.

Actually the social power imbalance works far more often in the other direction. Abusers can become President!

[Harry Seaward]

Actually the social power imbalance works far more often in the other direction. Abusers can become President!

Uh yeah, the power imbalance I was referring to was the power men have over women.

[icklekitty]

Uh yeah, the power imbalance I was referring to was the power men have over women.

Yes and I’m saying that people aren’t as a result primed to destroy the life of an abuser without entertaining etc etc the rest of your sentence. Quite the opposite.

[Harry Seaward]

Yes and I’m saying that people aren’t as a result primed to destroy the life of an abuser without entertaining etc etc the rest of your sentence. Quite the opposite.

I didn't so much mean society as a whole, but the people driving this movement.

What I meant was that very recently, with things like the #MeToo movement for example, we're seeing that power dynamic start to chip away in some ways - one of which is powerful men being held accountable for abuse. And so a lot of folks are feeling newfound empowerment, that's why I mean by primed. When you feel like you've been seen as secondary your entire life and you finally start to realize that's actually not accurate, it's pretty reasonable to band together with other people who also know this life and start working on the aforementioned power checks.

And most all of that is awesome and I can't imagine too many reasonable people wouldn't support it. Except I think that it can result in situations like some of the people ('the people' being the people even involved in this discussion on a social level) being inclined to automatically believe any claim and move on because they know what it feels like to not be believed. Which can result in militant adherence to the one conclusion allowed and if somebody else reaches a different conclusion no matter how minor or disagreeing on the tiniest little sub-point, they get thrown right in with the MRAs, incels, alt-right maniacs.

[Jinsai]

I’ll bring up the Duke Lacrosse case as great example of NOT jumping to conclusions.

EDIT: @sweeterthan (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=50) - not sure what the facepalm is for. Just pointing out that there’s always two sides to every story and not jumping to the easy conclusion that everyone is guilty just because the internet says so. The Duke men’s lacrosse case is an unfortunate example of this.

There's a billion sides to every story, some of those "sides" do little to advance the conversation other than distract from the larger point. Jumping up to say "hey, I found a few cases where a crazy woman made shit up" doesn't help much to further a conversation about why women should be generally believed and supported when they come forward with accusations of sexual assault.

[Harry Seaward]

There's a billion sides to every story, some of those "sides" do little to advance the conversation other than distract from the larger point. Jumping up to say "hey, I found a few cases where a crazy woman made shit up" doesn't help much to further a conversation about why women should be generally believed and supported when they come forward with accusations of sexual assault.

How about my point that publicly crucifying the accused is not necessarily an implicit part of believing and supporting these women? I just keep receiving facepalms with no discussion of why that's apparently such a terrible thought.

[Krazy]

^^^ That’s exactly what I was pointing out.

Theres a faction of people here that automatically think “someone posted it on the internet, so it’s 100% true”. It’s ok to take accusations seriously, while the accused have the right to tell their side and defend themselves as well. Let things play out before judging.

I brought up the Duke case since it’s a high profile thing that people here would have heard about. Some just like to plug their ears though when things let this happen so whatever.

[Sarah K]

Yep. Like the folks who cherry pick things, knowing full well that they are the exception, not the rule.

[theimage13]

Posting with just one comment: read the full story, not just the headline, before replying.

Hundreds of women in the UK prosecuted and imprisoned for lying about rape (https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/vulnerable-women-routinely-jailed-false-rape?utm_term=.raWNQnOy63#.rmbn3MpO8o)

[playwithfire]

Yep. Like the folks who cherry pick things, knowing full well that they are the exception, not the rule.

Yeah, like, I just can't get behind the narrative of false accusations being some exception with regards to rape cases, where people are implying the prevalence is suddenly much higher and the consequences are much worse. I think that's cemented in a narrative (and just to point out here, I'm just echoing points Sarah already made) that places responsibility of being assaulted and the experience of assault onto the shoulders of survivors instead of the people who did it.

If the phrases and language you're using (note that this isn't directed to any on person in particular) and the arguments you're holding up look awfully similar to the language used by people who are being victim-blaming assholes, like, maybe find better language.

[icklekitty]

Posting with just one comment: read the full story, not just the headline, before replying.

Hundreds of women in the UK prosecuted and imprisoned for lying about rape (https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/vulnerable-women-routinely-jailed-false-rape?utm_term=.raWNQnOy63#.rmbn3MpO8o)


Important to share.

[Jinsai]

Posting with just one comment: read the full story, not just the headline, before replying.

Hundreds of women in the UK prosecuted and imprisoned for lying about rape (https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/vulnerable-women-routinely-jailed-false-rape?utm_term=.raWNQnOy63#.rmbn3MpO8o)

I don't know what to make of this to be honest... I feel like where I stand on this is going to be predictably unpopular... but 3% of cases of reported rape were found to be "malicious and false?" That's fucking high, but the article seems to want the number to appear horrifyingly low. If there was a three percent chance you'd win the lottery, you'd play every day.

Yes, there's the real issue of deterrence; that victims would be afraid to come forward should they face prosecution. But what's the percentage number on that outcome, where women face jail time after being falsely imprisoned for false accusations? The article cites an example, but it doesn't explore that issue as seriously as it dismisses the three percent of "malicious" lies.

It makes an issue out of how these prosecutions against accusers have wrecked their lives, but I'm sorry, I'm not really feeling all that much sympathy for either Eleanor or Rhiannon, but I'm especially not feeling much sympathy for Rhiannon at all.

The article also doesn't REALLY explore how much these false accusations fuck people's lives up, and false accusations are damaging to victims; far more so than the idea that the possibility of prosecution could be to someone who was legitimately assaulted. It's illegal to prank call 911 - we don't see that as a reason to be afraid to call when we're in an emergency.

I don't like being the counter to this sort of point, but you can't just throw out how damaging this can be.

The person who ruined Brian Banks' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Banks_(American_football)#Sexual_assault_cas e) life SHOULD have been punished more than having to give back the money she earned in compensation for her fake claims. She was a sociopathic monster who fucking destroyed someone's life.

I believe women when they come forward with allegations. Even according to this article, there's a 97% chance they're telling the truth, and I'll bet on the odds there... but I'll hear people out. But sometimes, people's lives are seriously damaged by this sort of slander, and I don't know what the solution is. When the accuser is anonymous, you can't even counter-sue, like Bright Eyes immediately did when accusations came forward against him; which is what I think most people would do when falsely accused.

I don't know.... I hate even typing this shit, it makes me feel/sound like an asshole, but...

[eachpassingphase]

Jinsai, I hear what you are saying but I think these are two separate issues that are crashing into each other because of the climate of our society right now.

Believing victims before there is a conviction (or even if there is never one) is in my mind, separate from harassing and blowing up the lives of the accused before they have had their day in court. Telling a victim "I believe you, I'm sorry, I hope you are given justice" and then helping them pursue justice shouldn't mean we send the accused death threats and cast them out of functional society permanently before they've gotten a word in edgewise.

I'll grant you this: social media has given many people the "crucify him" complex. On one hand - this has come about because, with Twitter, formerly powerless people have been given a platform. Now we can confront those who would abuse, malign and take advantage of us and others will listen. That is absolutely a good thing and something that has been largely missing from society up until the modern age. On the other hand, for those with malicious intent, it is an opportunity to stir up a witch hunt at a moment's notice. Which is obviously a bad thing.

But this problem isn't exclusive to sexual assault cases and it isn't because of sexual assault victims speaking up on social media. It happens across the board with every issue that people are passionate about.

One quick example I can think of is the thing that came up with the Red Hen restaurant that Sarah Huckabee Sanders was turned away from. Trump supporters tried to tank the restaurant using the internet, and most of them were actually attacking the wrong Red Hen restaurant in a totally different town. Who knows what sort of damage the "wrong" Red Hen owners will sustain to their earnings because of that response? It could potentially destroy their business depending on the political leanings of the town they are in, and potentially cast the owners into poverty. This isn't the only example of that happening due to online vigilantism.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the pitchforking that happens to accused (sometimes unjustly) isn't necessarily related to victims speaking out but rather, an extension of a different societal problem that often reaches into other areas (like, but not limited to, sexual assault allegations). It's basically the shittiest Venn Diagram ever, but it happens.

I think it's really important to give all of society's ills the individual attention they deserve rather than resorting to whataboutism. I'm not saying ignore the fact that some people have their lives harmed by online confessions. What I am saying is that we can address both the empowerment of victims and hand them the keys to telling their stories the way they feel comfortable telling them, and pursuing justice at the pace they feel comfortable pursuing it, while also addressing issues like public shaming and the broken criminal justice system and beyond. But we should give all of those issues the individual attention and efforts they should have rather than using the brokenness of one issue to reject dealing with the brokenness of another. And for sexual assault victims, anonymous social media confessions really might be the only avenue they have for finding justice.

Anyway, I'm admitting social media confessions aren't a perfect method. But there aren't many reliable options out there for victims in the area of sexual assault and that's why a lot of them resort to it.

For what it's worth, I don't think you are an asshole. I just think the "but 3% of people are wrongly accused and have their lives ruined" response doesn't actually move anything forward either. And for those who are victims, it's just a softer version of "but I don't think he would do that" which sexual assault victims have been hearing for centuries.

Anyway, I guess my point is that bringing up false accusations doesn't move the needle forward for those who have been victimized and it really doesn't help those who have been falsley accused either because the bigger problems that perpetuate false accusations (of all kinds of crimes and even just social taboos) are things like mental health issues, pitchfork culture as a whole and a slow and inept criminal justice system. Victims speaking up and being believed and empowered doesn't actually contribute to that issue.

Hope that rambling mess made sense. If it's any consolation at all - i've seen this from both ends. I was badly abused (physically) by my former stepfather and nobody believed me at the time because he was a cop and I was a kid. Later in life, my husband was accused of physical abuse that he did not commit. Both were deeply damaging and traumatic, yes. Both of us sustained damaged reputations as a result of these situations. But I don't think (and my husband would agree) the trauma was comparable and I don't think me speaking up contributed to the false accusation my husband later received.

[Jinsai]

eachpassingphase, I agree with you. If you look at some of the other things I've said in this thread, we're pretty much 100% on the same page here. I agree too that these sorts of accusations, anonymous or not, are not relegated singularly to this area... however, there's a specific sort of damaging weight to this kind of accusation. I realize and understand that it's an absolute outlier, and I'm glad that modern media is giving voices to people... but if we're going to run into the "but what about the damage of false accusations" counterpoint (and we're seeing it here), it needs to at least be addressed for what it is.

I think victims should be treated with absolute support, and I think it's disgraceful that there's a pattern of dismissal. However, when somebody tramples on that sort of respect and trust, it's horrifying. I understand the points in the article about mental illness, but... I don't know, I hate flipping back and forth on this topic, as it makes me sound wishy washy on where I stand, but I think it's horrifying to make a false accusation about something so awful, and it would be naive to ignore how easy it is to falsify anonymously.

I don't like Mitch McConnell very much right now (or ever).... I could make a fake Twitter account where I claim to be a high school-aged girl and claim that he groped me at a fundraising party. I won't, because I'm not a complete monster, but I could get away with it. This sort of thing needs to be evaluated very carefully when we're talking about public figures.

We're making a lot of progress in giving a platform for victims to speak out, and we're taking down powerful people who deserve to be taken down. If we're not careful though, this sort of stuff being blanket dismissed undermines it, so I think it's worth being a little wary of at the least. I can understand not wanting to implement UK style prosecution of false claims, but if we toe around the issue too much, it'll be abused as a way to troll people if we put abject trust in anonymous internet claims.

[Harry Seaward]

I don't like Mitch McConnell very much right now (or ever).... I could make a fake Twitter account where I claim to be a high school-aged girl and claim that he groped me at a fundraising party. I won't, because I'm not a complete monster

I mean, if there's one person who's earned it...

[eachpassingphase]

I mean, if there's one person who's earned it...

Turtle McTurtleface deserves far worse, honestly. What an absolute turd of a human being.

[tremolo]

How about my point that publicly crucifying the accused is not necessarily an implicit part of believing and supporting these women? I just keep receiving facepalms with no discussion of why that's apparently such a terrible thought.

That’s probably because the subject is so divisive and a lot of people react to it in such a visceral way that there is no room for any questioning, or any position other that “you’re all in and agree and support every bit of it or you are part of the problem”.

I think people should stop reacting through their stomachs and take the time to question things, give it a couple spins and use a bit of common sense. Subjecting these topics and individual cases of assault/rape to a normal thought process shouldn’t give others a free ticket to call you a rape apologist, victim blamer, or anything of the sort.

Sadly, that kind of fascist behaviour only alienates people who might otherwise be more active to support these causes and pushes others to either completely remove themselves from the discussion, or just take a backseat.

[tremolo]

Yep. Like the folks who cherry pick things, knowing full well that they are the exception, not the rule.

So some people get their lives destroyed, but they’re the exception, so it’s not so bad, it’s just colateral damage for the greater good. You have to break eggs, right? No biggie. It’s not even necessary to mention it.

[Sarah K]

You know who gets their lives destroyed even more often? Rape victims. But we both know that isn't what y'all really care about.

[playwithfire]

Yeah, honestly, I don't think tremolo thinks tremolo is trolling but their behavior basically comes out in the wash as the same shit. I'm pretty done engaging.

("Oooh, but playwithfire, you're engaging right now." Yes, Greek chorus of my own creation, but only to point out that between the swaths of low-empathy devils advocacy and repetitive arguments that I just... gave up there. Cheers.)

[tremolo]

You know who gets their lives destroyed even more often? Rape victims. But we both know that isn't what y'all really care about.

That’s exactly what I mean: you can’t care ir show concern for other aspects of the issue other than the ones I think are worth the attention. If you care about 2 things, then you’re not caring about my thing (the really important one, the one I care about) enough or at all. You either adhere 100% to the way I see it, then you don’t care about it, or you are against us.

MY WAY! MY WAY! MYYYYY WAAAAAAAAAY!!!

It’s absolutely ridiculous. Nobody is stating that we should take away any attention or caring for victims of abuse. We can walk and chew gum and even breathe at the same time. It’s absolutely idiotic* how you think you know me and know what I care and don’t care about.

Same goes to playwithfire... oh, you didn’t put on your blinders, he is a troll, he is trolling without even knowing. How dare you care for anything else and even mention it? You are pretty much blaming the victims...

* Idiotic in the etymologic sense of the word: the unwillingness to listen to anyone cause your head is too dee inside your own bumbum.

[elevenism]

Turtle McTurtleface deserves far worse, honestly. What an absolute turd of a human being.that guy always looks like he's having a hard time taking a shit. Just saying. You guys think about that next time you see him, seriously.

[Boots]

Justin Trudeau groped a girl at a music festival, then he pulled a Ben Affleck. It seems he forgot about the incident. The woman however didn't.
https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/justin-trudeaus-reported-kokanee-grope-matters-but-not-for-the-obvious-reason/

[Sarah K]

I highly recommend that everyone, and especially cis-het white men watch Hahhah Gadsby's Nanette special on Netflix. I talked about it in the stand up thread, but this is one of the most important pieces of art that I have ever seen in my life. In this, the topic of men's reputations mattering more than the lives and safety of women comes up. Uncomfortable reality all around the world.

[Harry Seaward]

men's reputations mattering more than the lives and safety of women comes up.

Except that's an argument nobody here is making from what I can tell. Not every mention of the concepts of 'verifying information' or 'skepticism' are dogwhistles for "Men's reputations mater more than women's safety." Certain people do more or less say that in so many words, but those people are easy to pick out - they're not the type to continue trying to have a sincere conversation about the topic. A moron who happens to accidentally stumble his way to a single point that's reasonable doesn't inherently make that idea unreasonable simply due to it being made by a moron. And a person making a point that's often made by morons isn't itself a litmus test for whether that person's a moron, especially when 99% of their other thoughts on a topic are antithetical to the moron's.

[Sarah K]

Okay, you've tried to explain my stance to me 8,000 times now. Please move the fuck on.

[Harry Seaward]

Okay, you've tried to explain my stance to me 8,000 times now. Please move the fuck on.

Maybe it's because you keep arguing with points nobody is making and acting like people are idiots for saying things they didn't say without acknowledging the actual points being made.

[Sarah K]

Did you watch what I was talking about? 1,000% guarantee the answer is no, and yet, you still felt it was necessary for you to speak on it.

Sorry if you think me hating MRA shit is fucked. Perhaps examine why you feel that way.

Edit - Perhaps the disconnect is that you are taking things I post and interpreting them to mean I am referring to one specific situation, when I am not. Hannah's piece is speaking about cultural issues, and in that context, the reputations of men absolutely, 100% matter more than the lives and safety of women. People, with the rare exception, will not outright say that, but they show that they believe it by what they choose to support and argue against. This thread is about more than one thing, and it seems as if you are taking cultural commentary as personal attacks.

