Bill Cosby is a big old rapist (on the loose)

[roasty]

[o00o]

Oh god, some of the comments are insane

 

 

Many people here, mostly women, have re-defined "rape" as anything they don't like or disagree with. Fortunately, the real definition - the one in the law - has not gone this far. You may not like what Cosby did, but that doe NOT make him a rapist.

 

I keep struggling to find the crimes here. Did he rape anyone or force Quaaludes down their throats ?

 

The media has killed Bill. Why? Because he was trying to buy his own network.

Powers that be have killed Bill. We just need to know why. Where did all of this junk come from after all of these years? Has to be a reason....has to be a reason why responsible papers and news programs are deliberately spinning and twisting the facts to mislead the public... All papers report Cosby's lawyer shouting..."don't answer that question". Uh.....that was never said. Never happened....yet the media reported just that. A straight up lie!!! No attorney shouted such to Bill. Just a lie. The media has an agenda...a Cosby agenda.

It's all a media conspiracy, rape is a lie. Men's rights 4 lyf

Might be true that someone high in the media decided to grill him. Still rape is rape

[Guest Atom Dowry Firth]

Might be true that someone high in the media decided to grill him. Still rape is rape

 

The idea that somehow someone 'high in the media' orchestrated a conspiracy against Bill Cosby over the course of decades involving at least 36 women separately accusing him of sexual assault and managed to get all other media outlets with their thousands of independent reporters to play along and pretend the lies against Bill are true and that somehow all these women are untrustworthy and just making up silly stories is literally insane. Of course the media decided to grill him. The guy spent his entire career using his power and influence to abuse women and sweep the allegations under the carpet. It would be pretty messed up if they weren't reporting this.

[Guest]

[awepittance]

 

Might be true that someone high in the media decided to grill him. Still rape is rape

 

The idea that somehow someone 'high in the media' orchestrated a conspiracy against Bill Cosby over the course of decades involving at least 36 women separately accusing him of sexual assault and managed to get all other media outlets with their thousands of independent reporters to play along and pretend the lies against Bill are true and that somehow all these women are untrustworthy and just making up silly stories is literally insane. Of course the media decided to grill him. The guy spent his entire career using his power and influence to abuse women and sweep the allegations under the carpet. It would be pretty messed up if they weren't reporting this.

 

you bring up a very interesting dilemma then, because heres the thing (if you inverse your premise above). If that many women knew Bill Cosby was a rapist for that long, how/why did it take the media so long to start seriously reporting on it? There is definitely something to the idea that celeberty classes are generally 'protected' unless of course they aren't, and at a certain point his hollywood friends (producers, actors, fellow comedians, whoever) decided to open the floodgates and stop protecting him. This is how pedophiles like Jimmy Savile were able to operate for so long at the BBC. To me this is a far more disturbing premise than the one you lay out above, that if you are a powerful and influential celebrity you can actually break the law in certain horrible ways for a long time and get away with it if you have enough people buffering you/protecting you

Edited July 25, 2015 by John Ehrlichman

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

Might be true that someone high in the media decided to grill him. Still rape is rape

 

The idea that somehow someone 'high in the media' orchestrated a conspiracy against Bill Cosby over the course of decades involving at least 36 women separately accusing him of sexual assault and managed to get all other media outlets with their thousands of independent reporters to play along and pretend the lies against Bill are true and that somehow all these women are untrustworthy and just making up silly stories is literally insane. Of course the media decided to grill him. The guy spent his entire career using his power and influence to abuse women and sweep the allegations under the carpet. It would be pretty messed up if they weren't reporting this.

