|
"Yeah, so let's make it *worse*" is an odd mast to tie yourself to. Ed: let's just end this pointless "why can't I throw everyone I don't like in jail" derail. Rust Martialis fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jul 7, 2021 |
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:"Yeah, so let's make it *worse*" is an odd mast to tie yourself to. it's the one you've been tied to since you started posting, but go off
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You're wrong, because you're making the same mistake most humans make where as soon as a probabilistic event crosses a certain threshold in their head they just round it up to 1. I was interpreting someone else's post. I don't know how you didn't get that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
Stop sniping at each other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:I was interpreting someone else's post. I don't know how you didn't get that. You appeared to be agreeing with it, if not then disregard. I perhaps should have said "they are wrong"
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Condiv posted:we've had poor people executed after it turned out prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I was basically agreeing that we need to be going after these illegal deals, just making the point that this verdict isn't actually doing that in any way. Because that's how this is being portrayed in the press at least, as a rebuke to the prosecutor who did something bad and now he doesn't get his man. Even though like, the prosecutor who made the illegal deal seems like he's mostly cool with prominent abusers getting a slap on the wrist. Not exactly; I'm saying that it's inherently impossible for our courts to be biased against rich people (as a class), but that we shouldn't care about such standards being applied to them and should support punishment for them regardless of how it comes about. I think that the people saying "we should ensure poor people are treated better by the legal system instead of rich people being treated worse" are wrong because they misunderstand that "poor people being treated worse by our legal system" is something inherent to our society. By all means seek out improvements where possible, but a truly fair legal system is impossible under capitalism, so it doesn't make sense to be invested in it being consistent in situations that benefit those with wealth/power. (edit: Put another way, you should want poor people to be treated better just because that's a worthwhile goal on its own, rather than as some attempt to make the system "fair"; how rich people are treated by the legal system shouldn't have any bearing on that) The idea of laws or courts biased against rich people is a situation which would never arise in the first place within a system in which rich people exist, but such a system guarantees bias in favor of rich people. So you should basically be fine with such people receiving punishment regardless of how it comes about - at the very least you shouldn't defend the circumstances which result in one going free. The people defending this decision are essentially implying that "if you don't enforce things like this, it would have consequences." I think that's wrong. When it comes to people with power in our society, there's no reason not to just directly support their punishment in situations like this (or at least not defend the circumstances leading to them going free). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This whole situation could never even happen to a poor defendant because when poor people are accused of a crime the DA doesn't give a loving press conference calling their accuser a liar and then double down when corroborating evidence comes out by saying it's the victims own fault she wasn't believed. The press conference wasn't the primary motivating factor for the decision, it was only used to give context. The decision seemingly rests on the conversations Castor had with Cosby's attorney and cribs heavily from the reasoning behind Arizona v. Miranda. Noted rich person Ernesto Miranda. (Just kidding, Miranda was a dirt-poor day laborer, 100% a rapist though)
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Noted rich person Ernesto Miranda. Mustache-twirling, evil railroad tycoon Clarence Earl Gideon, likewise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Individual anecdotes are not evidence against systematic issues. You have both been around here way past long enough to know that
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Individual anecdotes are not evidence against systematic issues. You have both been around here way past long enough to know that No need to make up arguments. No one is saying that rich people don't have an immense advantage in our judicial system (i.e. the systemic issue). However, people are claiming that the judicial system never favors a poor defendant (such as "This whole situation could never even happen to a poor defendant"). Kalit fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