[Helpmeiaminhell (is now in hell)]

And now Feldawg takes the plunge

http://celebrityinsider.org/corey-feldman-accused-of-rape-responds-with-no-comment-watch-bobby-wolfe-jackie-von-rueden-interview-video-163537/

[elevenism]

And now Feldawg takes the plunge

http://celebrityinsider.org/corey-feldman-accused-of-rape-responds-with-no-comment-watch-bobby-wolfe-jackie-von-rueden-interview-video-163537/
Holy God, this one is especially fucking bat shit crazy, isn't it?
The Wolfpack vs the Feldfam.

Sadly, I don't have a very hard time believing these accusations. The "angels" thing has always struck me as REALLY strange.

And it's likely a cyclical thing, wherein Feldman became an abuser (and drug victim) because HE was abused.

I wish I could believe that he was being falsely accused because Hollywood wants to silence him, but I think that if that was the case, it would be people other than his own "angels" making the accusations. That's a pretty far fetched conspiracy theory.

I'm disgusted with Feldman but also kind of feel sorry for him.

[WorzelG]

The whole Angels thing seemed very cult like to me, bizarre. Looks like I will never witness first hand the hilarity of a Corey's Angels show

[onthewall2983]

Andy Dick charged with sexual battery, stemming from an incident in which he accosted a woman on the street (http://www.tmz.com/2018/07/02/andy-dick-charges-filed-criminal-case-sexual-simple-battery/)

[theimage13]

Andy Dick charged with sexual battery, stemming from an incident in which he accosted a woman on the street (http://www.tmz.com/2018/07/02/andy-dick-charges-filed-criminal-case-sexual-simple-battery/)

"I have a daughter. I have a stepdaughter. I would never do that."

Shut the fuck up, Andy. This (my rant) has nothing to do with the allegations and their credibility level. This has everything to do with the tired old notion that you can only respect women if you have some woman in your life that you love. "Oh, my mom's dead and I don't have any sisters, so I don't think sexual assault would be wrong." That's the message you're sending.

It doesn't matter who you know or who's in your family, you un-funny cockwomble. That has literally nothing to do with sexual abuse, period. Every woman in my family could drop dead tomorrow and that wouldn't suddenly mean that I don't respect women anymore.

[theimage13]

edit: wrong thread

[Helpmeiaminhell (is now in hell)]

The whole Angels thing seemed very cult like to me, bizarre. Looks like I will never witness first hand the hilarity of a Corey's Angels show

A couple of the former Angels are on my fb. They have some interesting stories about him to say the least lmao.....One girl showed me text messages where he was demanding in capital letters that she come over to his house at 3AM to "rehearse" for the band and when she blew it off, he started screaming at what a piece of shit she is and how he will ruin her career in Hollywood...The dude is whacked

[elevenism]

A couple of the former Angels are on my fb. They have some interesting stories about him to say the least lmao.....One girl showed me text messages where he was demanding in capital letters that she come over to his house at 3AM to "rehearse" for the band and when she blew it off, he started screaming at what a piece of shit she is and how he will ruin her career in Hollywood...The dude is whacked
Oh Jesus dude. So you're coming up on first hand evidence of this insanity. Crazy.

[WorzelG]

A couple of the former Angels are on my fb. They have some interesting stories about him to say the least lmao.....One girl showed me text messages where he was demanding in capital letters that she come over to his house at 3AM to "rehearse" for the band and when she blew it off, he started screaming at what a piece of shit she is and how he will ruin her career in Hollywood...The dude is whacked
i don’t understand how he has this much money to do this shit? He wasn’t in that many films and it isn’t like his career took off into adulthood (although I guess that’s why he’s taking money from his ‘angels’

[Helpmeiaminhell (is now in hell)]

i don’t understand how he has this much money to do this shit? He wasn’t in that many films and it isn’t like his career took off into adulthood (although I guess that’s why he’s taking money from his ‘angels’

Dude cashed out over 270 grand from suckers on that go fund me shit he did

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/corey-feldman-s-truth-campaign#/

[thevoid99]

Andy Dick is an asshole and I'm not surprised he would do something like this. He has become nothing but trouble lately.

[eversonpoe]

Andy Dick is an asshole and I'm not surprised he would do something like this. He has become nothing but trouble lately.

isn't he completely responsible for giving brynn hartman coke which led to her murdering phil hartman? he's always been a piece of shit.

[FernandoDante]

Andy Dick charged with sexual battery, stemming from an incident in which he accosted a woman on the street (http://www.tmz.com/2018/07/02/andy-dick-charges-filed-criminal-case-sexual-simple-battery/)
Rob Sheridan claimed to have been groped by Andy Dick.

[eachpassingphase]

Rob Sheridan claimed to have been groped by Andy Dick.

Looooots of people (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bn3jq4/you-dont-know-andy-dick)have (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bn3jq4/you-dont-know-andy-dick) claimed to be sexually harassed and assaulted by Andy Dick. (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bn3jq4/you-dont-know-andy-dick) There's a video somewhere of Joe Rogan talking about how Dick is constantly exposing himself to random folks and grabbing people who don't want him to touch them. He sounds like an absolute trainwreck dumpsterfire of a human. I don't believe a single word out of his mouth in his own defense, this is just the sort of thing he would do.

[FernandoDante]

Looooots of people (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bn3jq4/you-dont-know-andy-dick)have (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bn3jq4/you-dont-know-andy-dick) claimed to be sexually harassed and assaulted by Andy Dick. (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bn3jq4/you-dont-know-andy-dick) There's a video somewhere of Joe Rogan talking about how Dick is constantly exposing himself to random folks and grabbing people who don't want him to touch them. He sounds like an absolute trainwreck dumpsterfire of a human. I don't believe a single word out of his mouth in his own defense, this is just the sort of thing he would do.
I knew my twitter memory had to be good for something.
https://twitter.com/rob_sheridan/status/1014320580588285952

[thevoid99]

isn't he completely responsible for giving brynn hartman coke which led to her murdering phil hartman? he's always been a piece of shit.

I never knew that. If that was true. Then fuck that piece of shit.

[sonic_discord]

isn't he completely responsible for giving brynn hartman coke which led to her murdering phil hartman? he's always been a piece of shit.

I was seriously about to mention this too. I never ever liked Andy Dick (I find him annoying as hell and don't think he's funny at all), but ever since I read about that story and his altercations with Jon Lovitz over the matter, I've hated Andy Dick with a passion. Phil Hartman was awesome.

[Harry Seaward]

I never knew that. If that was true. Then fuck that piece of shit.

Eh, it's kind of 'thing' in that group of comedians that seeped out into becoming a thing normal people with 0 knowledge of the situation now have strong opinions on. Andy Dick is an absurdly unfunny creep but Brynn Hartman was a grown-ass woman in control of her own actions. It's one thing for close personal friends to hold a grudge about something like that, but it seems kinda fucked up for the public at large to put something like that on a dude who, for all we know, may have just been getting high with a friend. This is in no way a defense of anything Andy Dick's ever done - but as a current drug addict, I feel like it's totally nuts to have that buck stop with anybody but the drug addict themselves.

[sonic_discord]

Harry Seaward - I know what you're saying, but the story I heard/read was that she had been sober (at least when it came to drugs) for several years and he (Andy) "reintroduced" her to cocaine and made her relapse after she'd had a big fight with Phil earlier that night, where he'd threatened to leave her if she started using again. Then she went out and got fucked up with Andy Dick, came home, shot her husband in the head twice (and a third time in the side), blew her own brains out, and left their children as orphans. Eight years later (in 2006), Andy Dick approached Jon Lovitz in a restaurant and said "I put the Phil Hartman hex on you; you're the next one to die." Lovitz then smashed his face into the bar. Deservedly so, because why the fuck would you say something like that to someone who'd been a close friend of a guy who was murdered by their wife after she got fucked up with you??

[thevoid99]

@Harry Seaward (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=148) - I know what you're saying, but the story I heard/read was that she had been sober (at least when it came to drugs) for several years and he (Andy) "reintroduced" her to cocaine and made her relapse after she'd had a big fight with Phil earlier that night, where he'd threatened to leave her if she started using again. Then she went out and got fucked up with Andy Dick, came home, shot her husband in the head twice (and a third time in the side), blew her own brains out, and left their children as orphans. Eight years later (in 2006), Andy Dick approached Jon Lovitz in a restaurant and said "I put the Phil Hartman hex on you; you're the next one to die." Lovitz then smashed his face into the bar. Deservedly so, because why the fuck would you say something like that to someone who'd been a close friend of a guy who was murdered by their wife after she got fucked up with you??

He said that to Jon Lovitz and Lovitz knocked him the fuck out. I don't blame Jon Lovitz for doing that. Fuck Andy Dick. I guess this is why I don't see him in films or TV often and maybe that is why Ben Stiller hasn't worked with him in nearly 20 years.

[Harry Seaward]

Perhaps the disconnect is that you are taking things I post and interpreting them to mean I am referring to one specific situation, when I am not. Hannah's piece is speaking about cultural issues, and in that context, the reputations of men absolutely, 100% matter more than the lives and safety of women. People, with the rare exception, will not outright say that, but they show that they believe it by what they choose to support and argue against. This thread is about more than one thing, and it seems as if you are taking cultural commentary as personal attacks.

Yes, that seems incredibly likely to be a big part of the issue. I definitely was a bit tunnel-visioned these past few pages, forgetting that this is also a much more general thread. But I mean... I feel like I'm not entirely to blame for any confusion when you don't quote anybody and sometimes certain things are aimed at certain people and sometimes it's a general comment lol. All I have to work with are context clues. But yes, people really need to reassess their actions sometimes. Trust me, I don't particularly enjoy the company I happen to keep by holding this view. But there are just a few topics about which I always try to be as thorough and nuanced (and often defensive at the start) as possible in explaining my view because I know how close it is to a lot of other views that suck. So I wasn't trying to whine about people being mean or facepalming me, I just wanted to make sure I was expressing my point as accurately as I could and the response I was getting really pushed me toward thinking I wasn't doing it well.


Harry Seaward - I know what you're saying, but the story I heard/read was that she had been sober (at least when it came to drugs) for several years and he (Andy) "reintroduced" her to cocaine and made her relapse after she'd had a big fight with Phil earlier that night, where he'd threatened to leave her if she started using again. Then she went out and got fucked up with Andy Dick, came home, shot her husband in the head twice (and a third time in the side), blew her own brains out, and left their children as orphans.

That's entirely possible! But it's also possible that the stories about the events leading up to the deaths are the blurry, angry, horrified recollections of a bunch of comedians who probably weren't all that clear headed themselves in the late 90's. I don't know, and the two people who know for certain are dead.

But let's say I accept this telling of events as accurate for the sake of discussion - offering drugs to a friend you know is trying to stay sober is a dick move for sure. It's something that happens to every drug addict who tries to get clean at some point, but it's scummy. Nevertheless, being deservedly labeled a shitty friend is a world apart from being labeled as directly responsible for the death of a beloved public figure who was in reality killed by an insane person.

I'm generally the most sympathetic person I know in respect to treating drug addicts as human beings. I get into arguments with people addicted to hard drugs about it. I regularly call people out for being sociopaths when they post on the local news stories about increasing Narcan stock that "We should just let them die." I'm relatively extreme in my beliefs that all drugs should be legal, that drug addicts should be given the opportunity to use in a safe and clean environment, and that people shouldn't have their lives destroyed for possession of an amount of drugs that's clearly for personal use. I'm not sure how many of you have had these conversations with your average American, but let me tell you - the average person absolutely thinks that using drugs is worthy of death. Full stop. It's horrifying what level of barbarity is completely commonplace among society. I like to think that we're maturing on this topic as a society but in my heart I know that any real change in mindset will be glacial. I can't imagine we'll see very much progress on this front in my lifetime.

Regardless, that was just an aside for some context because I realize how it looks now that I've taken two viewpoints that might come across as weirdly conservative to people who don't know me. I just believe that the personal freedom to choose how you get yourself fucked up also has to come with the consequences of making that choice, good or bad. I could never imagine for one second blaming somebody else for my decision to use drugs. I might hold a grudge if I was clean for a while and a friend just pestered and pestered until I gave in, but I just can't say that this friend then deserved the blame for anything terrible I did during a relapse.


Eight years later (in 2006), Andy Dick approached Jon Lovitz in a restaurant and said "I put the Phil Hartman hex on you; you're the next one to die." Lovitz then smashed his face into the bar. Deservedly so, because why the fuck would you say something like that to someone who'd been a close friend of a guy who was murdered by their wife after she got fucked up with you??

Hey, you won't get any defense of that shit from me. Andy Dick fully deserved getting roughed up over that - that's some evil fucking shit. And yeah, there's a reason everybody in Hollywood has an opinion of Andy Dick and very few are flattering. He's clearly got some immense mental health issues, but if you've heard him speak you know that he's not brain dead. He knows what a shit he is, there's no excuse for him continuing to act this way after however many decades he's been at it.

[tremolo]

"I have a daughter. I have a stepdaughter. I would never do that."

Shut the fuck up, Andy. This (my rant) has nothing to do with the allegations and their credibility level. This has everything to do with the tired old notion that you can only respect women if you have some woman in your life that you love. "Oh, my mom's dead and I don't have any sisters, so I don't think sexual assault would be wrong." That's the message you're sending.

It doesn't matter who you know or who's in your family, you un-funny cockwomble. That has literally nothing to do with sexual abuse, period. Every woman in my family could drop dead tomorrow and that wouldn't suddenly mean that I don't respect women anymore.

That’s flawed logic, though.

- I don’t put salt in my food, therefore I eat healthy

There is no corelation there, cause not putting salt in food doesn’t mean that person is not deep-frying the shit about everything they eat.

In the same way that having female relatives doesn’t mean that person respects women and would never harm one... we can all agree that every single rapist and abuser of women has had at least one woman in their lives (their own mother).

But also, that statement doesn’t mean in any way that putting salt in food means they have unhealthy eating habits.

So, while having a mother, a wife or girlfriend, and/or daughters is not a guarantee of any kind of behaviour, doesn’t represent proof of respect towards women, it doesn’t imply that not having women in your life means you don’t care about women.

[eversonpoe]

That’s flawed logic, though.

- I don’t put salt in my food, therefore I eat healthy

There is no corelation there, cause not putting salt in food doesn’t mean that person is not deep-frying the shit about everything they eat.

In the same way that having female relatives doesn’t mean that person respects women and would never harm one... we can all agree that every single rapist and abuser of women has had at least one woman in their lives (their own mother).

But also, that statement doesn’t mean in any way that putting salt in food means they have unhealthy eating habits.

So, while having a mother, a wife or girlfriend, and/or daughters is not a guarantee of any kind of behaviour, doesn’t represent proof of respect towards women, it doesn’t imply that not having women in your life means you don’t care about women.

that's the whole point. it shouldn't matter whether or not you have women in your life to whom you are close — respecting women as human beings and not treating them simply as sex objects / things to conquer is something that everyone should do simply because they are people.

your salt analogy is ridiculous.

[Sarah K]

Yes... Women deserve respect because they are whole people, not because of their association and relationships with men.

[theimage13]

That’s flawed logic, though.

- I don’t put salt in my food, therefore I eat healthy

There is no corelation there, cause not putting salt in food doesn’t mean that person is not deep-frying the shit about everything they eat.

In the same way that having female relatives doesn’t mean that person respects women and would never harm one... we can all agree that every single rapist and abuser of women has had at least one woman in their lives (their own mother).

But also, that statement doesn’t mean in any way that putting salt in food means they have unhealthy eating habits.

So, while having a mother, a wife or girlfriend, and/or daughters is not a guarantee of any kind of behaviour, doesn’t represent proof of respect towards women, it doesn’t imply that not having women in your life means you don’t care about women.

Let me try this again:

"I have a daughter, so I know not to rape someone." Having a daughter is now the reason he knows rape is bad.
"I have never had a daughter." What's missing from that statement? A reason to know that rape is bad. That 100% says that his reason for knowing rape is bad is that he has a daughter. It doesn't mean he WILL rape someone. But it DOES mean that he doesn't see a reason not to.

Still confused?

"I have a daughter, so I know rape is bad."
"Women are people, not objects, and they deserve respect and to not be sexually assaulted or raped."

See? Now, regardless of who he knows (or doesn't know), he's acknowledging that rape is awful. Period.

[elevenism]

that sort of defense isn't too far removed from "i wouldn't rape anybody. My MOTHER was a woman!"

It really isn't if you think about it.

