I have no sympathy for Cosby, but the fact that he did this is a harm to me and to many other people who have enjoyed his work since childhood. He was an inspiration to so many later comedians. It is sad—not that he was finally punished—but that he had to be punished. We’ve all lost something.
One lesson to learn from this is to be wary of anyone who uses fame as a bully pulpit to castigate others. Probability is usually high that these types are the biggest threats among us.
If Cosby hadn’t decided several years ago to go on a moralizing tirade against powerless droopy-pants wearing black folk, his crimes would’ve likely stayed hidden. That his undoing was caused by his own hypocritical hand makes this a more sweet than bitter outcome. It’s a rather Trumpian downfall when you think about it.
Tragedy is exactly what it is in the dramatic sense. A heroic larger than life character, brought down by his own actions. I expect that’s one reason it’s gotten so much ink, or pixels, or bandwidth.
I’ll quibble with you on this point: I think that Aristotle, in outlining the definition of tragedy, would not have included continuing criminal behavior by the protagonist as an acceptable characteristic of a tragic figure. Oedipus murdered a man in a rage, not knowing it was his father, but he is not a tragic figure because of that crime (for which he was never punished directly), but because of his pride and attempts to evade his fate.
If Cosby had been brought down by a character flaw evidenced in a single criminal incident or some vastly lesser offense to society, he might be aptly said to be a tragic figure in the classical sense. But there is no sense in which serial rapists can be considered tragic figures. They are criminals.
Macbeth was a serial killer. The play is usually considered a tragedy.
To me, Bill Cosby is the guy from The Electric Company and Fat Albert and the comedy albums that we listened to and rolled around on the floor with laughter at. I did watch the Cosby Show but it wasn’t as much a part of my innocent childhood.
So many comedians have talked about how they looked up to Cosby as a storyteller.
And to imagine that all that time he was doing all these horrible things. It really is awful. What do you do with someone whose work you have affection for?
I still can’t stop watching Woody Allen movies, even though Ronan Farrow has persuaded me that he did in fact molest his own daughter. I still want to see Louis C.K. eventually go back to making shows, because I really loved his work. I can’t figure out what to think about these things or what needs to be done. Yes, they should be punished, but what is right punishment? Must I punish myself by denying myself access to the works I love?
And then I have to go out in society every day and look around and think which of these men are abusing the people around them? Because it must be happening around me. How do we stop this?How do we create a society to raise men who don’t abuse the people around them? How do we create a society that doesn’t protect those men and victimize their victims?
I’ve been listening to Dan Harmon on his Whiting Wongs podcast and I believe that he is someone who, since admitting to inappropriate behavior, now constantly examines his actions and motives. That’s what we all should be, at minimum.
So you’re arguing that, like Macbeth, serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer and serial rapists like Bill Cosby are once-noble figures whose character flaws led them to commit crimes that led to their downfall. Further, you believe that we should feel the same sense of pity and awe for Dahmer and Cosby that we do for Macbeth, and attempt to learn from their examples, as Shakespeare expects us to do when seeing his play?
Or perhaps Macbeth doesn’t exactly fit the standard definition of “serial killer.”
What’s interesting is that the allegations had been there for years, yet his downfall never came. And it probably wouldn’t have ever come had it not been for a relatively obscure and unremarkable comic routine by Hannibal Burris.
But the real game-changer was social media. In the day and age before Twitter and Google and Facebook, Cosby’s accusers were more or less forced to fight Cosby and his entertainment juggernaut alone. When Constand made her accusations initially in 2004, the risk/reward ratio was too high for other individuals to come forward to corroborate what she said. If they wanted to make their own stories heard, they had to get through media gatekeepers. They probably assumed that weren’t that many others like them out there, as there was no way for them to connect and share accounts with each other. In 2004, Cosby – and let’s just say it, the networks and the sponsors who stood with him – was able to shut them up. Social media changed all of that.
With social media, Cosby was no longer able to control the narrative. He couldn’t shut them up anymore. In fact the media that he was once able to control became more and more obsessed with the story with each new accusation, eventually crushing his reputation under the avalanche of charges against him. The press that had once been perhaps skeptical was now complicit in helping his accusers prosecute him in the court of public opinion.
As we’ve already seen, Cosby’s not the only person to have his or her past catch up with him. Technology will catch up with others too.
Who was Dahmer ever a hero to?
