Is this really such a perplexing question to you that the only conclusion you appear able to draw from it is that it’s further evidence of Cosby’s guilt?
The answer is obvious - people aren’t defending him simply because they don’t know whether or not he’s guilty.
In other words, the fact they aren’t defending him doesn’t mean they think he’s guilty, and it doesn’t mean they think he’s innocent. It just means they haven’t thrown their brains out the window in service to what appears to me to be a multiplicity of internal agendas on the part of those who’ve been so quick to condemn him, and they’re waiting for the facts to play out before making up their minds.
On this board these people are referred to as rapists, rapist apologists, and misogynists.
The only problem with all of this is that it’s nonsense. In the first place your list of 31 reasons is highly biased, with each reason skewed to present a ridiculous and exaggerated interpretation of what the poster being referenced was actually saying, and then used as an implicit broad brush condemnation of anyone who hasn’t been buying into the Cosby-as-rapist narrative.
The reason there so many different reasons suggested is twofold: one, a lot of different women have claimed different experiences with Cosby. Some are claiming to have been raped. Some are thinking they may have been raped but they don’t know for sure. Some weren’t drugged and obviously went along with whatever he wanted them to do without objection at the time and are only now voicing their objections to it. One was only kissed. One left him fuming at his hotel room door, resentful because she rebuffed him after all he’d done for her. One was allegedly given drugged cappuccino and knew this immediately because she felt funny and weak and lost control of her body, yet was still able to muster the strength to yell “Motherfucker!” at him over and over until he gave up, and then, despite the fact she had no control over her body, was able to keep to her feet as he hurriedly dragged her down the stairs (with her “high heels clicking on the steps”) before angrily putting her in a cab. Etc., etc., etc.
And then we have the fact that none of these women came forward at the time of their alleged assault. And we have the fact that when they did come forward it was in the context of a lawsuit during which they may well have had the drugged and abused scenario suggested to them by the plaintiff’s lawyers or investigators and in which they may well have felt a sizable payday may have been the result…a consideration which also exists today.
In other words there is perfectly good logic for many of the reasons on your list, but they don’t fit with your “my mind is made up, don’t pester me with facts” mentality, you seem to feel that by logging them in a list, complete with numbers and everything, they automatically lose all significance and meaning and become nothing more than excuses used by a good old boy network to keep women down.
It’s just plain old misandry, as annoying and dishonest as ever.
Singling this one out because your characterization is so ridiculous (as if yelling a curse word would be impossible were someone to be drugged!). She explains it quite well, and quite reasonably. Yes, if someone were dragged down the stairs, their dragger is probably bearing most of their weight.
None of the allegations so far are particularly unbelievable. You characterization of most of them is unreasonably dismissive. That doesn’t mean they’re all true, but you’re portraying them in a false and dishonest light to make them seem unlikely.
Now you had me in high dudgeon, accusing me of being a liar and all. But of course you’re a nitwit so it didn’t last long.
Anyway, here’s this woman’s own words, which as you’ll (well, most people will) see, made the point even more clearly than I, inadvertently though it may have been.
But first, let’s preface that by looking at a few of the other things she said that don’t quite add up. To wit: [all boldings mine]
The bolded parts raise a couple of questions in my mind. One: why, in this country where women are almost always given custody of their children no matter how bad a parent they may be, did her husband have primary custody of their daughter?
And two, why on earth would Cosby, who, according to the description in the article, was meeting her for the first time, invite her into his office to discuss “the hell she’d been through in her marriage”? Most men would want to avoid such a discussion even with people close to them, let alone a potential bit player in a major TV show.
These elements of her story are causing me to question the substance of her character and her honesty.
And then we have this comment:
See what she did there? Cosby said he wanted to see how she handled “various” scenes - i.e., clearly scenes other than what she was up for in his show. But then she adds her little aside intended to make it look like Cosby was dishonestly and clumsily trying to lead her into behaving in a way that that one specific role wouldn’t have called for, thereby making him look dishonest and manipulative.
And then she says:
Ah, now it’s becoming more clear as to the possible reasons why her husband had custody of her daughter and she didn’t.
And now the coup de grace regarding the comments I made which you accused me of lying about. She says:
Now, leaving aside the question of how she knew he was expecting her to bend to his will while at the same time apparently trying to continue with the scene and wondering if she’d lost her mind, you might note that she clearly says her body went “completely limp”. And yet somehow she still stood there while he looked at her with disdain, didn’t she? And she clearly had enough strength and unlimpness to call him a motherfucker five times or so, as I said. And she clearly states that he grabbed her by the arm and dragged her down the stairs and out into the street to hail a cab, saying absolutely nothing to indicate he was supporting her dead weight as he did so, but instead obviously describing how her high heels forcefully clicked and clacked on the steps as she fought to maintain her balance as he was pulling her down the stairs and out to the street.
So, she was lying when she said the drug he allegedly gave her made her body go completely limp, and she was lying again when she said the drug was in “fuller play” by the time he drug her outside, as one would expect her to be even more “completely limp” by then.
These are precisely the kinds of inconsistencies and apparent b.s. that those of us who remain unconvinced of Cosby’s guilt get hung up on.
By “most people”, you presumably mean “very few, if any, on the Dope”.
Who cares? This isn’t relevant.