[tremolo]

that's the whole point. it shouldn't matter whether or not you have women in your life to whom you are close — respecting women as human beings and not treating them simply as sex objects / things to conquer is something that everyone should do simply because they are people.

your salt analogy is ridiculous.

It’s just as ridiculous as the statement that what that idiot said implies that not having a woman in your life means you don’t care for women at all.

They teach that in highschool.

[tremolo]

Let me try this again:

"I have a daughter, so I know not to rape someone." Having a daughter is now the reason he knows rape is bad.
"I have never had a daughter." What's missing from that statement? A reason to know that rape is bad. That 100% says that his reason for knowing rape is bad is that he has a daughter. It doesn't mean he WILL rape someone. But it DOES mean that he doesn't see a reason not to.

Still confused?

"I have a daughter, so I know rape is bad."
"Women are people, not objects, and they deserve respect and to not be sexually assaulted or raped."

See? Now, regardless of who he knows (or doesn't know), he's acknowledging that rape is awful. Period.

There is no corelation/causality.

“It’s sunny, so I go to the beach.”

That doesn’t imply in any way that when it’s not sunny I don’t go to the beach.

I agree 100% with you that the first statement (knowing rape is bad (or not to rape) cause he has a daughter) is completely absurd and that not raping should come from empathy, decency, values and just common sense. I’m not arguing that point at all.

[theimage13]

There is no corelation/causality.

“It’s sunny, so I go to the beach.”

That doesn’t imply in any way that when it’s not sunny I don’t go to the beach.

I agree 100% with you that the first statement (knowing rape is bad (or not to rape) cause he has a daughter) is completely absurd and that not raping should come from empathy, decency, values and just common sense. I’m not arguing that point at all.

Okay, let me try this one more time, because you're not getting it.

"The stove is turned on, so I know I can't touch the burners."
"The stove is turned off."

After reading the first sentence, what does the second sentence imply?

[tremolo]

Okay, let me try this one more time, because you're not getting it.

"The stove is turned on, so I know I can't touch the burners."
"The stove is turned off."

After reading the first sentence, what does the second sentence imply?

All it implies is that the stove is off. It does not state or imply that it’s ok to touch the burners.



I know what you are getting at, I understand your point, but it’s logically wrong. It’s nothing but an assumption you are making.

Example:

If you don’t study, you won’t pass yor course.

If you study... doesn’t mean you will pass your course.

It’s propositional logic, and the whole point of it is to rid of ambiguity or wrong assumptions in language.

Where i come from, a looooong time ago, laws were written in a messy way in the fashion of “if you don’t steal, you won’t go to jail”. That doesn’t imply in any way that if you do steal, you will go to jail, but I do understand how it could lead to confusion.

[aggroculture]

what the fuck is happening in this thread?

[zecho]

And now Feldawg takes the plunge

http://celebrityinsider.org/corey-feldman-accused-of-rape-responds-with-no-comment-watch-bobby-wolfe-jackie-von-rueden-interview-video-163537/

Who'd have ever guessed that an obviously incredibly unstable celebrity with a ton of money who lives with several troubled women who he calls his angels and has sing music about how great he is would ever take advantage of them? I've always been creeped out by him and his weird angel obsession.

[Jinsai]

what the fuck is happening in this thread?

I think we brought up Andy Dick in the middle of a conversation about people being shitty sleaze bags.... which is kinda like bringing up Pennywise in the middle of a conversation about clowns...

[Sarah K]

Yeah... Trudeau's response was extremely disappointing. "I, a man, do not remember any negative interactions on the day I groped that woman.".

He's always out here pretending like he's some champion for women's rights. If he was really in support of what he says, he would have acknowledged that he fucked up, and then stated how he used it to learn and grow. That's literally all it takes. I don't think that anyone expects every man to remember every woman that they have sexually harassed in their lives - that isn't realistic. But if you're going to frame yourself in a manner that states you are supportive of feminism, then fucking own your shit. No clue why so many people are giving him a pass. He could have set SUCH a good example here, and he majorly dropped the ball.

[Winter Is Coming]

Yeah... Trudeau's response was extremely disappointing. "I, a man, do not remember any negative interactions on the day I groped that woman.".

He's always out here pretending like he's some champion for women's rights. If he was really in support of what he says, he would have acknowledged that he fucked up, and then stated how he used it to learn and grow. That's literally all it takes. I don't think that anyone expects every man to remember every woman that they have sexually harassed in their lives - that isn't realistic. But if you're going to frame yourself in a manner that states you are supportive of feminism, then fucking own your shit. No clue why so many people are giving him a pass. He could have set SUCH a good example here, and he majorly dropped the ball.


Or maybe he, you know, didn’t do anything wrong and didn’t grope the woman. But I guess your way works too. Every man should just admit to sexual misconduct all the time because men = bad.

[Sarah K]

Did you read the article? He copped to apologizing that day. Lol.

[Winter Is Coming]

Yeah hate to break it to you but he did not admit to groping her.

[Jinsai]

So, now Donald pussy-grabber POTUS has weighed in on the #MeToo movement... buckle up, this is a doozy

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/trump-montana-rally-pruitt-resigns/index.html

EDIT: huh, whenever I click that link it's taking me to the wrong thing... and I can't embed it. Think something might be up with either my computer or the net code here.
EDITEDIT: There, fixed it with some editing. Strange though

[Sarah K]

Holy shit. That entire thing reads like an Onion article.

[Jinsai]

It's absolutely bonkers. I think he's testing the waters, trying to see how insane he can get, trying to see what nick names make the crowd guffaw, what movements draw the most groans and derision from his base.

I'm mentally preparing myself to hear the president of the United States say something shitty about "SJWs"

[WorzelG]

He’ll be on Alex Jones next

[Jinsai]

He’ll be on Alex Jones next

For an encore? He's already jumped that shark.

[WorzelG]

For an encore? He's already jumped that shark.
I was surprised, although I don't know why. Nothing should surprise me anymore about Trump

[tremolo]

Yeah... Trudeau's response was extremely disappointing. "I, a man, do not remember any negative interactions on the day I groped that woman.".

He's always out here pretending like he's some champion for women's rights. If he was really in support of what he says, he would have acknowledged that he fucked up, and then stated how he used it to learn and grow. That's literally all it takes. I don't think that anyone expects every man to remember every woman that they have sexually harassed in their lives - that isn't realistic. But if you're going to frame yourself in a manner that states you are supportive of feminism, then fucking own your shit. No clue why so many people are giving him a pass. He could have set SUCH a good example here, and he majorly dropped the ball.

Don’t expect anything else from this case.

Trudeau is a politician, a high-profile one: the Prime Minister of Canada. Admitting he did something like that would be political suicide.

What I find insane is the double standards, how nothing but an accusation was enough to get other 2 politicians fired, even before a proper investigantion, but the same doesn’t apply to Trudeau.

I don’t know if he is guilty or not, but I have a strong dislike for the man, I’ve always found him void of substance and a total fake with very good PR.

I’m sorry, but it’s not gonna happen.

[botley]

What I find insane is the double standards, how nothing but an accusation was enough to get other 2 politicians fired, even before a proper investigantion, but the same doesn’t apply to Trudeau.
Respectfully, there is nothing similar about this case. It's entirely about Trudeau's political rivals digging up an old report that might have merit, just to make themselves look morally superior (FUCKING L. O. L.), but the alleged complainant has not pressed the issue themselves, and clearly wants to put it behind them and not be dragged into this after-the-fact dogpile. There were actual formal complaints in the other cases, where the complainants came forward to report workplace sexual misconduct to their supervisors who acted as they saw fit. Do you see why that's vastly different from the report being dredged up here?


The Globe and Mail has corresponded with the woman, who said she does not want to be identified, does not want to be contacted by media and does not want to comment on the allegations made 18 years ago.

[tremolo]

Respectfully, there is nothing similar about this case. It's entirely about Trudeau's political rivals digging up an old report that might have merit, just to make themselves look morally superior (FUCKING L. O. L.), but the alleged complainant has not pressed the issue themselves, and clearly wants to put it behind them and not be dragged into this after-the-fact dogpile. There were actual formal complaints in the other cases, where the complainants came forward to report workplace sexual misconduct to their supervisors who acted as they saw fit. Do you see why that's vastly different from the report being dredged up here?

[/FONT][/COLOR]

True, I see the difference in how there is a difference in how both cases were brought up. Thanks for pointing that out.

Still, the reaction from the public is interesting.


But, but but.....

Trudeau thinks he knows better than me, and that makes me feel bad. He treats people better than I do, and that makes me feel bad. He cares about people other than himself, and I don't, which makes me feel bad.

Clearly, the liberals are attacking me, and have double-standards, and are hypocrites.

Vote Ford/Trump/whoever.

What was that?

[thevoid99]

Taeler Hendrix accusing Jay Lethal of sexual harassment: https://www.cagesideseats.com/2018/7/6/17540660/taeler-hendrix-sexual-harrassment-allegation-against-roh-world-champ-jay-lethal-investigation

If this is true then this really sucks. I like Jay Lethal as he's one of my favorite wrestlers and I love his Black Machismo gimmick. I also like Taeler Hendrix a lot which now explains why I haven't seen or heard from her for some time. This really sucks.

[thelastdisciple]

According to what looks like her email address, the reporter who alleged that Justin Trudeau had groped her released a statement to the press to confirm what had happened and that he had apologized the next day. She also is quoted saying that she "did not pursue the incident at the time and will not be pursuing the incident further" and “The debate, if it continues, will continue without my involvement,”

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/canada/woman-says-trudeau-apologized-day-after-encounter-at-b-c-music-festival-in-2000/wcm/f6a05e1d-4533-44fd-8df9-8c89fd3b132b?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1530921786

I don't think there's enough information to go off of here as far as painting JT as some kind of pussy grabbing monster, not in the way that his opponents want to at least. JT raised the point about perspective from both sides which i think is important, maybe he had a few drinks at the time and his view on the experience isn't as credible? who knows and if he did I'm not saying it would have excused what happened, knowing these things does inform a state of mind outside of one's norm though. So she feels she was groped and says as much in the editorial but she doesn't describe how, she was also distressed according to her publisher but people can be dramatic (not the victim, what the publisher had accounted)

What I'm curious about is when she uses that word, what exactly does she mean?..could there be an issue of semantics here like did he grab her tits or her ass and fondle her in a sexual manner or was he just a bit too friendly or "forward" like he said and put his arm around her and squeezed her shoulder? You can say that's just as inappropriate as well, doesn't mean that he was being sexually malicious toward her. He acknowledges the incident as being harmless but apologized anyways due to noticing her discomfort.

Moral of the story? Don't touch people you don't know without asking, don't assume they'll be happy about it if you do.

Moving on.

[botley]

This woman is being used as a pawn and wants to be left the fuck alone. Maybe LISTEN TO WOMEN is the moral of the story and the other shit should just go without saying?

http://twitter.com/JulieSLalonde/status/1015391206363181056

[botley]

At this point, Trudeau’s responses are the worst of it. As Sarah best detailed originally. He also issued another statement after the woman release this. It was basically a rambling “women just experience things differently than men. But i should remind you that I’m an ally!” and I cringed so hard. The dude really doesn’t deserve to use feminism as something to prop himself up with.

https://twitter.com/pnpcbc/status/1015357795367915520?s=21
The fuck do you care, holmes?

[botley]

I made the answer to this pretty clear. But it’s good to know just about everyone seems to have a line where they will put women in the back seat in the name of men who have used feminism to advance their careers and public standing.
Oh, so the post where I centered this woman's request to be left alone was not clear to you? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[botley]

Good thing what you quoted had nothing to do with the woman and was about Trudeau. But go ahead and use “leave the woman alone” as a thinly veiled surrogate for “leave Trudeau alone”. Wouldn’t want Super Feminist Trudeau to suffer any criticism about his Super Feminist Words. Words that were given as generalist statements about women, not even his specific situation, which means we get to use them in all kinds of situations now.

“Look, Louis CK may have jerked off in front of women, but the reality is that women just experience these situations and contexts differently than men”
Wow, so you have missed the point I've repeatedly tried to make, here. This is now an enormous media shitstorm, centering on Trudeau's response, what label he wears, how he is behaving now, how he might have behaved then. Most of which is speculative. You have misconstrued my words as having contributed to that discussion, which I have no interest in. Never defended Trudeau before, and I never will.

You are evidently not interested in the woman whose words I quoted, either, because they are a clear articulation that she wants nothing to do with this so-called debate. You are interested in Trudeau and care what happens to him now... but your opinion really doesn't matter. The woman isn't interested in pursuing it. I do not have the power to make her change her mind and neither do you. Of course it's bad he did this, and I realize he's my fucking Prime Minister and I agree it is horrendous how often women deal with this.

Please listen to what the woman's said. Read it again:

"I did not persue the Incident at the time and will not persue the Incident further."

"I will not be providing further details or information."

Pretty clear. No complainant, no investigation. Complaints warrant investigation and consequences. Right now that's not an option.

[botley]

Because the answers Trudeau is giving are in response to media attempts to tie this specific incident to other ones, against her wishes. That's what he is — quite clumsily, perhaps even badly — attempting to navigate. If there are any other women involved with misconduct in his past behaviours, I'm interested in hearing from them too.

But all of the media calling him hypocritical/undeserving of this or that because of his response to these questions, dragging a tenuous connection between this and his policy of handling legitimate grievance and misconduct complaints — it's disingenuous in the extreme. Hold him to whatever standard you wish. Don't dunk on him by co-opting support for women to grab moral high ground.

[thelastdisciple]

Don't dunk on him by co-opting support for women to grab moral high ground.
Reminds me of the whole fake outrage over "civility" from the GOP and Trump's base.

[onthewall2983]

Andy Dick was kicked off Jimmy Kimmel's show in 2007 for groping Ivanka Trump during the show. (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/andy-dick-gropes-ivanka-trump-kimmel-2007-video-1125083)

[thevoid99]

Andy Dick was kicked off Jimmy Kimmel's show in 2007 for groping Ivanka Trump during the show. (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/andy-dick-gropes-ivanka-trump-kimmel-2007-video-1125083)

I read about that. He's got some serious mental issues or something. I hope he goes to prison one of these days. I may not like Ivanka but Dick is much worse.

[dobyblue]

I made the answer to this pretty clear. But it’s good to know just about everyone seems to have a line where they will put women in the back seat in the name of men who have used feminism to advance their careers and public standing.

Not me, True Dope looks like the asshat he is.

And she DID complain, back in 2000, and he did apologize, and now he can't remember it, oh wait he can remember it and now remembers that he didn't do anything wrong, oh and what's more is men and women remember stuff differently.

Fucking hypocrite.

Also, the woman CONFIRMED that the incident happened, just last week.

"I enjoyed my career as a reporter, but it ended a long time ago. I avoided issuing a statement earlier out of concern for my and my family's privacy. The incident referred to in the editorial did occur as reported. Mr. Trudeau did apologize the next day."

[botley]

Fucking hypocrite.
Uh, it's nice to meet you I guess, but who the fuck are you? Seems you signed up here a while ago, and your username is familiar to me (did you have an account on the old ETS?), but this is apparently your first post and it's a bit... odd... to start out by posting in such a combative manner. Just sayin'.

[playwithfire]

I read the quote before I read the post and I thought it was a tool fan doing xxtra poignant lyric quotes

[ltrandazzo]

I'll have to merge the Chris Hardwick posts from the "Random Celebrity Headlines" thread but AMC and NBC have decided to reinstate him to all of his hosting duties after internal investigations.

To be clear - AMC cleared him in regards to any misconduct that may have happened at their network, not the incidents outlined by Chloe Dykstra. That accounting still stands.

https://news.avclub.com/chris-hardwick-will-return-to-talking-dead-in-august-1827873112

https://news.avclub.com/chris-hardwick-is-coming-back-to-nbc-too-1828016187

Looks like the talk of potentially false allegations torpedoing an "innocent man's" career were hasty.

[thevoid99]

Well..... I may not be a fan of Depp's recent films and his middle-age crisis but there's now some serious claims that he was the one that was abused by his ex-wife Amber Heard: https://people.com/movies/johnny-depp-claims-amber-heard-assault-she-denies/amp/

[sinspots]

It's almost like...other people just don't know went went on in the bedroom between a couple. And yet, we (generally speaking, "we") can just make opinions not having been there or having heard evidence that complies with the applicable rules of evidence.

[Sarah K]

Please describe the "applicable rules of evidence".

[theimage13]

Man with documented history of abuse and careening toward bankruptcy sues for defamation. Yup, sounds super duper believable.

*cough*

I'll hold any actual speculation until the trial.

[sinspots]

Please describe the "applicable rules of evidence".

