Enough from the defenders of rapists already

The BBQ Pit
181

ISTM that the evidence is overwhelming at this point that Cosby has been guilty of - at the very least - being overly and improperly aggressive with many women, and probably much worse. (Though I don’t think the various denials, unconvincing as they are, are motivated by misogyny - rather, by the fact that Cosby is a well liked guy and people would prefer to believe that he’s innocent.)

But along the same lines, I think the evidence against Bill Clinton is pretty strong too. And by all accounts JFK was the worst of them all. So I’m curious at to those whose righteous anger burns hot at anyone who would dare to defend Bill Cosby - how do they feel about the fact that many people lionize these two sexual predators?

182

Like I said before, I think Clinton deserves to be excoriated for what he did to women. About JFK I had the idea that he was a womanizer but wasn’t aware of accusations of assault or rape.

I’d still lionize both of those figures for their contributions to culture and history–and I’d do the same concerning Cosby.

183

Hey, if its one person or two, I’d give him a pass. But this is over a dozen women. In this case, and because we’re not in court, its perfectly fine to assume he’s guilty until he defends himself.

Ideally, no man should be forced to defend himself unless someone else has evidence against him. I dispute that all of these women, and the men who helped keep them quiet, talking about incidents is not evidence.

Here’s what Cosby should be forced to do, and assumed guilty until he does so: defend himself. He should have to respond in public to every single woman accusing him of rape, to every assistant who said he helped cover it up. Again, realize we’re not in court so its perfectly fine to judge him. Until he gives his alternative to each accusation, assume that the number of people accusing him of rape means he’s guilty. I think Bill Cosby is a rapist, and every time he says “no comment” or refuses to talk about it, I think he’s trying to hide it. Until he responds to his critics, he’s guilty in my eyes

I realize that people will most definitely twist my words to generalize some point about being guilty before proven, or come up with analogies upon analogies to try to pick apart the logic (what if it was you huh? HUH??!). I don’t give a shit. This is about Cosby and the statements by the women is evidence. Whatever analogy people try to use outside of this case is irrelevant. Reasonable people can make reasonable exceptions to rules and that’s what I’ve done

184

How is “i’m not going to choose sides until I see evidence” materially different from “I don’t know, I wasn’t there”?

Aren’t both essentially witholding judgment?

185

Everything he posts is like that. If his toast got one shade of brown too toasted, he’d post that angry over-the-top shit. You have really only two options:

Ignore him. He’s a brainless rage-monkey.

Or, if your tastes run that way, poke him with a stick and watch steam come out his ears. Which can be fun.

Either way…just don’t expect rational or intelligent or, well, coherent arguments out of him.

186

Misogyny, misandry, racism, heterosexism, bigotry, these are real things that cause problems in society. If people can’t handle being called out on their shit, it’s not my problem. I’m fully capable of hearing someone say ‘‘that’s a racist attitude’’ or ‘‘that’s a sexist attitude’’ about something I say without going on the defensive. Or, I might go on the defensive at first but think about it later. If I can do it, so can others. Sugar-coating the truth does no favors for those harmed by the world’s -isms.

When it comes down to it, I’m far more concerned about these harmful ideas being accepted as mainstream and propagated than I am concerned about hurting someone’s feelings by calling their ideas misogynist. The harm of a wrong idea spreading is incalculably worse than the harm of a pejorative label for people who cling to dangerous ideas. If someone can demonstrate compelling evidence that this is not the case - that using these labels does more harm than good - I am willing to reconsider my stance.

[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]
I don’t sense that much of this is about getting people to understand their perspective. Largely, it looks to me like there are some people who want to punish a few people who they don’t like under the guise of a topic that allows them to appear self-righteous. I’m not really opposed to that, but the broad brushing is tarring quite a few more people.
[/QUOTE]

One might conclude that people like to judge, but they don’t like to be judged.

I think it’s pretty clear arguing with certain posters with particularly extreme opinions is wasted effort. I’m not speaking to the extremists, nor am I speaking on their behalf. I don’t bear any kind of grudge against anyone on this board so when I’m calling out specific attitudes I don’t think it’s to punish people I don’t like. I think it’s to point out attitudes that I think are problematic both with regards to the case of Mr. Cosby and in society as a whole.

And yes, understanding is definitely being sought here.

[QUOTE=ascenray]
The short answer is that it’s wrong to try to force a hard, “objective” standard in cases like this.

It’s wrong to say “We should never decide that X is a rapist based only on the word of an alleged rape victim.”

It’s also wrong to say “We should always accept as true any allegation of rape.”

You have to take into account the subjective circumstances.
[/QUOTE]

One thousand times this.

[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]
That’s a topic I’ve been thinking about lately, so if you’re ever interested in sharing, I’d be interested to read about it.
[/QUOTE]

In a nutshell, see “What Is Mandatory Reporting?” heading.

[QUOTE=Interview with Richard Gelles]
So the front end of the system, the American child welfare system, is staffed and trained to do 3 million investigations a year, that yield 1 million substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect, that yield 500,000 cases that actually receive services. So 2.5 million contacts between the child welfare system and families are nothing more than investigations. But it’s extraordinarily time-consuming; it’s extraordinarily costly; it requires lots of technology, lots of training. Since resources are finite, it leaves very little energy, very little skill, very little money for the 500,000 cases that are left.
[/QUOTE]

False Allegations: What the Data Really Show

And I do understand the irony here.