Who knows? This isn’t relevant either. Slightly out of the ordinary things happen all the time.
Only because you’re predisposed to believe that anyone who accuses Cosby of drugging or raping them is dishonest and of low character. You’ve already made up your mind, and then you go look for tiny and irrelevant details. For one thing, no one’s memory is perfect, and no one’s turn of phrase is perfect. Your nitpicks are weak, and just nitpicks. Nothing substantial.
So what? She adds a “little aside” – she’s telling the story… of course she’s going to include the things she thinks in her story! What a ridiculously stupid thing to focus on.
So what? This is irrelevant. Many or most people, especially in the entertainment industry, did lots of drugs back then.
Yes. So what? This could be hyperbole, or it could have been a momentary feeling that she overcame. Either way, it takes nothing away from her story.
Yep. She felt drugged, but not enough to make her unconscious. She says she felt “completely limp” – either momentarily, or hyperbolically. She says she mustered up enough strength to yell curse words – something that requires very, very little strength.
Her description implies he was bearing her weight. Saying “he dragged me down the stairs” implies he was pretty much carrying her. That’s how the words work – if I drag a kid down the stairs, I’m supporting most of the kid’s weight. The story doesn’t need to include such an implied detail, and this is just another stupid nitpick.
No, it was either momentary or hyperbole. In the common usage of English, neither counts as “lying”.
No, because drugs affect different people in different ways.
No, these are the kinds of nitpicks you pore over each story looking for. Admit it – you go in skeptically and look for things that might be questionable. You don’t assume that any of these women might actually be honest – you assume they’re all dishonest.
It’s ridiculous. Johnson has nothing to gain. She’s a respected and very successful model and actress. She’s not asking for any money.
There’s a possibility all these people are lying. But considering all the allegations, I think it’s much more likely that some of them are telling the truth. And they continue to add up.
You’ve made it clear that nothing would convince you – you’re not interested in any evidence that portrays Cosby poorly. You’re only interested in excusing bad behavior for someone you like. Just like with Paterno – he failed in his duty as a human to place children’s safety over his and his school’s reputation, and you’re incapable of seeing any wrongdoing.
You can’t say “she’s lying” without also saying “he didn’t do it.” One automatically leads to the other. It’s either “he said” or “she said”. You can’t just focus on the “she said” part while playing coy with what you are saying happened, or pretending that what really happened is an irrelevant side note.
You’ve made one excuse or another for everything she said that doesn’t add up. Whether hyperbole or momentary or something else, the bottom line is that her words don’t mean what they say. End of story.
There’s no excuses – what she says adds up. It doesn’t make it necessarily true, but nothing in her story is not believable. A momentary feeling, or a single use of hyperbole, is not a lie, and it doesn’t make a story less than believable.
Sure, it does. When she says things that don’t add up or puts a spin on things designed to make him look look bad in ways that don’t add up, it calls her honesty and motives into question. One would think that if her story were genuine it would stand on its own without need of hyperbole, fleeting impressions, imperfect memories and all the other excuses you’ve employed to handwave away the implausibilities in her story.
She hasn’t done this in any way. She hasn’t said anything that doesn’t add up, and she didn’t put a spin on anything (mentioning her own thoughts is not putting a spin on anything).
It may or may not have been hyperbole – and if it was, hyperbole of this kind is a normal part of human language and discussion. No one’s memory is 100% perfect, so this is a pointless criticism that applies to every single memory related by every human in all of human history.
The only excuses are coming from you, for Cosby. No excuses by or for Johnson – her story is plausible on its own.
These circular discussions show something significant, that a lot of people want to hold victims to a standard that is not applied in other situations. And to a large extent I think it has to do with deep psychological fears about being a victim. There’s a lot having to do with cognitive dissonance mixed in there.
Cracked.com just posted a relevant article “5 Reasons We Will Always Blame the Victim”
Sure, you can. He could be guilty of some things and she could be lying about others. Or he could be guilty of one thing and she could be exaggerating to make it worse than it was, or lying to add additional false crimes into the mix. Or he could be innocent and she could be lying outright. In other words, what he has or hasn’t done exists on its own and completely apart from whatever we determine she’s done.
Then why were you compelled to post the following (all in one post, btw):
*“Who knows? Slightly out of the ordinary things happen all the time.”
“no one’s memory is perfect, and no one’s turn of phrase is perfect.”
"So what? She adds a “little aside”
“This could be hyperbole, or it could have been a momentary feeling that she overcame.”
“She says she felt “completely limp” – either momentarily, or hyperbolically.”
“Saying “he dragged me down the stairs” implies he was pretty much carrying her.” (This is nonsense, btw)
"No, it was either momentary or hyperbole. In the common usage of English, neither counts as “lying”. *
These are all excuses you made in an attempt to explain away implausibilities in Johnson’s story, implausibilities you’re now saying don’t exist.
And remember when you said: “She’s being hyperbolic about either one thing or no things.” You said that right after you’d said all this other stuff. I’m wondering how you could keep a straight face.
They never existed. You made them up (as “implausibilities”) – I was showing why they were not implausible. There are no implausibilities – you never found any, and I was explaining why your criticisms were stupid. No implausibilities, no excuses.
Right – a possible use of hyperbole is evidence of nothing except that the writer uses human figures of speech in human language. Yes, Beverly Johnson is a human person who writes like humans do.