Well, that is a topic that legal scholars write treatises on and judges write sometimes lengthy opinions on. I think there are courses offered that could be taken on an audited basis at many schools for those interested in learning more about the complex issues involved with admission of evidence. Each state will have its own rules of civil procedure, and so that would be 50 links and I don't have the time to link them all. Here's a summary of New York's (taken from a state judicial website), but of course this is a simple overview. https://www.nycourts.gov/JUDGES/evidence/ . If in federal court, the federal rules of evidence apply, but most sexual related criminal cases are not federal cases. However, many state evidence rules are somewhat based on the federal rules, so here is just one link that give some info about that: https://www.rulesofevidence.org/. Not fun weekend reading though (especially not when trying to catch Walleyes, yes, I know not the right month for Walleye catching...).

[ltrandazzo]

Well..... I may not be a fan of Depp's recent films and his middle-age crisis but there's now some serious claims that he was the one that was abused by his ex-wife Amber Heard: https://people.com/movies/johnny-depp-claims-amber-heard-assault-she-denies/amp/

I am 100% for making it legal for Amber Heard to punch Johnny Depp in the face twice because of his awfulness.

Personal opinion aside, I read the Rolling Stone piece about him that Amber's lawyers referenced and it's a doozy. https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-features/the-trouble-with-johnny-depp-666010/

[M1ke]

I am 100% for making it legal for Amber Heard to punch Johnny Depp in the face twice because of his awfulness.

Personal opinion aside, I read the Rolling Stone piece about him that Amber's lawyers referenced and it's a doozy. https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-features/the-trouble-with-johnny-depp-666010/


Jesus Christ he sounds exceptionally unwell. Drugs and Alcohol are terrible things.

[Sarah K]

Well, that is a topic that legal scholars write treatises on and judges write sometimes lengthy opinions on. I think there are courses offered that could be taken on an audited basis at many schools for those interested in learning more about the complex issues involved with admission of evidence. Each state will have its own rules of civil procedure, and so that would be 50 links and I don't have the time to link them all. Here's a summary of New York's (taken from a state judicial website), but of course this is a simple overview. https://www.nycourts.gov/JUDGES/evidence/ . If in federal court, the federal rules of evidence apply, but most sexual related criminal cases are not federal cases. However, many state evidence rules are somewhat based on the federal rules, so here is just one link that give some info about that: https://www.rulesofevidence.org/. Not fun weekend reading though (especially not when trying to catch Walleyes, yes, I know not the right month for Walleye catching...).

Why are you discussing legal guidelines, though? Social consequences do not have to meet legal guidelines - especially when courts are notoriously anti-women in abuse cases. It is no secret that Depp has completely gone off the rails in the last five years or so.

[sinspots]

Why are you discussing legal guidelines, though? Social consequences do not have to meet legal guidelines - especially when courts are notoriously anti-women in abuse cases. It is no secret that Depp has completely gone off the rails in the last five years or so.

Because, for me personally, I try to refrain from acting on "social justice" in situations where the social justice "system" (if it can be called such a thing) is not designed with safeguards in place to protect the accused. That's just my view personally based on my knowledge of what people who are wrongly accused face. Others are, of course, free to act and make opinions based on news, twitter, or social media reports, or based on their own personal experience and knowledge which may be very different than mine (and may come with an emphasis from another side of the problem that I don't focus on). That's what really great about today: the "collective" is based on the very different experiences of all kinds of different people with different experiences, so we get a mix of opinions and approaches to problems, and hopefully as a collective the problems are eventually addressed in a manner that is good for society and as fair as it can be to those impacted. It will be quite interesting to see how this situation is addressed by society over the next 10-15 years.

[Nellyrific]

I am 100% for making it legal for Amber Heard to punch Johnny Depp in the face twice because of his awfulness.

Personal opinion aside, I read the Rolling Stone piece about him that Amber's lawyers referenced and it's a doozy. https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-features/the-trouble-with-johnny-depp-666010/

YIKES. I hadn’t heard of any of this, let alone seen that video of him and his ex-wife (I feel like I live under a rock when it comes to this stuff). That was an absolutely disturbing read.

[dobyblue]

Uh, it's nice to meet you I guess, but who the fuck are you? Seems you signed up here a while ago, and your username is familiar to me (did you have an account on the old ETS?), but this is apparently your first post and it's a bit... odd... to start out by posting in such a combative manner. Just sayin'.

It's agreeing with the stance of the poster I'm quoting, which wasn't you, hence it wasn't combative (unlike your post quoting 2.87% of what I wrote).

Sorry I didn't start out by posting in the manner you deem acceptable.

[ltrandazzo]

It's agreeing with the stance of the poster I'm quoting, which wasn't you, hence it wasn't combative (unlike your post quoting 2.87% of what I wrote).

Sorry I didn't start out by posting in the manner you deem acceptable.

You'll do great here.

[Sarah K]

http://alphanewsmn.com/developing-keith-ellison-accused-of-domestic-violence/

No allegations of sexual abuse yet, but Keith Ellison is being outed for domestic violence. Put it here because of the #MeToo connection.

[ltrandazzo]

http://alphanewsmn.com/developing-keith-ellison-accused-of-domestic-violence/

No allegations of sexual abuse yet, but Keith Ellison is being outed for domestic violence. Put it here because of the #MeToo connection.

This should be believed and investigated as such - if this is true, then I'm really disappointed in Ellison because he is a progressive champion that has had to overcome a lot since people dismiss him because of his religious beliefs. The son mentions a video, he and his mother should be ready to turn that in for review.

[sinspots]

Re: Ellison.

It is being said that they will not release the video. It's also being said some reporters have looked into these allegations for the past year and found nothing. I don't have the time to dig fully into it but here is a start for someone that does have the time/desire: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/96pgsl/keith_ellison_accused_of_horrific_domestic/e42dzt0/

[Sarah K]

This should be believed and investigated as such - if this is true, then I'm really disappointed in Ellison because he is a progressive champion that has had to overcome a lot since people dismiss him because of his religious beliefs.

Yepppp. So many of the comments on this center around his religion, which is disappointing.

Also, this tweet is the realest shit ever:

https://twitter.com/KarenMonahan01/status/1028864456380612608

[Louie_Cypher]

strong dose of Whitney burtcast the female brain even some jre's she's smart funny and i think attractive i guess my one celebrity crush
-Louie

[eversonpoe]

strong dose of Whitney burtcast the female brain even some jre's she's smart funny and i think attractive i guess my one celebrity crush
-Louie

i think you're in the wrong thread, louie.

[telee.kom]

https://twitter.com/KarenMonahan01/status/1028864456380612608

Eh, isn't the exact opposite of this tweet happening since MeToo started? I don't get what's the "realest shit ever" about it

[playwithfire]

Tell that to Chris Hardwick and like a million other men.

[playwithfire]

Though also I'm so annoyed with Judith Butler for defending the professor who got suspended for sexual harassment. https://www.vox.com/2018/8/14/17688144/nyu-me-too-movement-sexual-harassment-avital-ronell

(P.S. I wonder if some of y'all who normally don't are gonna like this post because it's criticizing a woman abuser instead of a man.)

[telee.kom]

In your mind, what should happen? Any man accused of harassment should be automatically imprisoned or what? I think each and every accusation is taken very seriously and there are quite severe consequences for people involved. I don't know, it just seems silly to me think that men just needs to say "it's not true" and everything is forgotten. Like, when did that ever happen? Of course I'm talking about somewhat famous people, I don't know how much of an impact can camping like this have on day to day relationships of regular people.

[Swykk]

Not this shit again. Just go back...I don’t know...5-10 pages? Maybe not even that.

[sweeterthan]

Not this shit again. Just go back...I don’t know...5-10 pages? Maybe not even that.

The whole thread really. This discussion keeps happening over and over.

[sick among the pure]

I don't know, it just seems silly to me think that men just needs to say "it's not true" and everything is forgotten. Like, when did that ever happen? Of course I'm talking about somewhat famous people, I don't know how much of an impact can camping like this have on day to day relationships of regular people.

From my experience, yes, that is how it happens most of the time.
That's why the #MeToo movement was such a big deal, for once a few men were actually unable to just say "it's not true" and make it go away.

[sinspots]

Not this shit again. Just go back...I don’t know...5-10 pages? Maybe not even that.

Insertion of autotext in the posts would be great, would save time, and avoid repetitiveness. Example:

Actual post: Name is accused of terribles. Link to story.
Autotext: Person 1: We should not jump to conclusions and wait for evidence, police report, the justice system to do its job, etc. etc. etc.
Autotext: Person 2: No, we need to give woman the benefit of the doubt, because victims have not been treated fairly by the system (such as by not taking their accounts seriously, not protecting them, and not prosecuting perpetrators), resulting in a lot of harm to women, including that women are afraid to come forward (and therefore perpetrators are not stopped and continue to abuse others). etc.
Autotext: Repeat variations of 1 and 2 for a few pages, adding one or two name callings (optional) and numerous facepalmings.
Autotext: Silence for some time period until next Name is posted.

[Airbornefeline]

tl;dr: unless you're willing to concede to the ludicrous idea that accusations should be believed without doubt 100% of the time you're just wasting your time discussing this topic with these people.

[playwithfire]

alternative tl;dr: it is possible to not immediately believe an accusation while also not copping to whatboutism, sealioning, double-standards by seeming to only care about male survivors when contrasting to the experiences of women, and repeatedly stirring the same shit, and instead, choose to show empathy and a measured response

[eversonpoe]

alternative tl;dr: it is possible to not immediately believe an accusation while also not copping to whatboutism, sealioning, double-standards by seeming to only care about male survivors when contrasting to the experiences of women, and repeatedly stirring the same shit, and instead, choose to show empathy and a measured response
playwithfire just said it perfectly

choose to show empathy and a measured response

this is what "we people" are pushing for and i don't understand why anyone has an issue with that.

[ltrandazzo]

Here's a doozy - I'm throwing a trigger warning on this one so click at your own risk regarding the details -

Ms. Argento quietly arranged to pay $380,000 to her own accuser: Jimmy Bennett, a young actor and rock musician who said she had sexually assaulted him in a California hotel room years earlier, when he was only two months past his 17th birthday. She was 37. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/us/asia-argento-assault-jimmy-bennett.html)

[Jinsai]

Here's a doozy - I'm throwing a trigger warning on this one so click at your own risk regarding the details -

Ms. Argento quietly arranged to pay $380,000 to her own accuser: Jimmy Bennett, a young actor and rock musician who said she had sexually assaulted him in a California hotel room years earlier, when he was only two months past his 17th birthday. She was 37. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/us/asia-argento-assault-jimmy-bennett.html)

I honestly don't know what to make of this...

The entirety of the scandal seems to hinge on his being legally (barely) underage. That's still fucked up, it's wrong, but this sounds like it was entirely consensual. If he'd been ONE year older (and dependent upon the state jurisdiction that this happened in), there would be nothing to this story. His subsequent nods to continued social media friendship with her... and then when he's financially distraught it goes here... Too much is being made of the issue of her being a "mother figure" in previous roles.

There doesn't seem to be any kind of attempt by Argento to extort, threaten, or pressure him. If consensually losing your virginity at that age to an older woman is so devastating that you can pin it to extreme trauma...

Again, I don't know. Everyone's different, and I don't want to presume anything... but something feels strange here.

[ltrandazzo]

There doesn't seem to be any kind of attempt by Argento to extort, threaten, or pressure him. If consensually losing your virginity at that age to an older woman is so devastating that you can pin it to extreme trauma...

This part stands out to me -


Later that day she posted a close-up of their faces on Instagram with the caption, “Happiest day of my life reunion with @jimmymbennett xox,” and added that “jimmy is going to be in my next movie and that is a fact, dig that jack.”

A case can be made that Asia Argento was warped after her encounters with Harvey Weinstein and led her down the path to believing that this is just how business is done in Hollywood.


The entirety of the scandal seems to hinge on his being legally (barely) underage. That's still fucked up, it's wrong, but this sounds like it was entirely consensual. If he'd been ONE year older (and dependent upon the state jurisdiction that this happened in), there would be nothing to this story. His subsequent nods to continued social media friendship with her... and then when he's financially distraught it goes here... Too much is being made of the issue of her being a "mother figure" in previous roles.
Asia herself carried on contact with Harvey after he raped her - this is not out of the ordinary. Jimmy could've been experiencing something similar after his encounter with her. For me, I'm looking less at his age than I am the events that took place. However, it is 100% fucked that she did this after knowing him as a kid.

[playwithfire]

^^This.

And yeah, I could absolutely see why he would be traumatized. I don't think "consensually losing your virginity" really frames what that article described.

Also like, just before anyone says this: abuse survivors can absolutely also be abusers, this doesn't negate her experiences with Weinstein, nor do her experiences with Weinstein negate this.

[ltrandazzo]

Also like, just before anyone says this: abuse survivors can absolutely also be abusers, this doesn't negate her experiences with Weinstein, nor do her experiences with Weinstein negate this.

I'll be harsh and say that anyone who has already said this regarding this story also doesn't understand what #MeToo actually is. It's about breaking this whole fucked up power dynamic apart.

[botley]

Also I just want to point out there is a double standard at work when people jump to concluding that somehow this RUINS all her accusations' credibility, whereas if it were a man who had been abused and later became an abuser, he would be framed as the victim of a "vicious cycle of abuse" rather than just a perpetrator. Hat tip to Kate Manne for writing on this and other subtle misogynistic cultural frameworks extensively.

[sinspots]

Here's a doozy - I'm throwing a trigger warning on this one so click at your own risk regarding the details -

Ms. Argento quietly arranged to pay $380,000 to her own accuser: Jimmy Bennett, a young actor and rock musician who said she had sexually assaulted him in a California hotel room years earlier, when he was only two months past his 17th birthday. She was 37. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/us/asia-argento-assault-jimmy-bennett.html)

Check out the Drudge Report Headline before it's gone.

[ltrandazzo]

Check out the Drudge Report Headline before it's gone.

I'm not giving Matt Drudge a click. What does it say?

[sinspots]

I'm not giving Matt Drudge a click. What does it say?

It's the headline. Large photo of her raising her fist in the air, with the caption: SHOCK: #METOO LEADER PAID OFF YOUNG ACTOR (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/asia-argento-paid-sexual-assault-accuser-report-1135872) (link is not to Drudge, it's to the article linked on Drudge).

[Jinsai]

Asia herself carried on contact with Harvey after he raped her - this is not out of the ordinary


I know, and while we could speculate something similar, the thing there is the power Weinstein wielded over her. There doesn't appear to even be a claim that Asia was threatening leverage.

[playwithfire]

Abuse survivors carry on contact with their abusers with a ton of frequency, even without power being held over them.

[kel]

my brother was raped in front of me many times. my uncle tried with me, too, but i thwarted his advances. he ended up dying in maricopa county jail for that exact same offense. it comes up in therapy sessions. i'm too terrified to address it. i don't want to acknowledge the fact that it harmed me, too. i don't know. fml.

[eversonpoe]

Abuse survivors carry on contact with their abusers with a ton of frequency, even without power being held over them.

i stayed in an abusive relationship for over four years because she had me so convinced no one else would love me, that i was trash. every time i found the strength to try to leave, i ended up running back to her. it was like a horrible addiction.


my brother was raped in front of me many times. my uncle tried with me, too, but i thwarted his advances. he ended up dying in maricopa county jail for that exact same offense. it comes up in therapy sessions. i'm too terrified to address it. i don't want to acknowledge the fact that it harmed me, too. i don't know. fml.

oh, jesus. i am so, so sorry. and i am so glad your uncle is not a part of your life anymore and can't hurt either of you ever again.

[sinspots]

Whew, she's innocent of any wrong doing, so case closed.
https://pagesix.com/2018/08/21/asia-argento-denies-sexual-assault-says-payoff-was-anthony-bourdains-idea/

[playwithfire]

:/ I assume that's sarcasm?

[Frozen Beach]

http://tmz.com/2018/08/22/asia-argento-17-year-old-boy-in-bed-photo-sex-texts

[ltrandazzo]

TMZ has the photo of Asia and Jimmy in bed, provided anonymously, of course. Here is a link to the CNN article in case you don't want to give TMZ the clicks.

Photo of Asia Argento with 17-year-old actor surfaces (https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/22/entertainment/asia-argento-jimmy-bennett-photo/index.html)

[Demogorgon]

Twitter is attacking Rose McGowan over certain comments about the situation: https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-asia-argento/index.html

[playwithfire]

Rose very clearly has a lot of problems. At least Tarana Burke (who I love so much, holy shit) is handling this correctly: https://twitter.com/TaranaBurke/status/1031498206260150272

[sinspots]

Statement by the victim: https://www.instagram.com/p/Bmy0y2wg1tL/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_loading_state_control

[Harry Seaward]

Please can we just switch out that one misplaced 'e' in the thread title for a 't'

[elevenism]

Please can we just switch out that one misplaced 'e' in the thread title for a 't'
You're an ass-hater. And for the record, the e stays. What we need is one more t.