 

you bring up a very interesting dilemma then, because heres the thing (if you inverse your premise above). If that many women knew Bill Cosby was a rapist for that long, how/why did it take the media so long to start seriously reporting on it? There is definitely something to the idea that celeberty classes are generally 'protected' unless of course they aren't, and at a certain point his hollywood friends (producers, actors, fellow comedians, whoever) decided to open the floodgates and stop protecting him. This is how pedophiles like Jimmy Savile were able to operate for so long at the BBC. To me this is a far more disturbing premise than the one you lay out above, that if you are a powerful and influential celebrity you can actually break the law in certain horrible ways for a long time and get away with it if you have enough people buffering you/protecting you

 

 

if you guys don't recall

the event that shone the spotlight back on Cosby's creepiness

was a Hannibal Buress joke

 

lots of bad things happen

the media doesn't report on all of it

because of bandwidth, current-ness, etc etc etc etc

 

us humans have constrained memory, attention, rationality, empathy, etc

things from the distant past don't get re-reported unless there is a new spark

and that's not a conspiracy

[awepittance]

 

things from the distant past don't get re-reported unless there is a new spark

and that's not a conspiracy

 

i think you might be skirting over what I said a little too much because of your disposition to automatically reject anything that could be described as a 'conspiracy'.

 

I ended with a point about Jimmy Savile that really can't be explained without the existence of people in the BBC protecting him. Same with Jerry Sandusky. Looking the other way intentionally at someone committing illegal acts is a form of protecting a criminal, and if multiple people were doing this to either Bill Cosby, Savile or Sandusky it is by definition a conspiracy.

 

the event that put the Cosby rape in the spotlight currently was Burres doing a standup routine, but more alarmingly comedians have admitted freely over the last year that Cosby's history of being a rapist was well known among comedians in the comedy circuit for almost 2 decades

 

edit: also maybe you haven't read that Cosby had at least one 'fixer', look up the term if you're not familiar with what it means in Hollywood. Cosby had this guy regularly pay off women, various people who knew and also directly helped him have affairs and cover them up. The guy claims that he didn't know Cosby was raping them but knew everything else, but I personally think its bullshit.

Edited July 26, 2015 by John Ehrlichman

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

things from the distant past don't get re-reported unless there is a new spark

and that's not a conspiracy

 

i think you might be skirting over what I said a little too much because of your disposition to automatically reject anything that could be described as a 'conspiracy'.

 

I ended with a point about Jimmy Savile that really can't be explained without the existence of people in the BBC protecting him. Same with Jerry Sandusky. Looking the other way intentionally at someone committing illegal acts is a form of protecting a criminal, and if multiple people were doing this to either Bill Cosby, Savile or Sandusky it is by definition a conspiracy.

 

 

i'll happily concede that conspiracies do happen

and Savilles and Sanduskys do get protected

 

I'm just saying that there's no reason (as yet) to ascribe BC's downfall to a conspiracy

[awepittance]

 

 

 

things from the distant past don't get re-reported unless there is a new spark

and that's not a conspiracy

 

i think you might be skirting over what I said a little too much because of your disposition to automatically reject anything that could be described as a 'conspiracy'.

 

I ended with a point about Jimmy Savile that really can't be explained without the existence of people in the BBC protecting him. Same with Jerry Sandusky. Looking the other way intentionally at someone committing illegal acts is a form of protecting a criminal, and if multiple people were doing this to either Bill Cosby, Savile or Sandusky it is by definition a conspiracy.

 

 

i'll happily concede that conspiracies do happen

and Savilles and Sanduskys do get protected

 

I'm just saying that there's no reason (as yet) to ascribe BC's downfall to a conspiracy

 

i agree with that, but I think its pretty obvious that if he were not famous and had a lot of people protecting him (keeping quiet or actively helping him cover it up) he would have been outed years ago

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

 

things from the distant past don't get re-reported unless there is a new spark

and that's not a conspiracy

 

i think you might be skirting over what I said a little too much because of your disposition to automatically reject anything that could be described as a 'conspiracy'.

 

I ended with a point about Jimmy Savile that really can't be explained without the existence of people in the BBC protecting him. Same with Jerry Sandusky. Looking the other way intentionally at someone committing illegal acts is a form of protecting a criminal, and if multiple people were doing this to either Bill Cosby, Savile or Sandusky it is by definition a conspiracy.