So now Cosby’s case will be taught in highschool as a landmark case for the rights of the accused? Why are garbage tier posts like “the judicial system is overwhelmingly biased towards the rich and wealthy? Guess Miranda was the bill gates of his time!” allowed in a supposedly serious thread about rape culture? Why do we have to argue as to whether power dynamics actually exist in the US judicial system? The entire concept of metoo is that power dynamics have been protecting rapists from the consequences of their actions. Does it have to be demonstrated over and over that our institutions (including the judicial branch) have protected rapists, especially when they’re rich and famous? Why are posts like the above ok with the moderation of D&D while victims of rape get probated for venting that Cosby is getting away with being a serial rapist?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The press conference wasn't the primary motivating factor for the decision, it was only used to give context. The decision seemingly rests on the conversations Castor had with Cosby's attorney and cribs heavily from the reasoning behind Arizona v. Miranda. You didn't understand what I said if you think this is a rebuttal. The key difference here is that the DA pretty obviously was on Cosby's side and thought his accuser was a liar and/or deserved it, and this bias obviously informed his decision to promise not to prosecute, and the courts just decided this was binding on everyone even though the DA didn't actually have that power. This situation would never happen to a poor person. The situation you are referencing is completely different. Also worth noting that the court excluded Miranda's confession, ordered a retrial, and Miranda was convicted again anyway. I guess you need to pay a million dollars to the trial lawyers' guild for the court to let you just get away with the rapes. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You didn't understand what I said if you think this is a rebuttal. It's also flat-out absurd to think that public defenders - both ill-funded and worked to death, simply are able to devote the same kind of time, effort, and experience on behalf of a poor wrongly-accused person as can be dedicated to the prosecution levied by a legal team backed with millions - or even billions of dollars behind it (or vice-versa as in the specific case of Cosby's legal team's dedicated effort and financial backing). It's the absolute thinnest of veils over the fact that in most cases, the rich can just throw money at the legal system until it gives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
and don't forget, allowing pleading down (even if you are innocent) actually *helps* a jammed system where people can end up in jail for years because they can't make bail and prosecutors can keep delaying the trial to "prepare" before finally admitting they don't have any evidence. Right to a speedy trial indeed. This in no way gives prosecutors huge power to force pleas. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/nyregion/kalief-browder-held-at-rikers-island-for-3-years-without-trial-commits-suicide.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:So now Cosby’s case will be taught in highschool as a landmark case for the rights of the accused? Because If you read the ruling Miranda and Gideon are core to the decision and the precedent that is being expanded is actually specifically beneficial to the poor. So, arguing that this ruling could only ever apply to rich people like Cosby is truly bizarre on it's face. IMO If this was the USSC it would be a 7-2 decision with Thomas and Alito dissenting (speaking to the 5th amendment violation, not the specific remedy) VitalSigns posted:You didn't understand what I said if you think this is a rebuttal. You've made literally all of this up except for your recounting of the base facts of Miranda. The things you keep citing as the reasoning for the decision are either not in the decision, or in some cases explicitly refuted by the decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
I feel like this is getting far afield from the actual thread topic. I hope everyone agrees that the court system is biased for both structural and social reasons in favor of both the wealthy and rapists, but please try to refocus the discussion on how those issues intersect with Cosby's case (or at least similar cases).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You've made literally all of this up except for your recounting of the base facts of Miranda. The things you keep citing as the reasoning for the decision are either not in the decision, or in some cases explicitly refuted by the decision. And multiple articles from before this case with other sexual abuse victims complaining that he was acting against their interests and protecting abusers. And oh yeah he's now credibly accused rapist Donald Trump's lawyer. Seems like he's pretty cool with rich powerful men who rape and not too fond of angry women who try to tear down rich dudes for doing a little raping. There's too much there to be dismissed with a "nuh-uh", like at least put in equivalent effort E: it is pretty funny though that your example of a poor person benefiting from "defendant's rights" was still convicted and sent to prison in the end, unlike the rapist with a billion dollars. HMMMMMMMMMMM 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
Have we talked about Commonwealth v Stipetich" yet? The cops searched the Stipetiches' home, found drugs, and made a deal with them not to prosecute if they gave them information on their dealer. They relied on that promise, gave the information, and were charged anyway. When they sued to get the charges dismissed, citing the deal, what did the PA supreme court say then? quote:The non-prosecution agreement was, in short, invalid. The Pittsburgh police did not have authority to bind the Allegheny County District Attorney's office as to whether charges would be filed. We can't have officials making unauthorized deals all willy-nilly that bind all the DAs and courts arbitrarily! That would be anarchy! If they aren't formally authorized deals tough noogies, you should have known better than to rely on them! It might surprise you to learn that Stipetiches aren't multimillionaire celebrities, and coincidentally their non-prosecution agreements have to follow all the official forms to be valid. But tell me more about how suddenly having a different standard for a wealthy celebrity will protect poor defendants from misconduct. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