[Harry Seaward]

You're an ass-hater. And for the record, the e stays. What we need is one more t.

What do I look like, HarrySpellword?

[sweeterthan]

Stick to the topic please.

[ltrandazzo]

Rose very clearly has a lot of problems. At least Tarana Burke (who I love so much, holy shit) is handling this correctly: https://twitter.com/TaranaBurke/status/1031498206260150272

Lexi Alexander says this way better than I can, but Tarana Burke is practically a saint for allowing Rose and Asia to co-opt the #MeToo movement and now having to right the ship with both of their problems.
1031930962697801728

[sinspots]

"Asia Argento has been fired as a judge on X Factor Italy, sources have confirmed."
https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/8472217/x-factor-italy-drops-asia-argento-following-sexual-assault-allegations

[ltrandazzo]

Here They Come Again (https://jezebel.com/here-they-come-again-1828650290) - Great write-up regarding Louis CK's unannounced comedy set at the Comedy Cellar this past Sunday.

[bobbie solo]

I am all for CK coming back and doing stand-up again, but this is way, way, way too soon.

[Swykk]

I wouldn’t suggest a surprise drop in.

Let’s not assume one way or another if he really recognizes that he fucked up and is sorry (he very likely isn’t), wouldn’t it just be basic PR 101 to announce a return with a statement seeking forgiveness and a chance to redeem, then donate the proceeds to a womens charity?

[playwithfire]

But aCcUSaTIOns RuIn LiVeS

There are a couple of comments on that article that are really good:



I feel like these guys are hoping for forgiveness (or maybe just... forget-ness?), but they’re skipping the steps where you really work to acknowledge, not minimize, the harm you did, AND you take steps to make things right. Forgiveness shouldn’t automatically happen because time passes, and victims don’t owe it to anyone, nor do fans.




This is it exactly. They’re attempting to come back, but there isn’t any real hint of even understanding what it is they’ve done wrong or why it’s wrong. There’s no indication they’re at all interested in changing their ways or learning from this experience, or even really acknowledging the situation, or even really recognizing the damage they’ve done to others.


They feel entitled to the career and influence and money they had, without actually changing anything about themselves. It’s still “why me, poor me”. I don’t personally require anyone to donate or go through performative public improvement projects, but what I do expect is at least some fairly frank acknowledgement out loud that they’ve hurt others and intend to change their abusive behavior and then to actually stick with that change.


I’ve seen no real remorse or intent to change from Lauer or Louis CK. Both can just crawl back into their holes until they decide to acknowledge their culpability out loud, learn to be better humans, and then be that.


And if they can’t? Then they don’t get that career back. Nobody owes these men any time and attention.

[loopcloses]

I am all for CK coming back and doing stand-up again, but this is way, way, way too soon.

More than anything I want him to write again, but I agree here, this is way sooner than I'd expect, and not how I'd like to see it done. If he's gonna come back to the public eye, he needs to talk about what happened and address it more thoroughly than that statement did.

[telee.kom]

How long was the sentence set by the ETS jury here for Louis CK, I must have missed that.

[playwithfire]

Yeah, bud, it's totally chill that a guy who admitted to jerking off in front of colleagues but has done little to publicly account for his actions and express remorse and change wants to go ahead and make a comeback. The silly old eTS jURy is just being too uptight about it.

God, expecting people who've engaged in abusive behavior to own their shit and not just, y'know, issue a wishy washy apology after years of lying and attempting to suppress people coming forward, and then take "time away" before returning to the public eye in hopes of support. hASn'T hE SuFFeReD EnOUGH.

We're really out for blood with how we want people to fully account for the harm they've caused before they seek public redemption instead of fucking around. The jUrY.

[loopcloses]

For what it's worth, and I'm absolutely biased as somebody who's been pretty profoundly impacted by his work, I wouldn't even mind him being back this soon at all, it's just that he needs to do more, he's got to address it. There's such a duality between the Louis CK who was a huge ally to women in the industry the past 9 years and the Louis CK that was revealed in the allegations, and the onus is on him to prove to everyone that the latter no longer exists, and that he wishes to atone for it. Just sweeping the whole thing under the rug is incredibly sketchy.

But I don't want to jump to conclusions either way. For all we know, he was just depressed that day and impulsively decided to go do a set, and it's not part of some premeditated Louis CK comeback campaign.

[telee.kom]

Yeah, bud, it's totally chill that a guy who admitted to jerking off in front of colleagues but has done little to publicly account for his actions and express remorse and change wants to go ahead and make a comeback. The silly old eTS jURy is just being too uptight about it.

God, expecting people who've engaged in abusive behavior to own their shit and not just, y'know, issue a wishy washy apology after years of lying and attempting to suppress people coming forward, and then take "time away" before returning to the public eye in hopes of support. hASn'T hE SuFFeReD EnOUGH.

We're really out for blood with how we want people to fully account for the harm they've caused before they seek public redemption instead of fucking around. The jUrY.

Oh the harm here, right... I'm genuinely curious, how long do you think he should be out of the spotlight or whatever you want to call it? How much is for public exposure in US? Here's absolutely crazy idea, maybe if you don't think he hasn't apologized profoundly enough, or it wasn't long enough since this all gone public, nobody is forcing you to watch his work or contributing to him in any way, so just don't do that.

[playwithfire]

Yes. "The harm."


how long do you think he should be out of the spotlight or whatever you want to call it?

I'm pretty apathetic about how long he's "out of the spotlight" and my issue with the timing of his return is much more related to how he has also done next to nothing to publicly acknowledge the harm he has caused, an understanding of his actions, and the changes he's made. Instead, people in his position seem to think it is sufficient to issue and apology and disappear. That is certainly the demonstrated pattern of behavior.

It's funny, because I think a lot of people in here (definitely me) are super for restorative justice. We don't have any desire for people to necessarily go away for ever. And for what it's worth, not that it matters, I think CK is a brilliant comedian and I really like a lot of his work. But restorative justice requires people owning their shit and working to improve it, and accounting for that publicly.


Here's absolutely crazy idea, maybe if you don't think he hasn't apologized profoundly enough, or it wasn't long enough since this all gone public, nobody is forcing you to watch his work or contributing to him in any way, so just don't do that.

That's a crappy idea. All that does is enforce people not having to account for harming other people and contributes to a culture that sweeps this shit under the rug and supports abusive behavior.

Do you have some sort of problem with the concept of people who have admitted to abuse actually accounting for that in a way that shows understanding and change? Like, is that idea somehow unreasonable to you?

[playwithfire]

Topical: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/although-he-has-made-zero-effort-to-make-amends-it-is-time-to-bring-steve-the-masturbator-back-to-our-office

[telee.kom]

Do you have some sort of problem with the concept of people who have admitted to abuse actually accounting for that in a way that shows understanding and change? Like, is that idea somehow unreasonable to you?

No I don't, I just find what he did to be stupid rather than abusive, but let's not get into that argument, because our opinions obviously differ.

I don't get how else would you hold him accountable for what he did? He's in a court of a public opinion, if public decides what he did to be too much for little atonement, then it should obviously hurt his view ratings, his sales, his popularity. If most people find a year out of work, one scrapped movie and tarnished name to be reasonable punishment for jerking off in public then I guess it's time to move on to people who actually abused someone.

[playwithfire]

No I don't, I just find what he did to be stupid rather than abusive, but let's not get into that argument, because our opinions obviously differ.

Yep, they do. I agree with sexual harassment laws and the literal definition of abuse. Both can be googled.


I don't get how else would you hold him accountable for what he did?

Here are some good resources.

http://restorativejustice.org/

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/08/what-does-redemption-actually-mean/568768/

[telee.kom]

I took your advice, tried this Google thingy and it says right here that "[the women he shoved his dick to] had received apologies in some form after several years", that could be read in a few ways, I think there was probably some monetary settlement involved neither party want to disclose. There is some restorative justice for ya. Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what you expect or want to happen. Is he supposed to whip himself ten times in front of you to make amends?

[playwithfire]

I didn't give you advice, but I did tell you that sexual harassment laws and the definition of abuse can be googled.


and it says right here that "[the women he shoved his dick to] had received apologies in some form after several years

Source?

Here's the original NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html if that's what you're referencing. And those apologies don't really contain much of an understanding of why what he did was wrong. In fact, the apologies described minimize the situation and his behavior.

His "apology" he released last year was a start. It also already managed to account for his actions in a way that is far more accurate than what you express. At least CK seems to realize he was more than just "stupid" but no, there is more to be done than a flawed apology and waiting for it to blow over.

Like, what I'm saying, and what others are saying, really isn't changing. You're "not sure what we expect or want" even though it's been detailed in this thread, in links, elsewhere. You can get all hyperbolic about self-flagellation but maybe the concept is just beyond your understanding despite the myriad of available resources.


There is some restorative justice for ya

Nope.

[playwithfire]

More good takes.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DltDEpZU4AYCLtU.jpg:large

and

http://reductress.com/post/hasnt-he-been-punished-enough-say-friends-of-man-who-hasnt-ruined-a-womans-career-in-months/

[ltrandazzo]

Two Women Describe Louis C.K.’s ‘Uncomfortable’ Comedy Cellar Set (http://www.vulture.com/2018/08/louis-ck-comedy-cellar-women-describe-rape-whistle-joke.html)


The women say C.K.’s set was similar to his usual material, and included a joke about the phrase “clean as a whistle,” which built up to a joke about how rape whistles are not clean. “When he said ‘rape whistle’ people were laughing, and I was just sitting there like oh my fuck. This is so uncomfortable and so disgusting. Everyone around me was laughing. That was just depressing.”

[perceptionnexus]

Two Women Describe Louis C.K.’s ‘Uncomfortable’ Comedy Cellar Set (http://www.vulture.com/2018/08/louis-ck-comedy-cellar-women-describe-rape-whistle-joke.html)

Lol I bet those two are a blast to chat up at parties.

[playwithfire]

That ^^ reminds me of how people will pull the "It's a JOKE" shit like they somehow think the person who is unamused doesn't realize it's a joke.

Here's another joke:


If Louis CK had jerked off in front of most of the dudes currently defending Louis CK, they would have murdered him and then gotten off with a gay panic defense.

https://twitter.com/vornietom

[perceptionnexus]

That ^^ reminds me of how people will pull the "It's a JOKE" shit like they somehow think the person who is unamused doesn't realize it's a joke.

Here's another joke:



https://twitter.com/vornietom


Oh, I'm sure they knew it was a joke. My assertion, based on reading that article, was that they just likely have a very rigid sense of humor if they were that offended, and the fact that a louis c.k. gig even spawned this kind of media attention based on a fucking rape-whistle joke is laughable. They write this article like these women who went to the show are victims, somehow, based on hearing a joke.

[playwithfire]

So I actually think the rape whistle thing is kinda clever. But like, surely you get how like... you go to a comedy show and SURPRISE THAT DUDE THAT JERKED OFF IN FRONT OF A LOT OF COLLEAGUES AND BLOCKED THE DOOR FROM THEM LEAVING AND SURPRISED THEM WITH HIS DICK IS NOW SURPRISING YOU WITH HIS COMEDY and then OOH HE'S MANAGED TO FIT IN A JOKE THAT USES "RAPE" AS A COMPONENT couldn't be an intensely uncomfortable experience?

[perceptionnexus]

So I actually think the rape whistle thing is kinda clever. But like, surely you get how like... you go to a comedy show and SURPRISE THAT DUDE THAT JERKED OFF IN FRONT OF A LOT OF COLLEAGUES AND BLOCKED THE DOOR FROM THEM LEAVING AND SURPRISED THEM WITH HIS DICK IS NOW SURPRISING YOU WITH HIS COMEDY and then OOH HE'S MANAGED TO FIT IN A JOKE THAT USES "RAPE" AS A COMPONENT couldn't be an intensely uncomfortable experience?

If it was, it's their own fault for putting themselves into that position. If they had any knowledge of C.K.'s stand-up material before buying a ticket, they would have to reasonably assume what kind of show he was going to put on.

And even if they didn't know his material and went into the situation blind, who gives a shit? That kind of stand-up is meant to create tension. When did it become such a horrible thing for people in this society to experience minimal discomfort? I just shared this article with my wife (who was molested as a child on a school bus), and even she rolled her eyes at it. People can think what they want about the matter, but I have no empathy for them. Imo, if it's that big of a deal to them to hear a rape joke, they should seek therapy and deal with it in private, not make it a media event.

[botley]

If it was, it's their own fault for putting themselves into that position. If they had any knowledge of C.K.'s stand-up material before buying a ticket, they would have to reasonably assume what kind of show he was going to put on.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about, as this was an unannounced surprise appearance. Sit down and shut up, maybe?

[ltrandazzo]

If it was, it's their own fault for putting themselves into that position. If they had any knowledge of C.K.'s stand-up material before buying a ticket, they would have to reasonably assume what kind of show he was going to put on.

I'm gonna echo botley - this was an unannounced appearance and the look is bad. CK forced his comedy on people after forcing and trapping women to watch him masturbate. It's a horrible look, and not the way he should be going about returning to the limelight.

Read the situation first before posting without conviction. It helps in the long run.

[perceptionnexus]

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, as this was an unannounced surprise appearance. Sit down and shut up, maybe?

K, the fact that it was an unannounced appearance still does not negate the fact that they were free to leave at any point during the show, nor my opinion on the overall effect of their reported discomfort from reading the article. I stand by my post. As far as saying that I don't know what I'm talking about, and telling me to "sit down and shut up" because you have a different opinion, grow the fuck up.

[ltrandazzo]

As far as saying that I don't know what I'm talking about, and telling me to "sit down and shut up" because you have a different opinion, grow the fuck up.

You weren't told that because of your opinion - you were told that because you jumped head first into an argument without knowing the context of the situation. It undermined your point because you didn't know what you were talking about.

[perceptionnexus]

Thank you for being largely respectful with your response. Though I disagree, I respect your opinion as your own.

This is part of the larger issue, and doesn't necessarily directly apply to this discussion, but was it ever actually verified and proven that he physically blocked them from leaving during these incidents? I can't seem to find a credible source about it on the web.

[ltrandazzo]

Thank you for being largely respectful with your response. Though I disagree, I respect your opinion as your own.

This is part of the larger issue, and doesn't necessarily directly apply to this discussion, but was it ever actually verified and proven that he physically blocked them from leaving during these incidents? I can't seem to find a credible source about it on the web.

You should start with Louis CK's apology where he said "These stories are true." (https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/entertainment/louis-ck-apology/index.html)

[perceptionnexus]

You weren't told that because of your opinion - you were told that because you jumped head first into an argument without knowing the context of the situation. It undermined your point because you didn't know what you were talking about.

I disagree, as I stated before, due to their not knowing he was going to make an appearance having no bearing on my opinion on the outcome (the women being uncomfortable), but thank you for being largely respectful with your response. I absolutely accept and can live with the fact that other people may feel differently about these types of situations.

This is part of the larger issue, and doesn't necessarily directly apply to this discussion, but was it ever actually verified and proven that he physically blocked them from leaving during these incidents? I can't seem to find a credible source about it on the web.

[perceptionnexus]

You should start with Louis CK's apology where he said "These stories are true." (https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/entertainment/louis-ck-apology/index.html)

I have, and C.K.'s statement. They say nothing specifically about him blocking the women from leaving.

[playwithfire]

The women's stories say he blocked them from leaving?

[perceptionnexus]

The women's stories say he blocked them from leaving?

Where is that information though? A direct statement from one of the women that wasn't retracted saying that he blocked them from leaving. All I am finding on the internet about it is re-posts, either speculative and/or unsubstantiated.

[loopcloses]

The "blocked them from leaving" thing seems like it has no basis--the rumor that floated around on gossip sites for years were of a comedian blocking two female comedians in a hotel room and forcing them to watch him masturbate and the theory was (apparently correctly) that the perpetrator was CK. However, the statements from the actual women from that story mentioned nothing about that, just that he stripped naked in front of them and jerked off to completion before they left of their own volition. It seems as though that particular detail was embellished by whomever spread the rumor to gossip sites.

Which I'm grateful to know, because as inexcusable and shitty as what he did was, false imprisonment would make it many degrees worse. It's the difference between the actions of a pathetic weirdo and a sexual predator.

EDIT: to be clear I'm not saying this in any defense of CK or as a counterargument to anyone who feels he should fuck off, just hoping to add clarity to a misunderstanding.

