Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Hey, hey, hey, rapist Cosby's going away


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,503 posts

Posted 26 April 2018 - 02:31 PM

Bill Cosby found guilty on three counts in his second trial for indecent assault with penetration, the counts being "without consent", "while unconscious", and "with use of drugs". He was allowed to go home on his posted 1 million dollars bail until sentencing. Karma, not instant, but long delayed.

The thing that struck me most, as well as Katy Tur on MNSBC, was how briskly and energetically Cosby was able to exit the courthouse and walk down to his waiting SUV. When he entered that court I recall seeing him barely able to walk, his faltering steps bouncing him off poles along the way due to his apparent blindness. An oh so sympathetic character. Today he hustled down the walkway, not using his cane except to grip and wave it to members of the public, looking fit as a fiddle. I guess the restorative properties of Jello Puddin' Pops are quite remarkable.

#2 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,053 posts

Posted 26 April 2018 - 03:27 PM

And to think I paid money to see him perform at The Cave in Vancouver around 1980 or so.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#3 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,214 posts

Posted 26 April 2018 - 07:56 PM

View Postyadda yadda, on 26 April 2018 - 02:31 PM, said:

The thing that struck me most, as well as Katy Tur on MNSBC, was how briskly and energetically Cosby was able to exit the courthouse and walk down to his waiting SUV. When he entered that court I recall seeing him barely able to walk, his faltering steps bouncing him off poles along the way due to his apparent blindness. An oh so sympathetic character. Today he hustled down the walkway, not using his cane except to grip and wave it to members of the public, looking fit as a fiddle. I guess the restorative properties of Jello Puddin' Pops are quite remarkable.

Hustled to get away from the spotlight when it became inconvenient….
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#4 Orpheus

Orpheus

    I'm not the boss of you!

  • Administrator
  • 17,754 posts

Posted 27 April 2018 - 01:40 AM

I've watched him 50 years+, since I was a toddler. He was talented. He bore important social messages. He was funny. He was a role model. He worked hard to educate himself and others.

And I believe he was a rapist, which wipes all the above out.

He has probably done more social good than I ever have/will. But, as a human, he should probably burn in Hades.

It's not even paradoxical. It's a fundamental fact of human life and morality. A person may be forgiven if they are repentant, but "public good" cannot cancel out "private evils", because their victims are individual humans -- glorious humans, equal in every way to themselves, so the harm they do weighs on them as a private individual. We have but one soul (if that many)

I condemn him and his heinous deeds, but not his art -- yet I cannot cite his art to absolve him.

As the kids say "I am disappoint". I have been "disappoint" since this matter first came to my attention in the 90s -- and that may be generous. Few could be forgiven for "Leonard, Part 6" (1987)

#5 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,053 posts

Posted 27 April 2018 - 05:36 PM

Now, now. Given human nature, he's just a regular guy. Remember, Wagner was a rabid anti-Semite, Bruckner was a pedophile, and I could go on and on ad nauseam.

Humans are awful, horrible creatures. All of them. Every one of them a potential serial killer or war criminal.

There but for the grace of dog doo eye.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#6 Orpheus

Orpheus

    I'm not the boss of you!

  • Administrator
  • 17,754 posts

Posted 27 April 2018 - 11:18 PM

All too true. But I know my way around the pharmacopoeia pretty thoroughly from two professional fronts, while Cosby was a mere diletttant/script-kiddy.

I was never tempted to abuse  my training, because I never sought the ability to neutralize a victim's ability to physically resist. That creeps me out. It seems like a deep pathology.

Does no one else delight in the joy of a willing, eager, nay, enthusiastic partner -- who brings their own unique contribution to the table? Is that what we are?

Maybe it's all the OB/GYN exams I've done, butr there's nothing sexual to me in neutral/passive/naked compliance. "Beautiful" is nice -- but no more than 10% of the equation.

Cosby's acts, like most rapes, were about power/domination more than anything sexual or any relationship. I can't imagine a mind that thinks tactile sensations trumps affection/relationship/interaction -- or even conversation.

But many ExIslers have known for up to 20 years that I'm nuts.

#7 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,214 posts

Posted 28 April 2018 - 02:09 PM

Other than maybe it causing them cognitive dissonance, and/or not wanting to feel that something may be (or have been) ethically required of them (maybe cognitive dissonance by another name ;) )….

It is interesting when people default to assuming the accuser is guilty of slander/libel than assuming the accused is guilty of intimate abuse.

I understand most western criminal justice systems require due process that has resulted in a guilty verdict to have the apparatus of the state infringe on a person's life, liberty, and agency. It makes sense.

But there is a big difference between that and the judgement and association regular people may have have on other people.