 

 

i'll happily concede that conspiracies do happen

and Savilles and Sanduskys do get protected

 

I'm just saying that there's no reason (as yet) to ascribe BC's downfall to a conspiracy

 

i agree with that, but I think its pretty obvious that if he were not famous and had a lot of people protecting him (keeping quiet or actively helping him cover it up) he would have been outed years ago

 

 

oh well i agree with that

but that's everything to do with his power and influence

and nothing to do with some angry exec deciding Cosby should go down

[awepittance]

yes but again, the inverse of that a savvy group of 'fixer' types or hollywood elites protecting Cosby's reputation probably most definitely occurred, and not just for a short period of time to patch up a rough spots but for many many years. So the idea that someone has it 'out for' Cosby seems far fetched maybe, but the concept that whatever protection he had stopped protecting him anymore is pretty realistic to me.

The Burress routine probably just came coincidentally at the right time, not that Cosby was past his prime necessarily but his influence to get people to protect him from the allegations had probably evaporated too. it seems like its a strike while the iron is hot type of situation

Edited July 26, 2015 by John Ehrlichman

[digit]

i think it's also a generational thing. people in their late 30's and up remember him for the Cosby show. It's hard to overstate how popular that show was back in the day. #1 show for years running and everbody thought Bill Cosby was the man. plus he just had the wise/smart/funny father image going on. he basically was his character 24/7 while in the public eye. there may have been rumors of things going on amongst a few people but without the existence of the internet & social media, those rumours aren't going to get very far. no major news network would touch something like that for a number of reasons.

 

todays younger generation (also the people most active on social media) have no memory of him or the Cosby show. to them he is just some old dude that used to be famous back in the day getting accused by a large number of women all with similar stories. they don't have any exposure to his old public persona and thus it is a lot easier for them to accept the possibility that he did these things. the Buress thing was some small random spark that just happened to turn into a wildfire on twitter & youtube.

Edited July 26, 2015 by digit

[Guest Atom Dowry Firth]

 

 

Might be true that someone high in the media decided to grill him. Still rape is rape

 

The idea that somehow someone 'high in the media' orchestrated a conspiracy against Bill Cosby over the course of decades involving at least 36 women separately accusing him of sexual assault and managed to get all other media outlets with their thousands of independent reporters to play along and pretend the lies against Bill are true and that somehow all these women are untrustworthy and just making up silly stories is literally insane. Of course the media decided to grill him. The guy spent his entire career using his power and influence to abuse women and sweep the allegations under the carpet. It would be pretty messed up if they weren't reporting this.

 

you bring up a very interesting dilemma then, because heres the thing (if you inverse your premise above). If that many women knew Bill Cosby was a rapist for that long, how/why did it take the media so long to start seriously reporting on it? There is definitely something to the idea that celeberty classes are generally 'protected' unless of course they aren't, and at a certain point his hollywood friends (producers, actors, fellow comedians, whoever) decided to open the floodgates and stop protecting him. This is how pedophiles like Jimmy Savile were able to operate for so long at the BBC. To me this is a far more disturbing premise than the one you lay out above, that if you are a powerful and influential celebrity you can actually break the law in certain horrible ways for a long time and get away with it if you have enough people buffering you/protecting you

 

 

I think it's almost certainly to do with people around him protecting him and being complicit in his activities. More and more cases like this are coming to light in the UK - there's a big scandal that just keeps getting worse and worse involving senior MPs having information about their sexual abuses of children swept under the carpet. MI5 and Margaret Thatcher deliberately protected them in order to avoid scandal at the time. These people who abuse their power like this seem to have an unnerving knack of finding and working with others of their ilk for their communal benefit - Savile being a case in point. With regards to Bill it seems to me he had a number of people that helped him through the years - the doctor that prescribed the drugs for him and apparently also his 'fixer' was a woman who owned a New York modelling agency. His money and power provided him with legal muscle that the relatively poor young victims would not have access to. He bought them off and threatened them with the prospect of losing work if they didn't comply and paid for their education if they did. There were a few women who tried to take him to court and got out of court settlements - I'm sure that would have been reported in the media at the time and people would have thought something was up, but without evidence or witnesses coming forward there is no real story. He made sure there was no story. It's possible none of the women he abused knew there were others he'd done the same thing to as well. Seems like now the people that were helping him at the time are either dead or they're no longer protecting him because he's no longer got the influence he once did? Don't know. The one good thing I can see coming from all this is that from now on it will be a lot harder if not impossible for people in the public eye to repeat these crimes. Society is waking up to it and is no longer willing to turn a blind eye to this sort of thing the way it seems to have in the past