[perceptionnexus]

The "blocked them from leaving" thing seems like it has no basis--the rumor that floated around on gossip sites for years were of a comedian blocking two female comedians in a hotel room and forcing them to watch him masturbate and the theory was (apparently correctly) that the perpetrator was CK. However, the statements from the actual women from that story mentioned nothing about that, just that he stripped naked in front of them and jerked off to completion before they left of their own volition. It seems as though that particular detail was embellished by whomever spread the rumor to gossip sites.

Which I'm grateful to know, because as inexcusable and shitty as what he did was, false imprisonment would make it many degrees worse. It's the difference between the actions of a pathetic weirdo and a sexual predator.

Thanks for clarifying that, and you're absolutely right on the kind of picture it potentially paints a person as, and lol eversonpoe for apparently taking issue with me respectfully disagreeing with someone, and my internet searches revealing no proof that louis ck blocked women from leaving the room while he was jerking off. Very mature, sir. Nice community here. Lots of tolerance for opposing positions.

[tremolo]

The whole public apology, public displays of regret, etc are just white noise.

Maybe those guys are already doing something about it and not making a big public deal out of it. Maybe they are anonymously donating to some women’s charity –the easy way–, or maybe they offered a real apology and addressed the issue with the victims (what should really matter).

This whole hyperconectivity-internet-social media thingy has too many people convinced they are a part of this and that they are entitled to witness every part of the mediatic show, as if it was reality tv or an episode of jerry springer.

These guys did something wrong, they should resolve the issue with the victims, it’s a problem between them. The fact that the accusations were made in public doesn’t entitle anyone to demand a public show for everyone to see. People making any kind of demands like that (excluding the victims) should know they are the jury of nothing.

Personally i don’t care for CK, his comedy is puerile, and it bores me to death, and i don’t care about the guy, he’s not in my circle of family or friends. But he and any of the accused should have the right to make a living.

[tremolo]

Two Women Describe Louis C.K.’s ‘Uncomfortable’ Comedy Cellar Set (http://www.vulture.com/2018/08/louis-ck-comedy-cellar-women-describe-rape-whistle-joke.html)

It’s funny how people who get easily offended like to go to comedy clubs... it’s all fun and laughter until the subject is too close to home, then it’s not a joke anymore... it’s a statement.

And honestly, who gives a fuck about how one or 2 audience members feel about the show?

[playwithfire]

So here's an excellent piece outlining how Louis CK and people like him can address making amends and owning their mistakes in a way that is actually constructive: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/louis-c-k-needs-make-real-amends-he-gets-comeback-ncna904976

[perceptionnexus]

It’s funny how people who get easily offended like to go to comedy clubs... it’s all fun and laughter until the subject is too close to home, then it’s not a joke anymore... it’s a statement.

And honestly, who gives a fuck about how one or 2 audience members feel about the show?

That's what I'm saying. All this media bullshit about him making a rape joke is so unnecessary.

[eversonpoe]

and here's an excellent piece about how Louis CK in particular has failed to learn anything (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/louis-ck-has-clearly-learned-nothing-im-done-guest-column-1138704)

the most relevant section:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dl4Tj1kWsAATgAp.jpg:medium

[playwithfire]

And to the rest of the responses re: blocked from leaving

Firstly, what the fuck, y'all. Is whether he blocked people from leaving that important to you in the context of him exposing himself to colleagues and jerking off? Like, is the blocking-from-leaving what makes you consider it sexual harassment and predatory? Not the jerking off in front of colleagues part? Or the lying? Or the chain of behavior? Or all the other shit?

Fwiw the "blocking the door" thing came from Gawker (http://gawker.com/5894527/which-beloved-comedian-likes-to-force-female-comics-to-watch-him-jerk-off), and is a version of the story told in the NYT article by Goodman & Wolov. Maybe it is hearsay. The rest of the story is repeated elsewhere. What CK did in other instances was still illegal, and still predatory, and still wrong.

Also @perceptionnexus (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=269) you're sealioning. Google it if you want, or don't.

Also "who gives a fuck what 2 women think" a lot of people apparently? Including y'all? Why don't you just not read the article?

[perceptionnexus]

The whole public apology, public displays of regret, etc are just white noise.

Maybe those guys are already doing something about it and not making a big public deal out of it. Maybe they are anonymously donating to some women’s charity –the easy way–, or maybe they offered a real apology and addressed the issue with the victims (what should really matter).

This whole hyperconectivity-internet-social media thingy has too many people convinced they are a part of this and that they are entitled to witness every part of the mediatic show, as if it was reality tv or an episode of jerry springer.

These guys did something wrong, they should resolve the issue with the victims, it’s a problem between them. The fact that the accusations were made in public doesn’t entitle anyone to demand a public show for everyone to see. People making any kind of demands like that (excluding the victims) should know they are the jury of nothing.

Personally i don’t care for CK, his comedy is puerile, and it bores me to death, and i don’t care about the guy, he’s not in my circle of family or friends. But he and any of the accused should have the right to make a living.


And I think the disconnect with such a hyper-connected society is that the subjective experience becomes so diminished. I think c.k. made an oopsie in his decision to jerk off, but based on what I've read I wouldn't classify these women as "victims" in the normal sense of the word. This is probably because in my line of work in mental health, part of that involves working closely in therapy with a lot of native american women, and white women too to a lesser degree, around here who have experienced a lot of instances of rape on their home reservations. There's never been a lot of mainstream media attention championing their cause, so in comparison, two women laughing at a middle-aged comic masturbating, and then walking out the door after he cums on himself.......to see the media herald these types as legitimate victims comes across as trite and, frankly, kind of insulting to those types of clients I work with that have had those traumatic experiences. Because of that, I have a real hard time taking some of these #metoo stories as of having real importance.

[playwithfire]

I'm surprised, especially if you work in mental health, that you don't acknowledge that trauma happens on a spectrum and so does predation. No reasonable person is equivocating what CK did to rape and you are singling out one of many instances of predatory, sexually harassing behavior from him and dismissing that this was a pattern of behavior, and the lying, and the abuse of power.

Also "MADE AN OOPSIE"

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[perceptionnexus]

And to the rest of the responses re: blocked from leaving

Firstly, what the fuck, y'all. Is whether he blocked people from leaving that important to you in the context of him exposing himself to colleagues and jerking off? Like, is the blocking-from-leaving what makes you consider it sexual harassment and predatory? Not the jerking off in front of colleagues part? Or the lying? Or the chain of behavior? Or all the other shit?

Fwiw the "blocking the door" thing came from Gawker (http://gawker.com/5894527/which-beloved-comedian-likes-to-force-female-comics-to-watch-him-jerk-off), and is a version of the story told in the NYT article by Goodman & Wolov. Maybe it is hearsay. The rest of the story is repeated elsewhere. What CK did in other instances was still illegal, and still predatory, and still wrong.

Also @perceptionnexus (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=269) you're sealioning. Google it if you want, or don't.

Also "who gives a fuck what 2 women think" a lot of people apparently? Including y'all? Why don't you just not read the article?

It absolutely matters in terms of how he is portrayed in the media. I agree with what loopcloses said, it's the difference between the actions of a pathetic weirdo and a sexual predator. Peoples' livelihoods end up being at stake with this shit.

I don't believe in the term "sealioning". If you're going to make a claim, be able to back it the fuck up.

[playwithfire]

Doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, it's a term, you're doing it.


it's the difference between the actions of a pathetic weirdo and a sexual predator


I thought loopcloses made a good point with their post but that part of it I emphatically disagree with because I'M SORRY, WHAT. Is sexual harassment being a pathetic weirdo now? If I work at a dairy queen and ask to jerk off in the back in front of a junior hire is that just weird? Should I get to keep my job? I can come back after a year right?

[perceptionnexus]

I'm surprised, especially if you work in mental health, that you don't acknowledge that trauma happens on a spectrum and so does predation. No reasonable person is equivocating what CK did to rape and you are singling out one of many instances of predatory, sexually harassing behavior from him and dismissing that this was a pattern of behavior, and the lying, and the abuse of power.

Also "MADE AN OOPSIE"

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I didn't say that they weren't experiencing trauma, I said that I have a hard time seeing some of these accusers as being victims based on their claims, and the consequential media portrayal of them. And in regards to that media portrayal of CK based on what happened, I would definitely argue that there are instances when they are equating him to a rapist.

[tremolo]

And I think the disconnect with such a hyper-connected society is that the subjective experience becomes so diminished. I think c.k. made an oopsie in his decision to jerk off, but based on what I've read I wouldn't classify these women as "victims" in the normal sense of the word. This is probably because in my line of work in mental health, part of that involves working closely in therapy with a lot of native american women, and white women too to a lesser degree, around here who have experienced a lot of instances of rape on their home reservations. There's never been a lot of mainstream media attention championing their cause, so in comparison, two women laughing at a middle-aged comic masturbating, and then walking out the door after he cums on himself.......to see the media herald these types as legitimate victims comes across as trite and, frankly, kind of insulting to those types of clients I work with that have had those traumatic experiences. Because of that, I have a real hard time taking some of these #metoo stories as of having real importance.

I think CK fucked up. I don’t know if it qualifies as harrasment, sexual misconduct, or what since I don’t know the whole legality of the issue. But he fucked up good, and those he exposed himself to are victims, and they might be traumatized by their experience, and they are entitled to their pain and anger if you will. And they deserve a sincere apology and whatever else to make up for the damage caused by CK.

Sure, it doesn’t seem as bad as an actual rape, but we have no idea how it affected the victims. While some might be able to shake it off just like that, others might find themselves having anxiety attacks anytime they are alone in an eclosed space with a man... who knows.

[tremolo]

Also "who gives a fuck what 2 women think" a lot of people apparently? Including y'all? Why don't you just not read the article?

Don’t include me in your “y’all”. I didn’t read the article, just the quote the user copied/pasted in his post.

And yeah, nobody really cares, it’s comedy. We all have a voice, and the internet/social media has made a lot of y’all believe that everyone cares what you think. 2 audience members/bloggers out of how many?

It doesn’t matter how you try to put it, it’s absolutely irrelevant to anyone other than themselves, just like my posts here and yours.

[playwithfire]

Fwiw I wanted (want? I dunno what's fixable at this point) CK to handle this better. I hoped he could show growth. Because it gets lost: I believe very deeply in restorative justice. I think violating people's consent is a pretty common behavior that people are guilty of and that teaching rehabilitation and how to move on from it is so so so important. The idea that this shit is something only done by "bad people" is something I view as a dangerous line of thinking. Dude has also been one of my all time favorite comedians. But like... man he has fucked up at this.

[perceptionnexus]

Doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, it's a term, you're doing it.




I thought loopcloses made a good point with their post but that part of it I emphatically disagree with because I'M SORRY, WHAT. Is sexual harassment being a pathetic weirdo now? If I work at a dairy queen and ask to jerk off in the back in front of a junior hire is that just weird? Should I get to keep my job? I can come back after a year right?


Well it definitely is a term, doesn't mean it's a real thing. If you have the kind of principles where you truly feel like you can call assert yourself as a "sealioning" victim, and try and use that as a valid reason for not providing evidence to a claim, then I personally have no interest in pursuing any sort of rational dialogue with you.

And as far as you wanting to get your job back at DQ, that's entirely up to your employer. Just like CK's future work will be dependent on people willing to sign contracts with him. That's one of the really cool things about living in the usa.

[playwithfire]

Pssh, where have I failed to show evidence. I'm not going to do your googling for you or parse an article because you don't want to read a link, but that's not really why I think you're sealioning. It's all the sealioning you're doing that makes me think you're sealioning.

Yes. At will employment exists. So do general concepts of decency, social conventions, etc, whether you agree with them or not. Since I think you missed the point of that example: If I was jerking off in front of non-consenting coworkers at DQ, or say, if I was a well-established engineer pulling that shit with another less-established engineer at a conference, that would be very obviously sexual harassment -- just because it's the entertainment industry that doesn't mean it's "an oopsie"

[loopcloses]

Doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, it's a term, you're doing it.




I thought loopcloses made a good point with their post but that part of it I emphatically disagree with because I'M SORRY, WHAT. Is sexual harassment being a pathetic weirdo now? If I work at a dairy queen and ask to jerk off in the back in front of a junior hire is that just weird? Should I get to keep my job? I can come back after a year right?

"Pathetic weirdo" may have come across more lightly than I intended, but I meant it as a strong condemnation. Jerking off in front of strangers isn't just "kinda weird", it's absolutely sexual harassment and is the sort of thing one should be punished for with loss of employment, fines, perhaps court-ordered therapy, etc. I just don't feel it necessaroly indicates "predatory" behavior, at least in the way I think of a "predator".

When I think of a predator, I think of someone who preys on women, who gets off on the power it makes them feel. When i recall the stories about Louis, especially in the context of everything that's publicly known about him, it's more... like he considered himself on the opposite end of the power dynamic. He wasn't getting off on hurting them, he was getting off on his weird fetish that he idiotically convinced himself wasn't a big deal. If he saw these women as "prey", I can't help but feel that he would've done things very differently, and that the behavior would worsen when he got famous instead of (apparently) ceasing.

Now, my idea isn't to paint him as sympathetic, just as a person with mental health problems rather than somebody who's evil. And typing it out, I do respect that from the perspective of a woman who's been assaulted, it doesn't really matter even a little bit whether the assailant has the psychology of a predator. This is messy shit and I'll probably have an opinion that seems dumb here and there.

Honestly, and I understand why she hasn't, as she probably needs to distance herself professionally with her career as a creator taking off, but I'm most interested in what Pamela Adlon thinks, more so than I want to hear what even Louis himself has to say. She's both a very intelligent, gifted feminist and someone who is deeply familiar with CK from 15 years of closely working with him. She's probably got the most informed opinion on the matter of anyone, and if she can't forgive Louis it's hard to imagine anyone else should.

[Sarah K]

Please stop referring his actions as a "fetish". Engaging in fetishes requires consent from all parties.

[eversonpoe]

I think CK fucked up. I don’t know if it qualifies as harrasment, sexual misconduct, or what since I don’t know the whole legality of the issue. But he fucked up good, and those he exposed himself to are victims, and they might be traumatized by their experience, and they are entitled to their pain and anger if you will. And they deserve a sincere apology and whatever else to make up for the damage caused by CK.

Sure, it doesn’t seem as bad as an actual rape, but we have no idea how it affected the victims. While some might be able to shake it off just like that, others might find themselves having anxiety attacks anytime they are alone in an eclosed space with a man... who knows.

how do you follow up this eloquent and informed post ^^^ with this garbage below? it's like you're two different people.


Don’t include me in your “y’all”. I didn’t read the article, just the quote the user copied/pasted in his post.

And yeah, nobody really cares, it’s comedy. We all have a voice, and the internet/social media has made a lot of y’all believe that everyone cares what you think. 2 audience members/bloggers out of how many?

It doesn’t matter how you try to put it, it’s absolutely irrelevant to anyone other than themselves, just like my posts here and yours.

[tremolo]

Please stop referring his actions as a "fetish". Engaging in fetishes requires consent from all parties.

Not necessarily. A fetish is a fixation, and it has nothing to do with how it is approached. Consent has nothing to do with it.

[tremolo]

how do you follow up this eloquent and informed post ^^^ with this garbage below? it's like you're two different people.

Oh my god, i agree with what you posted, you are so eloquent... but this stuff over here... i do’t agree with you at all, it’s garbage...


You are a funny one.

[playwithfire]

Goodman & Wolov called out the owner of the Comedy Cellar on twitter and repeated their story, worth reading. https://twitter.com/DanaAndJulia/status/1035318566575386625

Also a good piece by Corry from earlier in the year (http://www.vulture.com/2018/05/louis-c-k-put-me-in-a-lose-lose-situation.html). They're pretty clearly unhappy with CK.

[eversonpoe]

Oh my god, i agree with what you posted, you are so eloquent... but this stuff over here... i do’t agree with you at all, it’s garbage...


You are a funny one.

there's a difference between agreeing or disagreeing with something you've said, and the fact that one of your posts was actually well-informed and well-thought-out, whereas the other one was you talking out your ass and being an ass.

[tremolo]

there's a difference between agreeing or disagreeing with something you've said, and the fact that one of your posts was actually well-informed and well-thought-out, whereas the other one was you talking out your ass and being an ass.

Cause it doesn’t follow the same line as your thoughts/ideas... i’m telling you, you’re a funny one.

Also, I was talking about how social media has twisted public perception and sense of entitlement. Maybe you somehow understood that it was something against women expressing their opinions? Well, that’s not what I meant, but I understand how it can lead to confusion.

It would be interesting if you elaborated a bit on it so we could have a constructive conversation, instead of calling it garbage, or talking out of my ass and being an ass.