If one hears an accusation of mistreatment of someone they (/of) know by another they know (/of) they are likely quickly (though maybe not accurately) making judgements about both of those people at the very least based on what they know. But if they only base it on what they have personally experienced and don't leave the possibility that the accuser or accused might behaved differently in different context (i.e., not assuming that just because the accused has never abused you that they couldn't have possibly abused someone else), then, unless they have been personally wronged by the accused, they are almost certainly going to side with the accused.

And it is perfectly legitimate to make judgements of other people for yourself and any people you have responsibility for and/or care about, and carry on accordingly.

"But they look so normal" or even "But they did so much good" as a ward against allegations of bad behaviour is ridiculous.

For the first, what do you think an abuser looks like when they are doing all the chores of life? Think you can identify an abuser grocery shopping alone, or mowing their lawn, or working a assembly line? Phhht. They look normal, they do normal things. Heck, I'd argue based on statistics abuse is far far far from being rare human behaviour.

(Aside: too many people treat natural, normal, common, healthy, as perfect synonyms. They most assuredly are not).

For the second, again, when they aren't filling their time with the chores of life, of course some of some of their hobbies are going to be neutral or good or popular things. In fact, they may use those to displace suspicion by giving them an aura of respectability and goodness. Or sometimes they like some of the selfish benefits of doing good or popular things. Maybe even doing good or popular things make them feel good separate from the external approbation or trust it affords them. Either they feel good helping people on occasion, or they just really enjoy their neutral/good skill/hobby/talent/interest. Humans are complicated.


And any one who things that people make these accusations to get famous or notoriety… How many of them know, or know someone who knows, the names of 3 or more accusers in this case? Could recognize them on the street? How about in another case?

Switching from Cosby's (of whom I don't remember any), in Trump's case I only remember one name. Summer Zervos. (Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels did not claim abuse, so doesn't count :p ). And his first wife, but I don't remember her first name or her current/maiden surname. I don't think I could recognize his first wife on the street.


The idea that several people freely make false similar accusations of the same person beggars belief. The belief in one's good faith goes to the accused, by lay people? By the state, certainly. I have to question the opinion of people though who say not only should everyone not judge him guilty short of a jury's guilty verdict, and that that implies that you and people you care about are in good hands in the company of the accused behind closed doors, short of such a guilty verdict. Um, no, those are worlds apart.

Edited by sierraleone, 28 April 2018 - 02:09 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#8 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,214 posts

Posted 28 April 2018 - 02:34 PM

View PostOrpheus, on 27 April 2018 - 11:18 PM, said:

Does no one else delight in the joy of a willing, eager, nay, enthusiastic partner -- who brings their own unique contribution to the table? Is that what we are?

Maybe it's all the OB/GYN exams I've done, butr there's nothing sexual to me in neutral/passive/naked compliance. "Beautiful" is nice -- but no more than 10% of the equation.

Cosby's acts, like most rapes, were about power/domination more than anything sexual or any relationship. I can't imagine a mind that thinks tactile sensations trumps affection/relationship/interaction -- or even conversation.

It certainly is context *and* experience connected. Just like our society "codes" pink and cosmetics and high heels and dresses and a love of shopping as "feminine/womanly"

(note: I hate each and every one of those with a passion. Ok, past term on the dresses, but going to the bathroom with a broken ankle made me a convert….)

and blue and functionality and neckties and a love of sports & action films as "masculine/manly".

(note: I love the first two, hate the last 3 with a passion).


We end up learning a lot of that coding growing up, and we don't question it as it is "reality" as we know it. Or adults just refuse to answer our impertinent inquires ;) . It is just the way it is. But it is not what it is. (that is, the coded item isn't actually what it is society says it is coded for).

So, recognizing this coding as coding and that it shouldn't entirely dictate how we treat other people, is one of our first responsibilities as ethical adults. Then trying to *unlearn* it. And not trying to think ourselves superior for figuring this out and just judging people in other ways ;)


In your example, talking about nakedness, neutralness/compliance, and how they are sexualized…. If people think about it, they know it is context dependent. People are considered disgusting if they sexualize a naked infant. But our culture does code nakedness as sexual and compliance as consent (I once read that maybe if feminist didn't call it a rape culture, but a acquiescence-model-of-consent culture, maybe people would start to see that the lens through which our cultural love stories are made is as dirty as it is. I have my doubts ;) ). Now media don't hold kids in complete thrall, obviously the models / guidance by ones guardians matter. Sometimes they and media are on the same side (for good or ill) and sometimes they are not (for good or ill).

But, yes, way to many people think they can judge a person or situation based on how society tells them it is coded on largely irrelevant factors. From questioning why a rape victim dressed a certain way, went to a certain place, drank a certain way, etc, as if all of this is just a code for consent to sex (huh?). To martial rape having been (& is) treated as an oxymoron, as if marriage is just a code for unimpeded consensual access to one's body at all times (huh?).

