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

[usagi]

8 minutes ago, brian trageskin said:

what evidence? 

i mean solid/hard evidence of guilt. i'll help you: there is none. 

this isn't a court of law and we're not jurors. if that was the situation, you could have a point that what evidence there is isn't enough to establish guilt and legally he remains innocent. but remaining legally innocent doesn't tell you everything in the end about whether he did or didn't actually commit the deed, it just says there isn't enough evidence of the deed to meet the high bar required to prove guilt. we're speculating, and insofar as speculation goes, the probability remains high given the total picture of things that he was a wrong'un (and also a hugely talented pop genius). if he really was innocent he could've made his life a lot easier but not doing any of the weird shit he did.

btw I did a round of jury duty recently so I'm a legal expert now. free consultations for WATMMers facing anything upto aggravated assault, PM me.

3 minutes ago, dr lopez said:

I didn't say he shouldn't be prosecuted or charged, I'm saying the 10 or so years he got as an 80 year old was essentially a cruel death sentence, based on our completely outdated and problematic understanding of prison as "punishment" and "revenge" for crimes committed decades ago, rather than the plethora of other options for punitive house arrest, criminal rehabilitation, counseling, etc. The crime and the person is largely irrelevant. I agree his alleged crimes are disgusting and horrific. I just do not enjoy the discourse from relatively progressive camps who generally argue for lighter prison sentences, and a defunding of our disastrous incarceration industry (which I agree with) then suddenly ignoring their own narratives and foaming at the mouth about an 83 yr old half blind guy getting released from prison. Honestly what danger does this man pose? None... so then it's *just* about some sort of confused punitive equivocation? 

I was in disagreement with your earlier post but when you put it this way, I can see your point. seems that the problem is that there isn't enough agreement/acceptance of what a new US justice system that features more progressive correction practices would look like. it just defaults to "can't let this guy get away with this shit, throw him in the slammer". without universal reform to at least try to arrive all together at a better system, the law will continue being applied unevenly by the various states/DAs and being influenced by the optics, which I agree happened here. the foaming at the mouth from twitter types is probably a case of people being blinded by their excessive metoo hardons and breaking their own internal logic.

[may be rude]

11 minutes ago, brian trageskin said:

lol, i'm being serious btw. i'm confident there's nothing remotely resembling irrefutable proof of jackson's guilt out there but i'm happy to be proven wrong. i really can't be bothered looking for info and i'm not the one claiming something happened, i don't have to do anything lol  

i only entered the conversation because no one in my country understands the difference between evidence and proof, which has allowed media and elected officials to claim "there is 0 evidence of [thing]" when actually there is much evidence of the thing. 

 

i appreciate that you conceded my point. 

Edited July 1, 2021 by very honest

[brian trageskin]

1 minute ago, usagi said:

btw I did a round of jury duty recently so I'm a legal expert now. free consultations for WATMMers facing anything upto aggravated assault, PM me.

lol 

yeah i totally agree with you that not proven guilty doesn't equal innocent. my point is that people believe he's guilty when the evidence/proof out there isn't convincing at all afaik. or to put it differently, the level of proof or whatever it's called is very low. and where i come from, you're innocent until proven guilty. 

[ignatius]

48 minutes ago, brian trageskin said:

show me the proof. 

the proof is uh.. in the uh.. pudding. 

[Satans Little Helper]

1 minute ago, ignatius said:

the proof is uh.. in the uh.. pudding. 

i believe mj used the term duck sauce. but i don't have proof of that.

[brian trageskin]

 

[usagi]

11 minutes ago, brian trageskin said:

lol 

yeah i totally agree with you that not proven guilty doesn't equal innocent. my point is that people believe he's guilty when the evidence/proof out there isn't convincing at all afaik. or to put it differently, the level of proof or whatever it's called is very low. and where i come from, you're innocent until proven guilty. 

yeah, well that's the rub. the importance of the default state of innocence is the reason the bar for establishing guilt is high, or at least non-trivial (though there are ways to pervert that, as happens all the time). personally I wouldn't go around saying he's guilty because I can't be sure, but my suspicions remain.

[Satans Little Helper]

2 minutes ago, usagi said:

yeah, well that's the rub. the importance of the default state of innocence is the reason the bar for establishing guilt is high, or at least non-trivial (though there are ways to pervert that, as happens all the time). personally I wouldn't go around saying he's guilty because I can't be sure, but my suspicions remain.

that's what i would prefer as well, btw. It's the schrodingers cat state. Both can be true. But it's better to remain impartial. Or consciously ignorant perhaps. Because you can't know. With a healthy amount of suspicion. Without being judgmental.

The schrodingers cat metaphor makes the most sense to me. But I'm not quite sure if that idea translates well to other people.

[brian trageskin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoché

[Satans Little Helper]

Guess that makes me a fan of Husserl.