I don’t really get the approach of insulting other people just because you don’t agree with what they are saying. No harm taken though, but that kind of attitude only alienates people and generates an antagonist reaction. If your goal is that people will listen to you and eventually “open their eyes” that’s not the way to go.

[eversonpoe]

Cause it doesn’t follow the same line as your thoughts/ideas... i’m telling you, you’re a funny one.

Also, I was talking about how social media has twisted public perception and sense of entitlement. Maybe you somehow understood that it was something against women expressing their opinions? Well, that’s not what I meant, but I understand how it can lead to confusion.

It would be interesting if you elaborated a bit on it so we could have a constructive conversation, instead of calling it garbage, or talking out of my ass and being an ass.

I don’t really get the approach of insulting other people just because you don’t agree with what they are saying. No harm taken though, but that kind of attitude only alienates people and generates an antagonist reaction. If your goal is that people will listen to you and eventually “open their eyes” that’s not the way to go.

i find your attitude toward most of this subject matter to be misogynistic, most of what you've said has an undertone of victim-blaming, and you're fighting on a weird side of this battle.

why is it bad for people to be considerate of others? why is it a problem to consider how one's actions affect those around them? two women were made uncomfortable by a surprise louis ck performance in which he made a tone-deaf rape joke. just because everyone else laughed it off doesn't mean it's not an issue, it just means those other people aren't taking issue with it. everyone has a different threshold for being uncomfortable, for triggers related to their trauma. just because one sexual assault survivor thinks it's "no big deal" doesn't mean we all feel that way, and it doesn't make it ok to just dismiss our feelings on it.

the me too movement was supposed to usher in a wave of change, and lead to constructive conversations, but it seems to have made rape apologists strengthen their resolve.

i'm not being as well-spoken as i'd like to be because my brain feels broken this morning, but basically my point boils down to the first thing i said in this post: why is it bad for people to be considerate of others? it really doesn't take much effort. whether it's obtaining consent for a sexual encounter, or simply trying not to upset someone with whom you're having a conversation, why do people make such a big deal out of it? when did having a complete lack of empathy for others become cool?

[loopcloses]

Please stop referring his actions as a "fetish". Engaging in fetishes requires consent from all parties.

I wouldn't refer to his actions as a fetish, just that he was acting on a fetish without consent. Which is sexual assault, just one inspired by a fetish. I'm not trying to minimize what he did, or defend him, or make any sort of argument for anything, I'm just trying to have a conversation. I didn't say he didn't block them in to try and defend him, I said it because the story the women told included nothing about it.

This isn't directed at any one person, but: I understand why many here don't have patience when it comes to this sort of thing, because there's a shit load of stupidity and ignorance displayed online and in this very thread, but can't we be nice? Unless the goal is to exterminate all people with internalized misogyny, or inversely anyone who has strong opinions about sexual assault, what is gained by being hostile? I imagine most of the people here fancy themselves open-minded. Wouldn't it behoove us to approach these discussions with the mindset that there's something we can learn? The better you can understand someone's viewpoint, the better you're able to convince them it's misguided. And I acknowledge that my viewpoints are likely misguided in some way or another, and I like having these discussions with people who have adjacent but different viewpoints so I can correct my own if needed. If when someone says something dumb and your response is to bicker about it, all you get is more pissed off and while there are many arenas in which anger is a tool for great change, the internet sure as shit isn't one of them.

Tldr: hippie pacifist bullshit, the Golden rule, let's be friendly because if not than why the fuck are we here?

[sinspots]

the Golden rule

Seeing as the topic of this thread involves sex, I feel it's not entirely off topic for me to say, whenever I hear this phrase all I think about is the SNL Golden Rule skit (and thank you now the song is playing in my head!). Was never by any means a Timberlake fan but he is rather likable in that skit and even Lady Gaga isn't so bad (she's pretty funny in it)!

[tremolo]

i find your attitude toward most of this subject matter to be misogynistic, most of what you've said has an undertone of victim-blaming, and you're fighting on a weird side of this battle.

why is it bad for people to be considerate of others? why is it a problem to consider how one's actions affect those around them? two women were made uncomfortable by a surprise louis ck performance in which he made a tone-deaf rape joke. just because everyone else laughed it off doesn't mean it's not an issue, it just means those other people aren't taking issue with it. everyone has a different threshold for being uncomfortable, for triggers related to their trauma. just because one sexual assault survivor thinks it's "no big deal" doesn't mean we all feel that way, and it doesn't make it ok to just dismiss our feelings on it.

the me too movement was supposed to usher in a wave of change, and lead to constructive conversations, but it seems to have made rape apologists strengthen their resolve.

i'm not being as well-spoken as i'd like to be because my brain feels broken this morning, but basically my point boils down to the first thing i said in this post: why is it bad for people to be considerate of others? it really doesn't take much effort. whether it's obtaining consent for a sexual encounter, or simply trying not to upset someone with whom you're having a conversation, why do people make such a big deal out of it? when did having a complete lack of empathy for others become cool?

I was going to bother, but then i thought it would be a waste of time.

You don’t know me, but you have already made your mind about me... misogyny, victim-blaming... even though it couldn’t be further from the truth.

To me it seems like you don’t really care, you are just waiting for confirmation on what you already think of others so you can start insulting and talking shit to anyone who doesn’t line up 100% with your views.

What I find funny is that your combative attitude doesn’t do anything to help change people’s minds, in fact it has the opposite effect. Bashing others (without a solid argument, just insulting) will never make them go “oh, hold on, let me pay attention to what you are saying”, what you actually generate is a reaction towards your own inability to have a productive and fruitful conversation.

And you crown that nasty attitude saying “... why is it bad for people to be considerate of others?...”

Yeah, it’s funny.

[eversonpoe]

I was going to bother, but then i thought it would be a waste of time.

You don’t know me, but you have already made your mind about me... misogyny, victim-blaming... even though it couldn’t be further from the truth.

To me it seems like you don’t really care, you are just waiting for confirmation on what you already think of others so you can start insulting and talking shit to anyone who doesn’t line up 100% with your views.

What I find funny is that your combative attitude doesn’t do anything to help change people’s minds, in fact it has the opposite effect. Bashing others (without a solid argument, just insulting) will never make them go “oh, hold on, let me pay attention to what you are saying”, what you actually generate is a reaction towards your own inability to have a productive and fruitful conversation.

And you crown that nasty attitude saying “... why is it bad for people to be considerate of others?...”

Yeah, it’s funny.

you're right, i don't know you. i'm basing what i said about you on the behavior you've exhibited in this thread. so you're telling me i'm wrong, but you have done nothing to show that i'm wrong. you've only written posts that back up what i said.

how is it having a nasty attitude to ask why it's bad for people to be considerate of others? that's feeling desperate and wanting others to be kind to the people around them. you are interpreting tone that's simply not present in what i'm saying.

[Jinsai]

When I first heard about the CK allegations, part of me immediately seemed to disbelieve it, and I found myself awkwardly forcing myself to consider that it was true. I don't know why, it's not even entirely a "fan thing." It just seemed so hard to believe that someone who could be so articulate and familiar with the topics he brought into his work, especially regarding the failures of morality and the human condition, could do something so pathetic and shitty.

And even then, that was before I looked deeper into the specifics of the allegations. The more I looked at it, the more terms like "pathetic" and "shitty" failed to really accurately describe it.

It's all really fucked up, and it's definitely not OK for him to be trying out new stand up material. It's incredible to see how far and fast he fell though. Prior to the allegations coming to light, he was pretty much the biggest stand up comedian in the world. On his last tour he was playing the Forum here in LA. That's insane.

[tremolo]

you're right, i don't know you. i'm basing what i said about you on the behavior you've exhibited in this thread. so you're telling me i'm wrong, but you have done nothing to show that i'm wrong. you've only written posts that back up what i said.

how is it having a nasty attitude to ask why it's bad for people to be considerate of others? that's feeling desperate and wanting others to be kind to the people around them. you are interpreting tone that's simply not present in what i'm saying.

You forget that I don’t have to explain myself to you, I don’t need to prove you anything, because I don’t think it matters. It doesn’t personally, and it doesn’t matter to the cause.

What I do for the cause only matters to me and those people that are directly affected by it. I don’t need to publicize it, I don’t want or need anyone’s recognition.

What I meant was that it seems that you consider being kind to one another a very basic and standard thing to do for any society that is willing to improve the quality of life of their people. And I agree 100%. But talking about being kind and considerate to other’s feelings while insulting others doesn’t make much sense.

To the point about CK and those people who complained. Too bad. I guess it sucks that it happened because they were not expecting to see CK that night. They had the chance to leave, but decided to stay, and why wouldn’t they? They got offended by a rape joke. That’s alright, they’re allowed to be sensitive about certain issues more than others. They have all the right to express how they felt. I have the right not to care. And I can’t imagine a functioning society that regulates everything in order to cater to the sensitivities of every individual so no one gets hurt by words ever again.

A comedy club is not a safe space.

[elevenism]

I'm just gonna say, if that dude showed up unannounced and told ME a rape joke, I would certainly be uncomfortable.

Ugh. Jesus.

[playwithfire]

But like, comedy clubs being not a safe space is a pretty distinct issue from how an industry handles restorative justice and sexual misconduct, and how we approach that as a society.

[tremolo]

But like, comedy clubs being not a safe space is a pretty distinct issue from how an industry handles restorative justice and sexual misconduct, and how we approach that as a society.


Restorative justice... that’s up to the legal system, and isn’t that something between the abuser and his victims, anyway?

What do you suggest instead?

[playwithfire]

Restorative justice... that’s up to the legal system, and isn’t that something between the abuser and his victims, anyway?

What do you suggest instead?

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/louis-c-k-needs-make-real-amends-he-gets-comeback-ncna904976

http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/rj-outside-criminal-justice/

[Mantra]

Why do so many of our debates here have to devolve into these pointless meta-discussions about free speech? Like, the thread will just be trucking along all fine and dandy until all of a sudden:

"I think this particular thing is stupid and/or wrong."

"Yeah, well, I think what you're opinion about that is stupid and/or wrong."

"Yeah, well, I have a right to say that I think something is stupid and/or wrong!"

"Oh yeah, well so did i! I have a right to think you're stupid and/or wrong for saying that statement!"

"Hey now, by criticizing me for saying that, you're trying to suppress my free speech rights!"

"No YOU are the one who is trying to limit MY freedom of speech by telling me that I can't call you a dumbass for saying what you said!!"

"No, I don't have a problem with you saying that. YOU are the one who has a problem with ME saying my thoughts on this issue!!"

"Clearly it's the other way around because I'm just saying that you're a dumbass and you're wrong, but apparently I'm not allowed to express myself!!"

And on and on and on it goes ad nauseum. I started posting on this board back in fucking 2003 or 2004 I think, some time back in the pre-WT/bleedthrough era, and it's the same argument over and over, like we're stuck in a timeloop. To be fair, this isn't exactly a ETS issue, but more like an internet-wide thing. But still, the thing that's kind of annoying about this pattern is that it derails the discussion. So we can't talk about the actual topic at hand, which might be fun or interesting or informative; instead we have to have yet another futile free speech debate for the seven millionth time.

And so, on that note: I, as ETS Minister of Public Discourse, hereby declare all free-speech meta-debates to be BANNED and anyone who engages in them will be sentenced to 8 years of hard labor. Proceed.

[tremolo]

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/louis-c-k-needs-make-real-amends-he-gets-comeback-ncna904976

http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/rj-outside-criminal-justice/

Let’s be realistic. How do you make that work and enforce it?

[theimage13]

Why do so many of our debates here have to devolve into these pointless meta-discussions about free speech? Like, the thread will just be trucking along all fine and dandy until all of a sudden:

"I think this particular thing is stupid and/or wrong."

"Yeah, well, I think what you're opinion about that is stupid and/or wrong."

"Yeah, well, I have a right to say that I think something is stupid and/or wrong!"

"Oh yeah, well so did i! I have a right to think you're stupid and/or wrong for saying that statement!"

"Hey now, by criticizing me for saying that, you're trying to suppress my free speech rights!"

"No YOU are the one who is trying to limit MY freedom of speech by telling me that I can't call you a dumbass for saying what you said!!"

"No, I don't have a problem with you saying that. YOU are the one who has a problem with ME saying my thoughts on this issue!!"

"Clearly it's the other way around because I'm just saying that you're a dumbass and you're wrong, but apparently I'm not allowed to express myself!!"

And on and on and on it goes ad nauseum. I started posting on this board back in fucking 2003 or 2004 I think, some time back in the pre-WT/bleedthrough era, and it's the same argument over and over, like we're stuck in a timeloop. To be fair, this isn't exactly a ETS issue, but more like an internet-wide thing. But still, the thing that's kind of annoying about this pattern is that it derails the discussion. So we can't talk about the actual topic at hand, which might be fun or interesting or informative; instead we have to have yet another futile free speech debate for the seven millionth time.

And so, on that note: I, as ETS Minister of Public Discourse, hereby declare all free-speech meta-debates to be BANNED and anyone who engages in them will be sentenced to 8 years of hard labor. Proceed.

I think this particular thing is stupid and/or wrong.

[loopcloses]

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/louis-c-k-needs-make-real-amends-he-gets-comeback-ncna904976

http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/rj-outside-criminal-justice/

That NBC article is a terrific read and I think why I may come across as being "lighter" on CK than I ought to be is because after all this time I do really believe he must have both the intellect and empathy to do what the article suggests, and I still expect it. I just wish he'd stop disappointing me.

[playwithfire]

Let’s be realistic. How do you make that work and enforce it?

I'm not super sure what you mean, the NBC article especially (which, sidenote, I've already posted both of those in this thread already, those were both reposts) is pretty clear? Where are you finding it unrealistic and what is prompting the "enforcing" part of it for you?

[tremolo]

I'm not super sure what you mean, the NBC article especially (which, sidenote, I've already posted both of those in this thread already, those were both reposts) is pretty clear? Where are you finding it unrealistic and what is prompting the "enforcing" part of it for you?


What I am talking about is that this should be a legal issue, because it would have to be regulated.

How were the victims careers damaged? To what extents? Are there any other factors that this damage could be attributed to?

I do agree that disappearing from the spotlight is nothing but damage control for himself and does nothing for the victims. But that’s on him. My point is that he cannot be forced into doing the things pointed out in that NBC article (some of which I find absurd), and that at the end of the day, since there is no enforced restorative justice, he doesn’t have to do it, and the only repercusions on him would be just another stain on his curriculum.

I don’t know what he has been doing about it. I have no idea if he has done anything for his victims or if he anonimously donates to women’s shelters... I don’t have a clue. He COULD do it. SHOULD he do it? That’s not up to me.

[playwithfire]

I don't think restorative justice is going to become a part of our legal system anytime soon. Nice idea, highly unlikely. That doesn't diminish its utility or value. Nor does it prevent wider societal adoption if we make a point of talking about it and sharing it.

Re: career damage -- Are you not reading the multitude of articles that have come out about this that directly quote people? I'm not going to take the time to detail the effects this has had on people's careers when they themselves have talked about it and the information is out there for you to read. It's also worth acknowledging the general expectation of "If I pursue a career here, this will happen, and no one will listen" stigma that influences people to step back (though this happens in basically every industry).

Enforced restorative justice wouldn't even be that effective because a huge part of it is rehabilitation and people wanting to make things right. Fwiw I haven't seen anyone he did this shit with expressing that he's done more beyond very half-assed (see the NYT article) apologies as damage control.

[tremolo]

I don't think restorative justice is going to become a part of our legal system anytime soon. Nice idea, highly unlikely. That doesn't diminish its utility or value. Nor does it prevent wider societal adoption if we make a point of talking about it and sharing it.

Re: career damage -- Are you not reading the multitude of articles that have come out about this that directly quote people? I'm not going to take the time to detail the effects this has had on people's careers when they themselves have talked about it and the information is out there for you to read. It's also worth acknowledging the general expectation of "If I pursue a career here, this will happen, and no one will listen" stigma that influences people to step back (though this happens in basically every industry).

Enforced restorative justice wouldn't even be that effective because a huge part of it is rehabilitation and people wanting to make things right. Fwiw I haven't seen anyone he did this shit with expressing that he's done more beyond very half-assed (see the NYT article) apologies as damage control.

In all honesty, I have not read much about the whole thing, I don’t know all the details. All I know is CK jerked off in front of some women.

If restorative justice will be about what the abuser should do, i think it’s something that should be arranged between the abuser and the victims, because only they know how this really affected them... not some blogger or journalist.