Edited by sierraleone, 28 April 2018 - 02:36 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#9 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,544 posts

Posted 28 April 2018 - 10:44 PM

What a waste.  All of his great comedy, his breaking barriers on tv, his "model family" tv work, his speeches and writing encouraging education, especially for Blacks....  All pretty much washed away in light of this.  Universities rescinding their honorary doctorates as well.  

Guess he was really a terrific actor.

He has GOT to serve some time, regardless of age or infirmities.
Cats will never be extinct!

#10 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,214 posts

Posted 30 April 2018 - 03:47 PM

I saw some story on WaPo about the end of a 2 year trial in Spain about a 18 year old that was gang-raped by 5 men near/during the Running of the Bull… There is video (which I have not sought out…) that the defence attorneys tried to claim showed she consented because she "co-operated", but really, sound, from description of her in the video I'd read, a lot more like she was affected by tonic immobility (happens to about 80% of rape victims).

It couldn't legally be called raped the court determined, because that required violence or threatening. Five people against one, demanding access to one's body isn't threatening? So they found the men guilty of "sexual abuse". They are appealing. If sentencing stands they have 9 years, plus a fine, to deal with.

One person wrote don't we believe in rehabilitation, wouldn't that be better than keeping them locked up?  

My reply:
"Do you have a number of times that they have done this in general, or times they have been 'caught' and 'released' (after what rehabilitation and/or consequences?) before we decide that they shouldn't have free access to possible victims (i.e. women existing in public in this case) and that long term jail is appropriate?

I am all for adding education on consent and healthy relationships in sex ed discussions. But these aren't some socially obtuse drunk frat boys at a party (my apologizes to all socially obtuse or drunk or frat boys or partiers who would never rape a person in or out of that context).... That 'accidentally' or 'unknowingly' made a mistake in reading their partner's 'lack of enthusiasm'.

Not saying these men are 100% unrehabilitatible, nothing's certain. I have my doubts considering how I frame this above.

I guess it depends on your definition of rehabilitation. Mine is one I recognize the law can't touch or use. That they would not only not act on the thoughts / feelings / impulses that led to this, but they fight these thoughts until they occur less and less, and they weren't even tempted to act on them because of their own sense of right and wrong, not because of external consequences.

That is probably why rehabilitation is so hard, you have to change someones way of thinking, so that when opportunities come up to do what has given them delight before instead of just doing it or thinking how can I do this and not get caught.... They either don't see it as they did before (an opportunity to do 'fun' things) or recognize a wicked thought or memory is stirred in them and they are repulsed."


I found an article about a sexual offender that, before his death, at least partly met my definition of rehabilitated:

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...-toft-1.4641107
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#11 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,214 posts

Posted 04 June 2018 - 07:50 PM

I saw a hilarious TV idea on twitter I thought I'd share, and hope it makes someone else smile.

The imagine that the characters that Roseanne Bar and Bill Cosby played both died suddenly and tragically.
Then their surviving spouses meet at a bereavement support meeting and hit it off.
Geographical issue aside (though maybe the Huxtables moved to Chicago at some point? Or one of their kids did and Claire was staying with them?) it was amusing to contemplate. Though I imagine Dan's character would have to put quite the charm on Claire to pull it off, though maybe bereavement would make her overlook the class and culture differences between the Huxtables and the Connors *laughs* Even them just being buddies and in each other orbits (with their spouses passed on) would be hilarious to imagine.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#12 M.E.

M.E.
  • Islander
  • 8,032 posts

Posted 05 June 2018 - 05:01 AM

View Postsierraleone, on 04 June 2018 - 07:50 PM, said:

I saw a hilarious TV idea on twitter I thought I'd share, and hope it makes someone else smile.

The imagine that the characters that Roseanne Bar and Bill Cosby played both died suddenly and tragically.
Then their surviving spouses meet at a bereavement support meeting and hit it off.
Geographical issue aside (though maybe the Huxtables moved to Chicago at some point? Or one of their kids did and Claire was staying with them?) it was amusing to contemplate. Though I imagine Dan's character would have to put quite the charm on Claire to pull it off, though maybe bereavement would make her overlook the class and culture differences between the Huxtables and the Connors *laughs* Even them just being buddies and in each other orbits (with their spouses passed on) would be hilarious to imagine.

I don't think it's all that funny.  Dan's a nice, open, friendly guy & Claire seemed to be a real people person.  I can see them being friendly toward each other.

#13 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,214 posts

Posted 05 June 2018 - 08:47 AM

^ Ugh (not you). I was just reacting to tweeted replies that I didn't share. A couple commenters didn't like that Claire would be "marrying down" if they were a couple. Made me grumpy ;) I do think they'd get along splendidly! Their kids though might be a different matter.... ;)

Some people did make more neutral comments on the class difference, wondering if Claire had been left with nothing or if Dan would be marrying into money.

Edited by sierraleone, 05 June 2018 - 08:54 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users