[Guest boo]

Is it really a thing of the past though? Look at the Louis CK situation... a good example of it is right here on WATMM; when someone came in with potential evidence to back up the (similar to Cosby's) rumours about CK, everyone went quiet. He's still at the hight of his career, people want to carry on enjoying that or they just don't care because the rumours aren't that bad and no victims are coming forward. People wouldn't have expected it from Cosby because of his public image,making less easy for people to believe.. with Louis CK people can easily believe it, because he's pretty open about his debauchery,but still most would prefer to turn a blind eye.

 

BTW I'm not implying CK has done anything as awful as Cosby did but the current rumours are at the same level as the Cosby ones were... and the same lack of anyone coming forward. So I'm just saying speculatively, if it does turn out he's a serial rapist, years from now,, nobody would be able to say that the initial response was any different.

Edited July 26, 2015 by taubs

[autopilot]

A source-less Gawker editorial coupled with an old unrelated O&A clip is not evidence, though. Nobody has come forward and actually accused CK of anything outside of that blogger for a site that is renown for clickbait bullshit. It's not really comparable and most reasonable people realize this, hence the month-long silence in that thread after dude crying wolf. Having a blogger for a site that specifically is marketed to Twitter feminists make an accusation with nothing to back it up isn't really in the same league as having dozens of women publicly accuse someone of a misdeed against them.

Edited July 26, 2015 by autopilot

[Guest Atom Dowry Firth]

I'd say with the CK thing the two female comedians in question are almost certainly not relying on him or people he knows in order to carry on working in comedy and have the ability if they choose to come forward and publicly talk about what happened. Seems to me to just be an awkward situation that they've decided to deal with in their own way privately? I hadn't watched any of his stuff prior to that article - I've since watched some of his stand up and a bunch of episodes of his show and it didn't take long to come to the conclusion that the rumour was quite possibly true. Could almost be a scene from Louie really. You make an interesting point with the hypothetical years from now scenario. I dunno. I think it was a different world 30 years ago and with the advent of the internet and the progress that's been made to provide support structures for vulnerable people, not to mention the ongoing empowerment of women generally I just can't see a repeat of the same magnitude as Cosby or Savile ever being possible again. Time will tell I guess

[Guest boo]

Damn I just came here to delete that post.

 

I'm just saying the rumours are at the same level as the Cosby ones were back in the day... before any women came forward.

 

If someone is protected,it's not gonna make any difference... I guarantee there were feminists already raging about those Cosby rumours in the 70s. It doesn't mean anything... awareness of this kind of shit hasn't increased, it was just slightly more accepted in the past.

[Guest Atom Dowry Firth]

Damn I just came here to delete that post.

 

I'm just saying the rumours are at the same level as the Cosby ones were back in the day... before any women came forward.

 

If someone is protected,it's not gonna make any difference... I guarantee there were feminists already raging about those Cosby rumours in the 70s. It doesn't mean anything... awareness of this kind of shit hasn't increased, it was just slightly more accepted in the past.

 

Awareness has definitely increased and will only improve. In the past if something was reported it was in a paper that got read and thrown away the next day or it was broadcast on the news maybe a handful of times. Media saturation now means not only are papers printed and news broadcast but people can record the news, clips are uploaded to youtube and countless articles are written all over the internet and shared on social media - all the information is at people's fingertips along with a way of connecting people who may have suffered abuse like never before. Victims now have a much better outlook in terms of help with coming forward and dealing with this kind of thing than they did 30 years ago when everyone apparently just pretended it wasn't happening. I'll concede though that the kind of people we're talking about will also move with the times and adapt their behaviour accordingly in order to avoid detection but the old social attitudes are gone for good

Edited July 26, 2015 by Timothy Forward

[awepittance]

A source-less Gawker editorial coupled with an old unrelated O&A clip is not evidence, though. Nobody has come forward and actually accused CK of anything outside of that blogger for a site that is renown for clickbait bullshit. It's not really comparable and most reasonable people realize this, hence the month-long silence in that thread after dude crying wolf. Having a blogger for a site that specifically is marketed to Twitter feminists make an accusation with nothing to back it up isn't really in the same league as having dozens of women publicly accuse someone of a misdeed against them.

