So, allegations from two dozen separate women that Bill Cosby drugged and raped them, or tried to, is as outlandish as allegations of a ring of Satanic child care workers who engaged in sexual rituals and child sacrifice.
I’d be curious to see a point-by-point comparison showing the similarities between the cases.
For sure on all counts, and I also have a tendency to believe accusers. On the other hand, I think it’s completely reasonable to say look, I had this image of Bill Cosby that I believed in, and so for the last 10 years since there were whispers of this scandal, I ignored it or thought it was BS based on that and based on weak evidence. But now that I have more information, I’ve tipped over to the other side…I think it’s more likely than not. Not because I’m necessarily inclined to believe accusers, but because what I know now convinced me.
I’m sure you’d extra love it if the details were really gruesome and titillating too. I bet you watch a lot of Lifetime Network.
Fuck’s sake, you were the one who brought up the satanic abuse horseshit.
Did it not happen?
Very true. I think that we can have a tendency (which we both acknowledge we have) and we can also say “Hey, this evidence appears pretty good beyond that tendency.”
I’ve heard these whispers for a long time. I think I didn’t really think it was BS; I think I thought that it was small potatoes, maybe something being blown out of proportion, but that there was something there. Now I tend to think that it is not blown out of proportion and is, in fact, large potatoes.
Are you dense or just trolling? You don’t get to suggest someone’s only out for “gruesome and titillating” when you were the one to bring up the very epitome of gruesome and titillating.
Yeah, I think my opinion has evolved along those same lines.
Indeed. I find it remarkable that people are still now decrying a “rush to judgement” in the specific case of Cosby, when it appears to me that he has been, for individual as well as systemic reasons, among the most obvious beneficiaries of a resistance to believing accusers.
That article and the one it’s responding to are focused on the question of “who to believe.” But there’s a different more important question that can often be asked: What does the evidence point to. My point w.r.t. the Cosby case has not been to argue that it’s important to believe particular people just for the sake of believing them. My point, rather, has been to argue that the evidence is overwhelmingly for the conclusion that Cosby is a rapist. This is not based on putting trust in this or that person. This is based on coming up with the best explanation for the facts, which include the various facts that this or that person said such and such and thus and so at whatever time.
I think you’re right, if anything he’s received the benefit of the doubt, and for obvious reasons…the public has affection for him and admires him. I know I did, and that was likely why I thought the accusations were likely overblown or exaggerated or even fabricated entirely. And I didn’t just flip on him on a whim, you know? I think it really says something when people who don’t want to believe it find themselves reluctantly admitting that there must be something to it.
Are you referring to the McMartin Preschool debacle?
The average guy on the street might have about a 6% chance of being a rapist, if the Lisak study is right (I know it’s been controversial, but we can take it as a starting point). Actually more than that, since the average age in his study was 27 and there are probably men who commit rape for the first time sometime after that age.
For Cosby, I’m guessing the chances are much, much higher than that.
Even if they’re over 50%, charges could be not pressed, or a trial could find him not guilty.
It seems like there’s an inherent problem with prosecuting sex crimes in a court given that such crimes are by their nature usually devoid of witnesses and ultimately it seems to be a word v word situation.
Okay, so it’s pretty much confirmed that we have a bunch of guys in this thread who are jumping to give (by my count) over 31 different explanations for why the accusations should not be take seriously, from the predictable “just a bunch of gold diggers” to the bizarre’ it’s a wacky conspiracy by liberal racists" to the almost-laughable “people liked getting raped back then.”
What we don’t have is anyone willing to stick their neck out enough to say they think Mr. Cosby is innocent of the allegations.
The reasonable conclusion is that there are a bunch of guys who (like everyone else at this point) pretty much know some really skeevy stuff happened, but are really, really, really tied up in arguing that it should be dismissed, glossed over, forgiven, ignored or just deemed unimportant. This isn’t a new pattern. This is a very old pattern. It’s one you would have found common 50 to 100 years ago here. It’s something you find quite easily in areas that treat women like dirt today.
It’s just plain old misogyny, still as depressing as ever.
Exactly. I think Kathie Lee really put the icing on the cake and is too dumb to realize it. She’s his friend and has been defending him by saying she’s never, ever seen him pulling this shit. Until she said today oh wait except for that one time he started kissing me even though he was married and I was married and we were friends and I had to tell him his behavior was totally inappropriate. And that just tells me…if he’d do that to his friend, who he probably respects or should respect as much as any woman, and she’s someone who doesn’t want or need anything from him (like career help or tuition money)…then that speaks huge volumes about what he would do to someone that he had some power and influence over. He’s a skeevy asshole who thinks he can take advantage of women. And somehow that’s just fine with some people.
There’s lots of questions that could be asked. You’ve just stated an important question for you. Another question that might be asked is what’s the benefit to society of deciding now (or ever) when more information comes out every day.
That doesn’t say anything. As he’s stated in this thread, Frylock wouldn’t even say his own wife is innocent if there were enough allegations. People don’t know Bill Cosby.
But really, no one can be 100% sure of anyone who has allegations against them for anything.
You’ve made a couple attempts to get people to decide the way you want them to decide by making up challenges and hypotheticals to try to force people to decide. Then you’re making up characterizations about them if they don’t decide the way you want. What’s your purpose in doing that?
I think the bottom line has been stated pretty clearly for me: there is a set of men with interest in dismissing, downplaying, or obfuscating any and all rape allegations, whenever and however possible, even when their own powers of reason suggest to them that certain allegations are true.
Asking if you think Bill Cosby committed sexual assault is hardly some Skaldian hypothetical in a thread about if Bill Cosby committed sexual assault. It’s embarrassing that you are trying to argue that. Don’t blame me just because the answer is something you’d rather not admit and makes your whole argument look pretty bad.
You know and I know he’s looking very guilty right now.
I would actually be happy if someone was willing to step forward and say “you know, I thought it over and I really don’t think the guy did it.” That’s something I could even respect.
But that’s not happening, is it? If so many people are so damned interested in poor Mr. Cosby, why is nobody actually defending his innocence rather than tacitly admitting the guy is a rapist while arguing that isn’t a big deal.
That’s not how I see this thread or particularly the one in IMHO. It’s not about people giving their opinion about whether Bill Cosby committed sexual assault. It’s about some people trying to force other people to hold their opinion under threat of insult or accusation of being a rapist.
If it were just about people giving their opinion, you wouldn’t be trying to embarrass me about my opinion. You also wouldn’t be trying so hard to mock others about their opinion or be trying to challenge people to give their opinion when they’ve been reticent to do so.
If it’s just about being right in a message board thread, which is what you sound like you’re saying, that’s one thing. If you’re trying to give information or trying educate me or trying to change my mind, you clearly aren’t doing that. I asked what you thought your purpose was because I thought you might have had a wider agenda.