The problem I have with the whole helping them with their careers is that there is no way to know “what could have been”, specially in the entertainment business, where everyone getting in has dreams of making it big, and VERY few end up making it. “Helping them become known for their work” seems odd considering there is no way of knowing how far these people would have made it by themselves if they had never had such encounters with CK.

But yeah, I think that when you fuck up, what matters most is what you do after... make amends, fix the mess you made. Just saying “I’m sorry” and hiding for a couple of months doesn’t do anything, it’s too easy and shows a lack of integrity.

[playwithfire]

Actions don't occur in a vacuum though, yeah? Public accountability is often a part of restorative justice. I also think it's more about the damage that has been done to the careers by him and working to undo that. Entertainment is a wildly uncertain industry but I don't think it's an unreasonable suggestion within the context of the harm he caused. It may not even be wanted, but it's a reasonable suggestion imo.

[playwithfire]

Really good piece about the myth of uncontrollable male desire: https://www.vox.com/2018/9/12/17843212/les-moonves-ronan-farrow-me-too

[tremolo]

Actions don't occur in a vacuum though, yeah? Public accountability is often a part of restorative justice. I also think it's more about the damage that has been done to the careers by him and working to undo that. Entertainment is a wildly uncertain industry but I don't think it's an unreasonable suggestion within the context of the harm he caused. It may not even be wanted, but it's a reasonable suggestion imo.

I get your point, but I think that only the victims know how they were (and still are) negatively affected by the actions of the abuser, so only they know what kind of measures would be fair. So, while I agree that restorative justice should be a part of what the abuser has to do to make amends and to make up for his mistakes, what a journalist or blogger thinks is not relevant. Now, if that NBC article was written by the victims, I would really consider it more important, but since it was written by a random third individual, I consider it just noise.

[playwithfire]

Well, in CK's case people impacted have definitely like... mentioned that he hasn't done shit. But yes, in a world where RJ was actually normalized it would generally be more (but not wholly, imo) between the people impacted by the abuser's actions -- but like, there are additional questions of privacy there, yeah? Like, I think it would be reasonable for people to be warned about CK's behavior when there is a chain of events. I don't think the narrative of "you don't know what they've done to make things better" is helpful because a HUGE aspect of how we handle this stuff is about how we do it as a society and that component is deeply important and impactful.

But shit like CK presents us with opportunities to discuss this and push for its normalization (which Lux, the author of the NBC article, is huge on) -- she was also on the Comedy Cellar's podcast last week and did a great job holding her own through the portion of it I made it through (I couldn't sit through the whole thing because it was just tiring and A Lot... it was like an hour and a half long and most of the panel had views on sexual assault that they should have grown out of in their early twenties at the latest)

[Demogorgon]

This situation just keeps getting worse and worse: http://fortune.com/2018/09/17/asia-argento-legal-action-metoo-rose-mcgowan/

[WorzelG]

This article was a really good read, so true! Personally I wish the conversation about me too was more focussed on education - better sex education in schools that actually focus on issues of consent etc. I was talking to my husband about this and he said his sex education was watching footage of lots of kids jumping into a swimming pool representing sperm and they were all just wtf?
Although I disagree with the idea of Rose bloody McGowan being a poster child for it. It’s really annoying how it’s now seen as a white female Hollywood actress thing just bitter about a failing career and the black women coming out against R Kelly for example have been ignored
https://single-mumsurvival.com/2018/09/14/i-shouldnt-have-to-grit-my-teeth-as-my-sweaty-male-boss-is-surveying-me-like-a-greggs-bacon-sandwich/

[theimage13]

Hoooooooo boy, the right is going to (deservedly) have a field day with this.

Google staff discussed tweaking search results to counter travel ban (https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWlXOW FlQmpZQU1FZUU2cU04Z1A0MXBLQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen)

[elevenism]

This one breaks my heart. An independent investigation by the NBA has uncovered 20 years of sexual misconduct within the Dallas Mavericks organization.

https://www.sbnation.com/2018/9/20/17879906/mark-cuban-donate-10-million-apology-mavericks-investigation-results

I can't say I didn't see it coming though.
I was once at an AA speaker meeting in dallas (where one person speaks from the podium) and this just GORGEOUS, well to do woman told her story. It was about how fucked up HER life was before recovery and she wasn't blaming anyone, but her story involved drugs and being on the receiving end of sexual misconduct while dating someone who was one of the top members of the Dallas Mavericks organization.

I ABSOLUTELY believed her: every fucking word. She talked about the boyfriend eventually insisting on sharing her with other Mavs top brass and the whole shitshow being fueled by cocaine.

I was staying at a halfway house type thing, and, you know, this wasn't an accusation; that's not what it was about at all. She was speaking to a small group of homeless hopeless alchoholics, not the media, and refused to name names or blame anyone but herself (Edit: if this sounds fucked up, well, aa is kind of fucked up in that way: everything is YOUR FAULT somehow.) And why in the world would an INSANELY classy uptown woman expose these things about herself if they weren't true? (I mean, she agreed to the sharing, for instance. Why publicly humiliate herself like that if she was lying?)

And this was when the Mavs had just won the championship.
I pretty much unintentionally pushed it out of my mind because, if you slice me, I bleed throwback Mavs blue and green.

I just hope to GOD the players were oblivious, as Dirk Nowitzki is my ONLY hero.

[sweeterthan]

Sex offender defending sex offender. This shit makes my blood boil.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180921/eafbb6b937ce06e1033ec11cf0398786.jpg
the epitome of rape culture is president.

[tremolo]

This one breaks my heart. An independent investigation by the NBA has uncovered 20 years of sexual misconduct within the Dallas Mavericks organization.

https://www.sbnation.com/2018/9/20/17879906/mark-cuban-donate-10-million-apology-mavericks-investigation-results

I can't say I didn't see it coming though.
I was once at an AA speaker meeting in dallas (where one person speaks from the podium) and this just GORGEOUS, well to do woman told her story. It was about how fucked up HER life was before recovery and she wasn't blaming anyone, but her story involved drugs and being on the receiving end of sexual misconduct while dating someone who was one of the top members of the Dallas Mavericks organization.

I ABSOLUTELY believed her: every fucking word. She talked about the boyfriend eventually insisting on sharing her with other Mavs top brass and the whole shitshow being fueled by cocaine.

I was staying at a halfway house type thing, and, you know, this wasn't an accusation; that's not what it was about at all. She was speaking to a small group of homeless hopeless alchoholics, not the media, and refused to name names or blame anyone but herself (Edit: if this sounds fucked up, well, aa is kind of fucked up in that way: everything is YOUR FAULT somehow.) And why in the world would an INSANELY classy uptown woman expose these things about herself if they weren't true? (I mean, she agreed to the sharing, for instance. Why publicly humiliate herself like that if she was lying?)

And this was when the Mavs had just won the championship.
I pretty much unintentionally pushed it out of my mind because, if you slice me, I bleed throwback Mavs blue and green.

I just hope to GOD the players were oblivious, as Dirk Nowitzki is my ONLY hero.

The whole thing with AA, more than “it’s your own fault” is about “it’s your own responsibility”.

Addicts tend to surround themselves with enablers, people who will agree with them, pat them on the back saying “it’s not you, it’s everything/anything around you”, taking away the drive to CHANGE their own fucked up behaviour. Without that, there is no room for improvement.

I do believe that the origins of addiction are in people’s childhoods/formative years or external circumstances that push them into addiction and (self)destructive behavioural patterns (this depends on whether the object of their issues is themselves or others). Of course it’s not your fault you had shitty parents or a terrible childhood, but that should not become an excuse to justify hurting yourself or others. Otherwise it would become acceptable for abusers to use it as a valid justification for destroying other people’s lives.

[elevenism]

The whole thing with AA, more than “it’s your own fault” is about “it’s your own responsibility”.

Addicts tend to surround themselves with enablers, people who will agree with them, pat them on the back saying “it’s not you, it’s everything/anything around you”, taking away the drive to CHANGE their own fucked up behaviour. Without that, there is no room for improvement.

I do believe that the origins of addiction are in people’s childhoods/formative years or external circumstances that push them into addiction and (self)destructive behavioural patterns (this depends on whether the object of their issues is themselves or others). Of course it’s not your fault you had shitty parents or a terrible childhood, but that should not become an excuse to justify hurting yourself or others. Otherwise it would become acceptable for abusers to use it as a valid justification for destroying other people’s lives.yeah yeah, I'm aware. I've just seen the philosophy twisted into some uncomfortable places with regard to the topic at hand and wanted to clarify that I wasn't blaming this woman.

[tremolo]

yeah yeah, I'm aware. I've just seen the philosophy twisted into some uncomfortable places with regard to the topic at hand and wanted to clarify that I wasn't blaming this woman.

That’s a very touchy area that has got me in trouble here. It’s important to make the distinction between responsibility and fault. I guess the first has to do with the facts and actions leading up to something (sexual abuse in this topic), and the second is just blaming a victim for the behaviour of the abuser.

It’s never one’s fault for getting raped, being molested or sexually assaulted. But it is one’s responsibility to assess situations of danger to avoid being in that awful spot.

[elevenism]

That’s a very touchy area that has got me in trouble here. It’s important to make the distinction between responsibility and fault. I guess the first has to do with the facts and actions leading up to something (sexual abuse in this topic), and the second is just blaming a victim for the behaviour of the abuser.

It’s never one’s fault for getting raped, being molested or sexually assaulted. But it is one’s responsibility to assess situations of danger to avoid being in that awful spot.I feel you. It can be tricky.

[october_midnight]

Bill Cosby officially sentenced to prison. (https://pagesix.com/2018/09/25/bill-cosby-sentenced-to-prison-for-sexual-assault/?utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=SocialFlow)

[Volband]

https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1044658235997806592

Wtf is this

[Frozen Beach]

Tariq Nasheed is an attention seeker. He says all kinds of crazy crap for attention.

[Frozen Beach]

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/09/drummer-of-sigur-ros-accused-of-sexual-assault.html (https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/09/drummer-of-sigur-ros-accused-of-sexual-assault.html)

[Frozen Beach]

https://www.facebook.com/sigurros/posts/10156816954749124 (https://www.facebook.com/sigurros/posts/10156816954749124)

[bobbie solo]

This Sigur Ros one seems murky. At least for now. Hope it becomes more clear whether this is true or not, b/c I'd really hate it to be true. The details provided/his firm denial certainly don't make me want to personally indict him just yet.

[Volband]

I'm surprised you didn't mention Cristiano Ronaldo yet. If you thought Facebook could not be a shittier place... think again.

[Halcyon]

Did anything ever become of the Maynard accusations other than a bunch of lowlife Tool fans immediately coming to his aid?

[ltrandazzo]

Did anything ever become of the Maynard accusations other than a bunch of lowlife Tool fans immediately coming to his aid?

It seems as though the accuser's Twitter account and another account accusing Trent Reznor of sexual assault were created within an hour of each other and belonged to the same person. A reporter from the NY Daily News tried to establish contact with this person and that fell through. Nothing else was said and was subsequently dropped when the accuser vanished. It's hearsay until an actual, fact-checked report comes forward and actual details can be corroborated regarding time, place, etc.

[Demogorgon]

Did anything ever become of the Maynard accusations other than a bunch of lowlife Tool fans immediately coming to his aid?

It was a hoax by a fake profile.

[WorzelG]

Did anything ever become of the Maynard accusations other than a bunch of lowlife Tool fans immediately coming to his aid?
As of July, some guy on the blog Metal Sucks is apparently working on it, but that was months ago, how long does it take? If you're bothered you should tweet him?

My issue with the whole thing is the anonymity side, it really annoys me when you don't automatically believe something anonymous on the internet and people say you aren't believing victims - because the point is they could be anybody and not even a woman, so you're not 'not believing women' you're not believing someone when you don't even know who they are! Travel back in time to old ETS, should we just have 'believed' that some of the people on there 'Quill' springs to mind was being stalked by Trent just because they said so???

If there's something to this, let press people talk to the person and confirm things, until then I'm not believing anything - having said that I wouldn't slag them off either or defend anyone.

https://twitter.com/axl_rosenberg/status/1022899647763939330

[CPSmith]

Did anything ever become of the Maynard accusations other than a bunch of lowlife Tool fans immediately coming to his aid?

I don't know but I do wish MJK had handled the situation differently. He came across as rather dismissive to some of us female lowlife Tool fans and never said anything else to soothe that. And maybe that's how he wanted to come across. Who knows? He's obviously not crazy about fans and he doesn't seem to like fame that much either so maybe he saw this as his ticket out of having to deal with constantly being hounded for a new Tool album or having drones fly over his house night and day. What better way to disappear from the spotlight and just dig in the dirt and make wine from now on than to let a spark someone else lit - whether well-intentioned, true or what - grow into something that can destroy the one thing that's making you miserable? Just a thought.


As of July, some guy on the blog Metal Sucks is apparently working on it, but that was months ago, how long does it take? If you're bothered you should tweet him?

My issue with the whole thing is the anonymity side, it really annoys me when you don't automatically believe something anonymous on the internet and people say you aren't believing victims - because the point is they could be anybody and not even a woman, so you're not 'not believing women' you're not believing someone when you don't even know who they are! Travel back in time to old ETS, should we just have 'believed' that some of the people on there 'Quill' springs to mind was being stalked by Trent just because they said so???

If there's something to this, let press people talk to the person and confirm things, until then I'm not believing anything - having said that I wouldn't slag them off either or defend anyone.


You're right. Anonymity is a problem on the net and always has been. By the way, I was Quill several, SEVERAL years ago. Back before the word "catfishing" even existed. I was a romance writer back then and brand new to having people (fans) want to know me, etc and it really did a number on me for a while. The anonymity of the net made things even worse because back then no one even thought another person would pose as someone else. Yes, it is very laughable that I thought someone like him was stalking me (Sorry, Trent!) but you have to consider both the time and the context in which the events happened.

On a side note, I just started writing again after an 8 year break and you just boosted my confidence. If my outrageous posts on a message board made this much of an impression on you then I can't wait to see what I can do with books.

Thanks for the shout out! :D

[allegro]

On a side note, I just started writing again after an 8 year break and you just boosted my confidence. If my outrageous posts on a message board made this much of an impression on you then I can't wait to see what I can do with books.

As far as “anonymous online victims,” I’ve known some who were terrified of coming forward for fear of losing their jobs, kids, families, etc. if their identities were publicly known. Remember, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford sent a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein requesting to remain anonymous, to protect her identity. Fear of not being believed is the one of the biggest reasons why most sexual assault victims do not report assaults, even though their identity would be known. Victims also don’t want their reputations and families dragged through the mud.

For the record, Blasey Ford’s case (and other sexual assault cases) do not require “fact-checking as to time and place.” Drugged victims, for instance, often have no knowledge of time and place, nor do victims whose assaults happened many years ago. Kavanaugh could have been so drunk that he has zero memory of the assault; others in the house (but not in the room where the assault took place) would not recall anything about that instance because it was ordinary.

The DoJ is now (FINALLY) investigating the Catholic Church in Pennsylvania, after over 1000 reported cases of sexual assault going back to 1947. Exact time and place isn’t likely to be relevant.

I ain’t weighing in, either way, on this MJK thing, but I never lose sight of the big picture re sexual harassment and assault.

[WorzelG]

I don't know but I do wish MJK had handled the situation differently. He came across as rather dismissive to some of us female lowlife Tool fans and never said anything else to soothe that. And maybe that's how he wanted to come across. Who knows? He's obviously not crazy about fans and he doesn't seem to like fame that much either so maybe he saw this as his ticket out of having to deal with constantly being hounded for a new Tool album or having drones fly over his house night and day. What better way to disappear from the spotlight and just dig in the dirt and make wine from now on than to let a spark someone else lit - whether well-intentioned, true or what - grow into something that can destroy the one thing that's making you miserable? Just a thought.



You're right. Anonymity is a problem on the net and always has been. By the way, I was Quill several, SEVERAL years ago. Back before the word "catfishing" even existed. I was a romance writer back then and brand new to having people (fans) want to know me, etc and it really did a number on me for a while. The anonymity of the net made things even worse because back then no one even thought another person would pose as someone else. Yes, it is very laughable that I thought someone like him was stalking me (Sorry, Trent!) but you have to consider both the time and the context in which the events happened.

On a side note, I just started writing again after an 8 year break and you just boosted my confidence. If my outrageous posts on a message board made this much of an impression on you then I can't wait to see what I can do with books.

Thanks for the shout out! :D
are you this author on Amazon then? https://www.amazon.co.uk/C.P.-Smith/e/B00LLZ8QAE/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1540152909&sr=8-2-ent

sorry for bringing up old wounds, with context yes it seems like someone was an arsehole to you which seemed par for the course with old ETS. If the above is you, I’ll check out some of your books on kindle!