I’m only saying that characterizing Macbeth as a serial killer is a misuse of the term, and your claim that Cosby could be considered a tragic figure by the classical definition is incorrect because classical tragic figures like Oedipus and Macbeth don’t murder or rape dozens of random people. Unlike the acts of those two, Cosby’s crimes were not the result of a character flaw like ambition or hubris.
Apologies if it’s right here in the thread or some other place obvious, but what did his pompous moralizing cause to happen? Did one of his accusers get pissed off because of it or something like that?
This whole thing just all around sucks. Any man that famous looking for extra-marital sex has zero problem with getting that if they want it. Bill Cosby IS a serial rapist. For decades.
I’m 47 and these decades he’s been doing this were (for me) Fat Albert toons, Jello Pudding commercials, the Cosby Show (best rated sit-com in white suburbia in the '90s), stand up, etc. And all the time I enjoyed him and his talent, he’s been choosing to rape women using drugs. :mad::mad::mad:
Another thing that bugs me is his wife, Camille. In no way shape or form will anyone convince me she didn’t know about his affairs. Maybe not the drugs part, but there’s zero chance she didn’t know he was sleeping around. Has she said anything since the sentencing? Does she still claim he’s innocent? I really want to know why she stuck around him for so long. It can’t be the money now. A lot of it is gone and I hope the three women who successfully had him convicted get a large piece of his money.
I don’t think he’ll serve any jail time. This will be appealed for at least a couple years while serving house arrest (maybe). And they’ll try and say he’s sick, a brain tumor or something. Further extend the appeal. I think he’ll die before any jail time is served.
Here’s the short history.
Rumors about Cosby’s rapiness have existed for a while but they never gained traction because of his status plus the way rape accusers are often dismissed.
In the mid-2000s, Cosby gave several highly publicized speeches that essentially amounted to him tearing into “ghetto” black people over and over again. He was widely praised for “telling it like it is”, but he did have some critics (myself included) who perceived him as dispensing a bunch of crotchety finger-wagging without any substance, solutions, or credit given to those actually working to make things better. So people on both sides paid attention to him.
In 2014, the stand up comic Hannibal Buress lashed out at Cosby in one of his performances:
After this joke got a lot of attention, a cascade of women came forward with accusations. One male comic pronouncing as fact that Cosby was a rapist suddenly seemed to give credence to rumors that up until that point were deniable because they came from nobody women.
Here’s a good article on the whole thing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/04/28/bill-cosby-played-respectability-politics-it-blew-up-in-his-face/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.588739103fa9
Thank you! I had forgotten this back story.
I seem to recall that Buress said he had said this many times but just this one time someone uploaded it to YouTube, setting off the public conversation.
Cosby essentially admitted in court to using Quaaludes and alcohol to facilitate his conquests (if I am not mistaken). I wasn’t around in the 60s and 70s, but it boggles the mind. I grew up enjoying brilliant albums like 8:15/12:15 and Fat Albert. The man had talent and charisma. His “pound cake” speech wasn’t the problem. Treating women in such a crude and callous fashion was the problem, and I feel sad for his wife Camille (?) who stood by him all these years.
He didn’t admit it in court. He said it in a deposition in a civil suit against him, which he expected to remain confidential.
AFAICT, he didn’t admit that he slipped the stuff to unwitting victims, but that he offered it to them with their knowledge to help them ease up or whatever. (Apparently Quaaludes were pretty common back in those days.) But it was similar enough to what he’s accused of to tip the scales.
This is another sign of how things have evolved — there was a time when if one of the parties was hesitant or “uptight” it would be socially tolerable in some circles to provide them with chemical assistance to “loosen their inhibitions” or “enhance the experience”.
Now, to the jury it speaks to the subject’s mindset, and if he could do the least…
Sitting in his home on house arrest with an ankle bracelet and having police constantly calling to check on him wont be easy either.
Also not being able to make money and watching as his debtors go after any of his remaining money wont be agonizing. To pay debts and bills he will probably have to start by selling any cars, artwork, antiques, or other valuables. Then comes when he has to move into the spare room of a friend or relative because he cannot afford a home anymore.
There’s one more bit, where they ask whether it was consensual, and his answer is “I don’t know,” which inherently means no. If he didn’t know, then he didn’t get consent.
I believe “it” was the sex, but it could have been the drugs, too. Anyone remember?