Regardless of reasoning, I read this AP Article the other day that I think really illustrates how devastating the decision is. quote:When Indira Henard, director of the DC Rape Crisis Center, received the text message Wednesday, she thought she wasn’t reading her phone correctly. “Indira oh my god,” said the message from a colleague. “Cosby’s walking out of prison.” I honestly tend to get annoyed by people writing obituaries for MeToo, but I think it's important to remember how traumatizing something like this can be. Abusers tend to make their victims powerless often gaslighting them or legitimately threatening to believe they have no control or means for justice or safety. Obviously Cosby's ruling--regardless of anything else--is tied to his unique level of celebrity and wealth. Still, it is a reminder that when courts act unwisely or callously that it does impact survivors and challenge their faith in living a life they control. But more importantly we need to remember that dismantling systems of power is difficult and has and will be a hard road. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jul 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
 quote:Cosby, 83, is with his family at the moment, Wyatt said, a week after his conviction on three counts of aggravated indecent assault against Andrea Constand was overturned. But plans are in the works to get “The Cosby Show” star back onstage in the U.S., Canada and London, Wyatt said. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2021-07-07/bill-cosby-is-planning-his-return-to-comedy Question: Does the legal ruling that freed him nullify any victims-rights laws against profiting from one's crimes, ie the so-called Son of Sam laws? Also, I might've missed it, but is there still recourse for Cosby's victims to file civil suits, as the Goldmans did with OJ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I posted multiple articles about Cosby's victim suing the DA who made the illegal deal for defaming her in public statements and calling her a liar etc You gish galloping a bunch of poo poo you read on Twitter while completely making up the reasoning of the case or address anything in the actual decision is not "effort". You digging up a bunch of poo poo on Castor when he didn't have any part in deciding this case isn't effort it's just bullshit. You're literally taking such a pro cop stance that the only judge dissenting here's only major decision is writing a sloppy blowjob to the cops ability to search anyone on the highway at will. Also Miranda had a ton of evidence against him that wasn't tainted by the confession. So I'm glad you're here to complain about a rapist going to jail while simulatainously trying to make the absurd loving claim that Arizona v Miranda didn't help poor people. What's your next act? Claiming Brown v. Board was the real racism? Now do Gideon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:
To the first one I'd imagine so since as far as I know those laws only apply on convictions and the conviction was overturned. To the latter there already has been at least one successful civil case (Andrea Constand). It looks like there was a whole bunch of them in progress before the 2017 criminal trial that it sounds like got put on hold because of it but I'm not sure if they were resumed. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Jul 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
Literally nobody is defending Castor’s handling of the case. (Even by the ridiculous standard of straw manning that goes on here “libs” should hate Castor because of our alleged sole principle in life, “orange man bad”.) The judge’s decision was defensible BECAUSE Castor’s actions were not. Who the gently caress has said anything positive about Castor’s handling of the case? Even at the time of the criminal trial it was widely known he had hosed with the case almost beyond repair. (And it ultimately turned out there was no “almost” about it.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 01:39
|
|
|
E:Nevermind
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You gish galloping a bunch of poo poo you read on Twitter while completely making up the reasoning of the case or address anything in the actual decision is not "effort". Mellow Seas posted:Literally nobody is defending Castor’s handling of the case. (Even by the ridiculous standard of straw manning that goes on here “libs” should hate Castor because of our alleged sole principle in life, “orange man bad”.) Yeah we get it, you've read case law, fantastic, now could you guys PLEASE find a different thread to yell at each other about this in? Hell, here's a good example of a facet of rape culture writ large: look at what Timeless posted, and how it was ignored in favour of this- it's an unfortunate tendency among even the most loudly "progressive" men to drag the conversation away from survivors themselves and the impact on them to, say, some purely legalistic thing just so they don't have to stop talking. some plague rats fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Jul 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 03:12
|
|
|
I regret asking this to be explained to me because I think I understand it less now more than ever and it's just been endless law tangents since.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 03:37
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You gish galloping a bunch of poo poo you read on Twitter The New York Times and the Guardian, I guess you didn't actually read the articles before dismissing them. I think you should read the appellee's brief man, it provides a pretty different picture of what happened. I'll quote some from it tomorrow if you don't get a chance, can't do it right now. E: I didn't bother with the rest of your post because it was just angry ad homs but it's pretty lol you accused me of being pro-cop and also being angry that Miranda went to jail for retire, at least be consistent with your invective VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Jul 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 03:58
