Bill Cosby Meme Generator Backfires

I think it's possible to distinguish between an artist's superb work and the artist himself.

Many geniuses were quite awful people in their personal lives. Alexei Shmarinov (the painter) and his wife Karina (actress who played Princess Mary in the Soviet adaptation of Lermontov's Princess Mary) were family friends of my parents. They were very close friends with Andrei Tarkovsky and told quite a few stories about him. There is absolutely no doubt that Tarkovsky was a genius, but in his personal life he was impossible apparently. The same can be said about many, many artists. However, that doesn't diminish the greatness of their work.
 
Xela M said:
Which he strongly denies and he has never been charged with it
Click to expand...
Same could be said for Bill Cosby.

Just fyi, the trial judge found Allen's account uncredible, and the prosecutor found probable cause to charge him (but didn't due to the emotional fragility of Dylan at the time). Allen refused a polygraph, was ruled against in four judgments, and ordered to pay a million dollars.

For more info, please read:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts

Also read the judge's ruling at the end.
 
Last edited:
agalisgv said:
Cosby's accusers came forward about a year ago,
Click to expand...
It was longer ago than that. There were accusations and civil suits settled out of court well before the Cosby situation blew up. It's unclear to me why it suddenly did but I think it was because another Black man said in public that he thought Cosby had done it. The fact that the women weren't believed until a man supported them publicly kind of pisses me off, actually.

Here's a timeline. The first accusation was over 10 years ago:

http://www.etonline.com/news/154160_timeline_of_bill_cosby_sexual_assault_allegations/
 
The accusations have been made publicly for about 15 years, but they didn't come to national attention until Hannibal Buress, a comedian, pointed out the hypocrisy of Bill Cosby's tendency to critique African-American culture by saying, "you rape women, Bill Cosby." The clip was everywhere. I remember it all over my newsfeed.
 
The Jian Ghomeshi episode (which is still being played out in the courts) allowed us to see that it takes a ratio of at least nine women to one famous man for people to even dare to think that the guy did something shady with women. Something else I read about is that another component came into play, as two men wrote about the story in detail (Kevin Donovan and Jesse Brown) and gave it the "male stamp of approval".

You can also find a "male stamp of approval" linked to Cosby as dozens of women told their story over decades and it didn't make a dent, but one male comedian talks about it in his show and suddenly it's front and center.

Do we have "male stamp of approval" where Allen and Polanski are concerned? I only saw positive stuff from their friends/colleagues in the media.
 
Desperado said:
Do we have "male stamp of approval" where Allen and Polanski are concerned? I only saw positive stuff from their friends/colleagues in the media.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the Vanity Fair article written by a man?

I think Polanski is different. Absolutely no one doesn't think he has sex with the girl. He's admitted it. He was convicted of it. He even apologized to the victim in a documentary about him. What people are saying is that is wasn't really rape. That she may have technically been below the age of consent but that she wanted it as much has him. This is a common attitude when the victim is a teenager IME. It ignores why we have age of consent laws to begin with.
 
A lot of people find it hard to believe "stale accusations"; many of the accusations in the Cosby case, although made 10 to 15 years ago, involve conduct that occurred during the 60's and 70's. I also think it was the flood of independent accusations that made a lot of people accept them. Polanski's case is different because people forget the underlying charges (rape of a 13 year old) because it occurred so long ago. and the plea to "unlawful sex" based on the child being below the age of consent won't remind them because that crime doesn't distinguish between a 13 year old and a 17 year old.
 
I don't know if this is going off-topic but...heck, I started this thread so what the hay! :D I am wondering what people think about statutes of limitations. From Wikipedia:

Purpose
The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their existence:

  • A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.
  • A defendant might have lost evidence to disprove a stale claim.
  • A long-dormant claim has "more cruelty than justice" (Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition).
The limitation period generally begins when the plaintiff’s cause of action accrues, or they become aware of a previous injury (for example, occupational lung diseases such as asbestosis). In Classical Athens, a five-year statute of limitations was established for all cases except homicide and the prosecution of non-constitutional laws (which had no limitation). Demosthenes wrote that these statutes of limitations were adopted to control "sycophants" (professional accusers).
Click to expand...

Any general thoughts you have about statutes of limitations would be appreciated. And more specific thoughts like, do they work well in regards to specific situations and/or crimes...but not very well with other situations and/or crimes?