Jen Kirkman a well known female comedian you describe as a click bait feminist journalist? Maybe you're not talking about her, if you are thats unfortunate to be able to write off what she said with a knee jerk approach like that but she made the accusations without mentioning louis by name months ago.

 

there is something *definitely* going on the world of Louis right now in regards to these accusations. He torched his twitter account right before the newest Gawker story came out and other things happened which at least for me prove that other comedians are pissed off at him (who for years have been lifted up by his fame)

 

if you follow the story closely enough it turns out Hall and Oates thought it was more 'crazy funny' than disturbing or sexual assault. They would allegedly tell the story in a funny way in groups in various public places around LA (thats part of how the story *recently* got around) but apparently he's done this a lot, and by them re-telling this story it sort of re-sparked the rumor that this is his MO with a lot of people.

 

 

 

 

 

Did Jen Kirkman out Louis CK’s gross behavior on her podcast last month?

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/250286/jen-kirkman-louis-ck-gross-behavior-podcast/

Edited July 26, 2015 by John Ehrlichman

[digit]

RE: Jen Kirkman & Louis CK: http://starcasm.net/archives/318469

 

seems like her comments got misconstrued and/or blown out of proportion ?

Edited July 26, 2015 by digit

[LimpyLoo]

RE: Jen Kirkman & Louis CK: http://starcasm.net/archives/318469

 

seems like her comments got misconstrued and/or blown out of proportion ?

 

upon reading bottom statement...

 

So like, he didn't assault her, he didn't take his genitals out in front of her, he...hit on her while he was married?

I was ready to read that article and be like "man, that sucks that Louie pulled his balls out in front of that woman, i'm disappointed in him..."

 

But if he simply hit on her, then maybe (maybe) that's bad etiquette on Louie's part...

but it certainly doesn't merit being mentioned in the same breath as an actual rapist...

 

Umm, seriously...she's talking about him like he's a rapist

if her ONLY qualm is that she didn't want to be hit on and he was married

if that's the end of the story right there

then she is using the wrong tone to tell this story

she's talking about it like he kidnapped her and raped her to death

Edited July 26, 2015 by LimpyLoo

[awepittance]

yeah that part of her rant was weird to me, but what's more troubling is she speaks about Louis behavior like he's had a reputation (for taking his dick out inappropriately) for a long time that many people knew about. From my understanding of it only 2 female comedians have mentioned this specifically, Garfunkel & OAtes (they didn't tell Gawker but were super loose lipped about their personal encounter with louis and spread it all over LA) and Sarah Silverman who apparently mentioned that louis took his dick out in passing a long time ago while they were in the car together ( i can't find the source of this, just saw someone say it in a comment thread)

but honestly and maybe this is just my paranoia, but it worries me that anytime Louis has been brought up on O&A in the last few months they hurriedly change the subject. The last his name was brought up Jim Norton seemed to literally interrupted mid sentence and 180'd the fuck out of the conversation. At this point I'm totally willing to believe he does act sexually inappropriately, but my main concern is that it somehow effects his comedy output or makes him shy away from the public eye (the torching the twitter account ahead of the Gawker story scares me a little bit)

[triachus]

Damon Wayans Defends Bill Cosby, Calls ‘Bitches’ ‘Un-rape-able’


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/05/damon-wayans-defends-bill-cosby-makes-quaalude-joke-calls-bitches-un-rape-able.html

[MadameChaos]

denial is a curious thing

[awepittance]

anybody ever see his horrid Showtime sketch comedy show from like 2008? It seriously seemed like something that was produced for Def comedy jam in 1998, shelved and and somehow rediscovered but it wasn't, it was actually made in 2008. One of the most extreme comedy failures i've seen in the last decade. IT was like if someone thought some of the shittiest Mad TV sketches would be amazing if they peppered them with a bunch of 'fucks'