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Yeah we get it, you've read case law, fantastic, now could you guys PLEASE find a different thread to yell at each other about this in? I think spr is right about the semi-derail having gone on a bit too long.  Mod hat on, let's table the legal discussion or move it to a different thread.edit: with the exception of rerailing a la Timeless' good post Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Jul 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 04:17
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:I regret asking this to be explained to me because I think I understand it less now more than ever and it's just been endless law tangents since. It's definitely confirmed my initial take that the actual legal reasoning was just totally made up for the purposes of making sure a wealthy rapist wasn't punished any more. Getting back to the thread subject, someone earlier asked "who was this ruling for" and it seems almost like the flipside of the Weinstein case- as we saw when MeToo hit, half of Hollywood must have been sweating bullets at the idea a rich and powerful rapist could actually be held accountable for assaulting people. The difference I think between Cosby and Weinstein, and the reason why people like his costars defend him, and why the legal system bent over backwards to let him off, is that Cosby was assaulting people who aren't also rich and famous and aren't supposed to have legal protection from men like him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 04:37
|
|
|
Andrea Constand, the woman who was drugged and raped, and her legal team submitted a brief in the case and it's pretty interesting. Since the discussion itt has mostly been hm hmming over the opinions of wealthy judges and the injustice done to a rich and powerful celebrity rapist, I thought maybe we could hear from the woman he raped for a change: There was no promise to never prosecute Cosby or blanket immunity, in fact in his public statement the DA specifically left open the possibility. quote:Castor testified for the defense. He denied there was an agreement, explaining that there was no “quid pro quo”. He testified that he decided not to go forward with a difficult criminal prosecution, even though he believed Ms. Constand. He said he still “wanted some measure of justice”. He thus made what he called “a final determination as the sovereign” not to prosecute defendant, the functional equivalent of transactional immunity. He testified that he told defendant’s criminal defense attorney at the time, Walter Phillips, Esquire,28 that he believed that his decision and press release would strip defendant of his Fifth Amendment rights in a future civil lawsuit . There was no documentation of the arrangement. Castor insisted that he did this to benefit Ms. Constand in her then-unfiled civil action and that he did so with the agreement of Ms. Constand’s civil attorneys He claims now he was trying to help Constand when he made the alleged 2005 agreement, but of course in 2005 he was calling her a liar and saying if Cosby did make a "mistake" he shouldn't go to jail for a little oopsie whoopsie quote:The contradictions did not stop there. Castor testified and wrote in his three emails to District Attorney Ferman about his alleged intent in 2005 to create the “best possible environment” for Ms. Constand to win a civil lawsuit (id. at 106). His public statements in 2005, however, contradict his claim. In 2005, for example, he suggested that he did not find Ms. Constand credible, called her case “weak,” and credited defendant for “not withholding anything” in the police interview. Incidentally him dismissing sexual and assault and rape by powerful men and institutions as a "mistake" not worth charging is consistent with the other articles I posted about him defending the Catholic Church from abused kids, defending Penn State from victims of sexual abuse, becoming the personal lawyer for notorious rapist Donald Trump, etc There's no proof this secret alleged secret private oral agreement that was totally different from Castor's public statements ever existed, and good reason to believe it didn't. quote:The defense concluded its case by presenting Schmitt, the former general counsel for defendant who had represented him since 1983. He testified that he never spoke with Castor, but Phillips had told him that Castor had made “an irrevocable commitment” not to prosecute. Schmitt testified that, but for this alleged commitment, he would not have allowed defendant to sit for the civil depositions. Schmitt’s testimony about the alleged “irrevocable commitment” was dubious. His failure to obtain such an important agreement in writing—or even to make it part of the record anytime during the civil lawsuit—is remarkable given his experience and past practice . For example, during the criminal investigation, he negotiated with the National Enquirer. In exchange for that publication tanking a story about another accuser, defendant offered to give it an exclusive interview about Ms. Constand. Schmitt meticulously negotiated the deal, in writing, setting the terms and limits of the agreement (id.). If there had been an agreement with Castor—one of such breadth that it would absolve him of criminal liability forever—Schmitt would have taken basic steps, as he did with the National Enquirer, to protect his client’s interests. quote:As the trial court found, the factual premise of defendant’s argument is false; there was no promise by