I am wondering if statutes of limitations should be different if one person accuses another of something...or if five/ten/twenty people accuse that same person of something. Or could that create a mob-mentality type of situation??
 
MacMadame said:
Wasn't the Vanity Fair article written by a man?

I think Polanski is different. Absolutely no one doesn't think he has sex with the girl. He's admitted it. He was convicted of it. He even apologized to the victim in a documentary about him. What people are saying is that is wasn't really rape. That she may have technically been below the age of consent but that she wanted it as much has him. This is a common attitude when the victim is a teenager IME. It ignores why we have age of consent laws to begin with.
Click to expand...
I've seen that girl, now a woman, interviewed on more than one occasion and her story changes each time. First she did not consider it rape, then she did, then she didn't. Sad to be this confused so many years later!
 
PeterG said:
I don't know if this is going off-topic but...heck, I started this thread so what the hay! :D I am wondering what people think about statutes of limitations. From Wikipedia:



Any general thoughts you have about statutes of limitations would be appreciated. And more specific thoughts like, do they work well in regards to specific situations and/or crimes...but not very well with other situations and/or crimes?

I am wondering if statutes of limitations should be different if one person accuses another of something...or if five/ten/twenty people accuse that same person of something. Or could that create a mob-mentality type of situation??
Click to expand...
Glad you're raising this because I just don't know much about it.
My impressions have always been that some just want to forget and not be bothered with a situation or it gives someone an easy out (like diplomatic immunity). But that's my gut feeling.
 
Scrufflet said:
I've seen that girl, now a woman, interviewed on more than one occasion and her story changes each time. First she did not consider it rape, then she did, then she didn't. Sad to be this confused so many years later!
Click to expand...

And you do understand that is why there is an age of consent and a the charge statutory, right? The whole point is that a 13 year old is not capable of making an informed decision to have sex with a much older man. The decision is only made less informed by the fact that there was such a huge power difference between Polanski and his victim.

It doesn't matter that she was/is confused. That is the point. She was too young, he knew she was too young, he had sex with her anyway, it was rape.
 
mag said:
And you do understand that is why there is an age of consent and a the charge statutory, right? The whole point is that a 13 year old is not capable of making an informed decision to have sex with a much older man. The decision is only made less informed by the fact that there was such a huge power difference between Polanski and his victim.

It doesn't matter that she was/is confused. That is the point. She was too young, he knew she was too young, he had sex with her anyway, it was rape.
Click to expand...
Actually, I DO understand this and agree with it wholeheartedly! What I meant was that I found it sad that after all these years she does not seem to realize what actually happened to her. She could have been a real advocate for young women. Yes, it absolutely was rape and I wish she had been able to read your post which was well expressed
 
Scrufflet said:
Glad you're raising this because I just don't know much about it.
My impressions have always been that some just want to forget and not be bothered with a situation or it gives someone an easy out (like diplomatic immunity). But that's my gut feeling.
Click to expand...

Don't know about diplomatic immunity, but statutes of limitations are not that some don't want to be bothered. Statutes of limitations exist because delay in bringing charges makes it more difficult to defend against them .... tangible evidence may be lost and people forget things. They represent a policy statement to the effect that, after a specified period has elapsed, the prejudice is too great. How would you like to try to present an alibi if it meant that you had to prove where you were on a specific date at a specific time .... ten years ago? Furthermore, they don't only help the defendants. It is advantageous to the prosecution to try the case while their witnesses still remember things.
 
Scrufflet said:
Actually, I DO understand this and agree with it wholeheartedly! What I meant was that I found it sad that after all these years she does not seem to realize what actually happened to her. She could have been a real advocate for young women. Yes, it absolutely was rape and I wish she had been able to read your post which was well expressed
Click to expand...

Sorry, I misinterpreted your original post. It is always surprising to me how many people still think that a child can be sexually provocative or that a young teen can make an informed decision about sex, especially with someone much older.
 
Scrufflet said:
Actually, I DO understand this and agree with it wholeheartedly! What I meant was that I found it sad that after all these years she does not seem to realize what actually happened to her. She could have been a real advocate for young women. Yes, it absolutely was rape and I wish she had been able to read your post which was well expressed
Click to expand...
It's not that unusual though. Some people think statutory rape is no big deal but obviously it makes victims. Not everyone can rise above what happen and become an advocate or crusader.
 