[Alcofribas]

1 hour ago, brian trageskin said:

lol, i'm being serious btw. i'm confident there's nothing remotely resembling irrefutable proof of jackson's guilt out there but i'm happy to be proven wrong. i really can't be bothered looking for info and i'm not the one claiming something happened, i don't have to do anything lol  

i couldn't sit through the neverland documentary bc it was so obviously a crude effort to convince viewers of jackson's guilt.

but, demanding irrefutable proof of child molestation is extremely cringe behavior. should the children have filmed this or something? the fuck are you even talking about dude?

[brian trageskin]

Just now, Alcofribas said:

i couldn't sit through the neverland documentary bc it was so obviously a crude effort to convince viewers of jackson's guilt.

but, demanding irrefutable proof of child molestation is extremely cringe behavior. should the children have filmed this or something? the fuck are you even talking about dude?

the real question is, why is everything "cringe" in your world? flol 

and yeah i ask no less than pov child porn to change my mind about whether mj is guilty or not  

[Alcofribas]

26 minutes ago, brian trageskin said:

the real question is, why is everything "cringe" in your world? flol 

and yeah i ask no less than pov child porn to change my mind about whether mj is guilty or not  

bc this is watmm and a lot of cringe is posted on a regular basis. 

repeatedly demanding “irrefutable evidence” of child rape on watmm dot com definitely falls into this category imo. thank you for your contribution m9

[brian trageskin]

1 minute ago, Alcofribas said:

bc this is watmm and a lot of cringe is posted on a regular basis. 

repeatedly demanding “irrefutable evidence” of child rape on watmm dot com definitely falls into this category imo. thank you for your contribution m9

afaik, the thing with mj's case is that it's all testimonies, no hard evidence. should a person be punished simply based on testimonies? i personally need more than that, and so does the justice system apparently. 

also, we need a cringe subforum.

[Satans Little Helper]

7 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

bc this is watmm and a lot of cringe is posted on a regular basis. 

repeatedly demanding “irrefutable evidence” of child rape on watmm dot com definitely falls into this category imo. thank you for your contribution m9

In all fairness, it goes both ways. Claiming someone did horrific stuff asks for some strong backup, imo. And I'd consider those claims  as unnecessary as asking for irrefutable evidence on a music forum.

Admittedly though, it's easy to make such claims in "casual" conversations. And to an extent, people should be free to do so. But once people go there (making strong claims of guilt), it's also fair to ask (demand!?) people to back-up those claims.

And yes, that brings plenty cringe. Completely agree. But again, it goes both ways. Don't think it's fair to just point the finger towards BT. 

[brian trageskin]

i raped my dad last night. you should believe me because i'm telling you so and i sound convincing.

/dingformung

[dr lopez]

[Alcofribas]

7 minutes ago, Satans Little Helper said:

In all fairness, it goes both ways. Claiming someone did horrific stuff asks for some strong backup, imo. And I'd consider those claims  as unnecessary as asking for irrefutable evidence on a music forum.

Admittedly though, it's easy to make such claims in "casual" conversations. And to an extent, people should be free to do so. But once people go there (making strong claims of guilt), it's also fair to ask (demand!?) people to back-up those claims.

And yes, that brings plenty cringe. Completely agree. But again, it goes both ways. Don't think it's fair to just point the finger towards BT. 

yeah I def agree that it’s valuable to push back against people’s claims about guilt with these kinds of allegations. But imo the I demand irrefutable evidence is just r-worded bc that almost doesn’t even exist in the real world. 

I’m not really into these kinds of celeb stories though. it doesn’t really mean anything to me to come to a decision about whether MJ did or didn’t molest kids. not really a topic I’m trying to get to the bottom of in my life tbh. 
 

***
 

i def agree with d-lo’s observation about the incoherence of progressive liberals on the topic of incarceration. they decry the system as being fundamentally unjust and systemically abusive but then celebrate its employment whenever it effects someone they don’t like. 
 

the example par excellence for me is when roxanne gay wrote an oped in the nyt in which she speculated that even though louis ck didn’t commit a crime, perhaps in cases like his jail would be an appropriate place for him to be forced to think about how what he did was wrong. this was written and published during the largest prisoner strike in us history. people like this have gotta go* imo
 

*to prison

[Rubin Farr]

 

[Alcofribas]

shocked to see this is about Howard and not Hillman

[brian trageskin]

4 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

yeah I def agree that it’s valuable to push back against people’s claims about guilt with these kinds of allegations. But imo the I demand irrefutable evidence is just r-worded bc that almost doesn’t even exist in the real world. 

yeah i probably said something i didn't really mean with this "irrefutable evidence" business. all i'm saying is there's nothing remotely resembling solid evidence/proof/whatever of guilt, and all i need is something indicating guilt that's more convincing than a bunch of testimonies from different people. testimonies by themselves are weak, as far as evidence goes. i just need a higher level of proof, that's all. 

[Limo]

2 hours ago, Satans Little Helper said:

Don't think I've said anything silly, tbh

The accusations go a little bit further than "we took some ludes and then we had sex", however.

[usagi]

11 hours ago, Alcofribas said:

people like this have gotta go* imo
 

*to prison

lol

[ignatius]