Castor. The first time it was reflected in any written form was in Castor’s 2015 emails. This alone calls its existence into question. That an experienced district attorney, a veteran criminal defense attorney, and several competent civil attorneys would fail to leave a paper trail of such a significant agreement beggars belief. Former DA Castor seems pretty full of poo poo generally, like he didn't even mention this alleged far-reaching secret agreement until 10 years after he supposedly made it alone with a guy who's dead now. quote:While this Court need go no further than the credibility determination made by the trial court based on the legion of contradictions in Castor’s testimony, it is also worth viewing the incredible nature of Castor’s testimony if taken at face value. He believed that defendant sexually assaulted the victim. He thought, however, it would be too difficult a criminal case to prosecute. He might lose a high-profile case against a hometown celebrity. So he decided to let that wealthy and famous defendant buy his way out of justice in what can only be called a secret arrangement. His proposed plan of action: he anticipated that the victim would file a civil suit (although the prospects of that had never been discussed with him). He thought if he assured defendant he would never be prosecuted he would have to answer questions at a yet-unscheduled deposition in a yet-unfiled civil case, and that this would help the victim become “a millionaire” (N.T. 2/3/16, at 91). (Even though if defendant refused to testify, the victim would have received a beneficial jury instruction, and her attorneys preferred this.) He did all this without discussing it with the victim, her attorneys, his First Assistant District Attorney to whom he entrusted the investigation, or apparently anyone else besides the now-deceased criminal attorney for defendant. Nor did he document it in any way other than the press release, which says nothing about the alleged forever immunity and leaves open reconsideration. He also intended the press release to threaten the victim and her attorneys into silence so that they would not complain about his decision not to prosecute. This is an outlandish tale. And even if it were all true (it is not), is it something this Court wants to encourage as a matter of public policy? Cosby's lawyer also tried to get Constand to agree to not cooperate with the police if Cosby were charged for her rape, despite now claiming that he believed Cosby couldn't ever be charged. Cosby's legal team obviously wasn't relying on any promise of immunity. quote:Further, as part of the civil settlement, he tried to negotiate an agreement that precluded Ms. Constand from ever cooperating with the police—something that would have been unnecessary if there really were an “irrevocable commitment” No mention was made of this alleged agreement during the civil trial, and it wasn't cited by anyone as the reason Cosby testified. Also, it would have been detrimental to Cosby's case for him to plead the Fifth, since that's basically admitting that you did it, and unlike in criminal trials, in civil trials this can be construed against you. quote:The Commonwealth presented Troiani and Kivitz. They testified that Castor never mentioned any understanding he had with Phillips that defendant could not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in a civil lawsuit. In fact, the press release announcing no charges blindsided them. Neither defendant nor his several attorneys, according to Troiani and Kivitz, ever mentioned the supposed arrangement during the civil litigation. She and her lawyers pretty much lay out how this story about a big bad DA tricking Cosby into waiving his rights is totally contradicted by what actually happened and was just concocted after the fact to provide an avenue for reversing an anomalous instance of a rich man actually facing consequences despite a DA running interference for him and publicly attacking his victim as a liar. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Jul 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 15:01
|
|
He commented that he does not charge people for making a “mistake”
|
Was completely shocked by the recent Cosby decision and some of the discussion itt was useful for understanding how it came about. Cannot imagine how the victims feel about it. Actually successfully prosecuting a high-profile abuser seems almost insurmountable given the sheer number of things that can derail it, while the victims have to do every single thing right. Don't want to contribute to continued legal derails but appreciated some of the comments here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
It's pretty amazing, in retrospect, that Harvey Weinstein was not only convicted & sentenced to the rest of his functional life in prison, but also that he's being extradited to L.A. to face charges there, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