[QUOTE=National Coalition for Child Protection Reform]
This question was examined by a major federal study, commonly known as the second National Incidence Study or NIS2. This study second-guessed child protective workers, re- checking records to see if they had reached the right conclusion. The researchers found that protective workers were at least twice as likely and perhaps as much as six times more likely to wrongly label an innocent family guilty as they were to wrongly label a guilty family innocent.[1] Thus, not only are more than three-quarters of all allegations false, chances are that figure is an underestimate.
[/QUOTE]

So the vast majority of cases that are investigated by child welfare workers are found to be unsubstantiated, without grounds, and most of those cases come from mandated reporters. If I’m understanding the article linked above correctly, even among those that are found to be substantiated, most of them on review are discovered to be false. The people investigating these claims often lack adequate training and are making completely subjective judgments based on their perceived ‘‘practice wisdom’’ and not much else. At least one statistical analysis I’m familiar with revealed that the decision to declare a case ‘‘substantiated’’ correctly predicted the child’s outcome 50% of the time. So, basically, they would have been just as well off flipping a coin to decide whether a child was truly at risk.

Full disclosure: All the ideas I have on this subject were informed by Gelles, who was my professor (and Dean.) His ideas were considered highly controversial by most of the people at my school, and I think at least part of the reason was bias that he is a staunch conservative (which is obvious if you read the interviews.) I love a good iconoclast though, especially one who uses a foundation of sound research for his beliefs, and I think he’s been shaking up the system in exactly the right way.

187

I think a lot of the incorrect guilty decisions are the results of a CYA mindset among the CPS people (combined in some cases with some class/race resentment issues). The flip side is that CPS is understaffed as you mention, which sometimes leads to pressure in the opposite direction.

188

For me it helps to think of it this way.

  1. Have any of these women sworn out a statement in front of a magistrate or even notary public, with jurisdiction in the United States, to the effect of what they have said verbally or in print?

If yes, that’s evidence.
If no, that’s an accusation, and not evidence.

In other words, it’s not sworn testimony. You’d think they’d be willing to at least swear to what they have said to reporters, but so far, apparently none have. Ever.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

189

What if your wife were rich and famous, and 3 of the accusations weren’t made until after the first one was on CNN?

190

Ummm…dude, have you totally forgotten that there is the concept in our society and our legal system about innocent until proven guilty? Where’s the proof? Has he been tried and convicted in a court of law instead of just the court of public opinion? Get back to us when he has been.

But I am curious. Are/were you this outraged over Bill Clinton’s actions? How about Garth Ancier, David Neuman or Gary Goddard? How about Kevin Clash? None of them have been tried any more than Cosby has, but you’re whining about him and not them? Why is that? (I would have added Roman Polanski to the list, except there is no doubt in his case - he was tried and convicted of child rape. One could, and probably should, complain about how Hollywood still loves him even though he’s a baby-raper.)

Is your outrage based solely on the fact that Cosby is conservative or do you have some other reason(s). Pray tell.

191

You’ll have to cite that Cosby is conservative, not that this is particularly relevant to this thread. Telling young people they should work hard and not go into crime is not “conservative” – it’s “everyone”.

192

“Ummm…dude, have you totally forgotten that there is the concept in our society and our legal system about innocent until proven guilty?”

The court process involves a legal determination. People are free to conclude that someone is guilty outside a court of law. Indeed, no one would ever be charged and prosecuted if the law demanded the matter be approached the way the (often) misinformed would like. They would likely expect to hear about proof beyond a reasonable doubt before someone is even charged let alone a prosecution commenced, whereas the law only requires probable cause to proceed. (It is true that some (but by no means all) prosecutors abide by model rules of prosecutorial function and, *if *they follow it (most do not), the case will be dropped when it is clear there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Their take is “let a jury/judge decide.”)

“Where’s the proof?”

Again, a citizen is free to decide that not more than a (civil standard) preponderance of the evidence shows it’s more likely than not the crimes occurred to decide someone is guilty. It is not a legal determination.

193

This is a really good post.

Spice Weasel, thank you for sharing your story. I’m so sorry that all happened to you, and it’s a very vivid and helpful description of what victims are subject to.

194

FWIW, the message of Cosby has been (or at least been perceived as) a bit different than your formulation. It’s more like “stop blaming your troubles on racism and other factors beyond your control and focus more on working hard and not going into crime”, which is a more of a conservative message.

Which is not to say that BC is conservative - there’s a lot more to political orientation than an attitude about one particular issue.

195

Can’t answer for anyone else, but oh my god, yes.

196

I can’t answer for everyone else, but I can answer for a lot of people.

Bill Clinton remains a very popular politician and respected senior leader in the Democratic party. He is a big draw on the campaign trail and the lecture circuit. His actions regarding various women are rarely if ever mentioned in this context.

So there obviously a lot of people who are not particularly outraged over his actions.

197

Of course, because all the same things happened to his victims that happen frequently to rape victims…especially those in the public eye. Paula Jones was dragged through the mud over it, it was disgusting. But, I was refuting Clothahump’s point that people in this thread are giving Clinton a pass and not Cosby.

198

I don’t think that’s “more conservative”, or at all conservative (nor is it liberal). That’s a common sentiment – Obama has made similar statements many times, IIRC. It doesn’t fall into the liberal/conservative spectrum.

199

I, for one, can attest that I’ve never heard these allegations toward Clinton at all, until this thread. And, interestingly, googling ‘‘Clinton Rape’’ got me a bunch of hits excoriating Hillary Clinton for defending a rapist she knew was guilty during a jury trial.

[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
I don’t think that’s “more conservative”, or at all conservative (nor is it liberal). That’s a common sentiment – Obama has made similar statements many times, IIRC. It doesn’t fall into the liberal/conservative spectrum.
[/QUOTE]

Cosby has been raked over the coals by anti-racist liberals more than once for his statements, so I don’t think it’s a hard sell that he’s perceived as conservative.

200

Accusations are certainly evidence. They just aren’t (necessarily) proof.

That is not to say I agree with the OP, who is an idiot.

I believe I speak for nearly everyone when I say, “who?”