In regards to Samantha Gailey, I wonder if she was abused twice. First with Polanski and then by Goddess knows how many other people after that who told her what to think, what to feel, what to do. I think Gailey was swarmed by people who used her to advance their own personal agenda and I doubt few of them kept their mouths shut apart from looking at her and only saying, "how can I help you"? So I think her confusion might very well come from all the self-serving demands of all the people around her after whatever she went through with Polanski.
 
mag said:
Sorry, I misinterpreted your original post. It is always surprising to me how many people still think that a child can be sexually provocative or that a young teen can make an informed decision about sex, especially with someone much older.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Glad we're on the same page. And glad to hear someone passionate about this.
 
One person beside Cosby is feeling the pain here now that criminal charges have been filed is former MontCo DA Bruce Castor. Castor declined to prosecute Cosby criminally for this case back in 2005 feeling the victim did not have enough evidence to warrant criminal charges. Then came Hannibal Burress and the other women's accusations. Castor ran for the DA seat again in November and his determination that no criminal charges should be filed became the "11th Hour" story in the campaign. He lost the seat to the current assistant DA Kevin Steele who will take over the DA seat in 2016, and who announced the charges against Cosby today. Castor now goes back to law practice after 30 years in government service.

And I'm sure he's thinking that karma really can be a bitch...
 
Yazmeen said:
One person beside Cosby is feeling the pain here now that criminal charges have been filed is former MontCo DA Bruce Castor. Castor declined to prosecute Cosby criminally for this case back in 2005 feeling the victim did not have enough evidence to warrant criminal charges. Then came Hannibal Burress and the other women's accusations. Castor ran for the DA seat again in November and his determination that no criminal charges should be filed became the "11th Hour" story in the campaign. He lost the seat to the current assistant DA Kevin Steele who will take over the DA seat in 2016, and who announced the charges against Cosby today. Castor now goes back to law practice after 30 years in government service.

And I'm sure he's thinking that karma really can be a bitch...
Click to expand...
This Maclean's article touches upon that and much other info: Why it took 10 years to charge Bill Cosby
 
PeterG said:
I don't know if this is going off-topic but...heck, I started this thread so what the hay! :D I am wondering what people think about statutes of limitations. From Wikipedia:



Any general thoughts you have about statutes of limitations would be appreciated. And more specific thoughts like, do they work well in regards to specific situations and/or crimes...but not very well with other situations and/or crimes?

I am wondering if statutes of limitations should be different if one person accuses another of something...or if five/ten/twenty people accuse that same person of something. Or could that create a mob-mentality type of situation??
Click to expand...


In the US there is no statute of limitations for murder, so I think it is also an indicator of how serious society considers the crime. Obviously it is harder for the prosecutors to collect evidence and find credible witnesses the more time that passes. I guess in the case of murder the crime is considered so grave it is worth pursuing regardless of the cost or the chances of the prosecution prevailing.

I thought in the Gailey case there were also drugs involved, which would have clouded the issue of consent as well as her age.

I think what diminishes the credibility of some of Cosby's accusers in some people's eyes is that they continued a relationship with him, sometimes for years afterwards in hopes of advancing their careers.
 
PeterG said:
Interesting that many woman have come forward over the years (decades, really)...but nothing really happened until a man (Hannibal Buress) spoke up.
Click to expand...
Especially, according to some, it was well-known in comedy circles to stay away from Cosby if you were a woman. :angryfire
 
Also this didn't hurt,

Constand was not featured among them, but her name was invoked by one of the women, Tamara Green: “People often these days say, ‘Well, why didn’t you take it to the police?’ Andrea Constand went to the police in 2005—how’d it work out for her? Not at all. In 2005, Bill Cosby still had control of the media. In 2015, we have social media. We can’t be disappeared. It’s online and can never go away.”
Click to expand...
 
kwanfan1818 said:
Also this didn't hurt,
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think that it didn't work out for one woman is no excuse for other women to not go to the police. Imagine they all had thought like that, even Constand. Then there wouldn't have been a civil suit and he would probably have never been charged. It may not have worked out for Constand in 2005 but it worked out now, finally, and it could have worked out earlier. But, I can also understand why women feel discouraged from going to the police, especially when someone famous is involved. Rape/sexual assault is still so easily dismissed and hard to prove and when someone like Cosby is involved, it's like David against Goliath. Hope that some day that changes and that these women can get at least some justice now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information