I think while it's hard to find a silver lining with the Cosby case, it's important to remember that the underlying issue was that the notion of even prosecuting Cosby at all was just not taken seriously when the press release was created. Progress rarely is a straight line and our legal system is run by people, so we're never going to see consistent change. I agree that Weinstein's conviction was amazing, and there are valid cynical reasons we can explore for why Weinstein was brought down, but we also shouldn't treat is an aberration, but sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth on that end, Willa. Cosby's initial conviction was also in many ways an amazing thing compared to where we started from despite how lovely he ended up. And I understand that progress doesn't feel like much. The Hannibal Buress bit people often cite as the start of Cosby's downfall is a good example of how we were starting from a place where Cosby was very clearly a serial rapist and people just didn't even acknowledge it. A good example of what I'm talking about is This Havard Business Review study. quote:We measured sexual harassment along three dimensions: gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion. Gender harassment involves negative treatment of women that is not necessarily sexual, but may include things like a supervisor or coworker making sexist remarks, telling inappropriate stories, or displaying sexist material. Unwanted sexual attention includes coworker or supervisor behaviors such as staring, leering, ogling, or unwanted touching. Sexual coercion includes bribing or pressuring women to engage in sexual behavior. We also measured participants’ self-esteem and self-doubt, to see how these correlated with their experiences. Is that progress? I'd say so. Is it progress that feels good? Not particularly and it's okay to feel lovely about it. But I'd also argue that we cannot be absolute in our failures or minimize our successes in the face of our failures. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Jul 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 17:17
|
|
|
Even as bad as the Cosby situation is, it's still pretty amazing that it's generally agreed he did it, when just 20 years ago there was practically no amount of accusers that couldn't be dismissed with the old "drag $100 bill through a trailer park" canard. It's still pretty bad that there's barely any consequences, but there are some, and (unless they're the president of the united states obviously) they can't win by calling the women they rape hysterical lying golddiggers anymore, they have to resort to process arguments like the ones currently protecting Cuomo and Cosby from the biggest consequences, but their careers will never be the same. Hopefully as the younger generations come up this will continue to improve. There's a lot of awful people controlling every lever of power, but even they are bending. Just look at DA Castor who started out calling Cosby's victim a liar and a golddigger, but is now having to pretend that he believed her and that a civil judgment was the best outcome for her, when just 10 years ago he could be so publicly shameless as to just come out and say drugging and assaulting a woman is a "mistake" that a prominent man really shouldn't be charged for. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jul 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:It's pretty amazing, in retrospect, that Harvey Weinstein was not only convicted & sentenced to the rest of his functional life in prison, but also that he's being extradited to L.A. to face charges there, too. I think there was a lot of people that was just waiting for an opportunity to to get him. He was not that popular.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's still pretty bad that there's barely any consequences, but there are some, and (unless they're the president of the united states obviously) they can't win by calling the women they rape hysterical lying golddiggers anymore, they have to resort to process arguments like the ones currently protecting Cuomo and Cosby from the biggest consequences, but their careers will never be the same. I'm not sure that Cuomo will ever face career consequences for his sexual harassment, as I've said upthread. Like, yeah, he's never going to run for president now, and if he's smart he'll decline to run for reelection for governor next year, but he never had a shot at pres anyway, and meanwhile the wide world of a federal appointment or lobbying beckons. The guy's picture should be in the dictionary to illustrate "hubris"; imagine writing a hagiographic, self-congratulatory tome on the state's dime bragging about your governing superpowers while killing thousands of grannies & molesting their granddaughters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 17:53
|
|
|
A great example of the liberal hypocrisy is Alan Chartok (CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio) who spent years doggedly hating on Andrew Cuomo (for many good reasons) but is slavishly praising of Joe Biden. And to make that thread relevant - the whole "I don't know what's true about the sexual harassment" run around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I'm not sure that Cuomo will ever face career consequences for his sexual harassment, as I've said upthread. Which is progress, 30 years ago you can rape all you want and still be a celebrated elite that's so far beyond criticism that even Democratic senators can't say you probably did it without torpedoing their own careers. But nobody is even pretending that Cuomo is innocent any more, the only defense is that we can't punish him without letting The Process* work. Which is pretty different from what happened with Slick Willy although still obviously bad. * The Process: His political allies who don't want to punish him or any other wealthy powerful abuser form a committee to stonewall until the issue becomes moot with the expiration of his term. Oh also they insist any impeachment is illegitimate if it passes with Republican support, so much for democracy. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jul 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
How has right-wing outrage clickbait media been using the Cosby situation? I'm wondering if he will be a pariah for the rest of his life or if he will achieve a place in the Trump Republican pantheon, which he will surely attempt to do. What do you think will happen to Phylicia Rashad who tweeted support for Cosby after his conviction was overturned and then walked it back pretty unconvincingly? What should happen?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 19:46
|
|
