Bill Cosby

[cvp12gh5]

If you've been paying attention to the news, you know he's accused of drugging and raping a couple dozen women (and counting).

Do you think he is guilty? If yes, then do you think he should go to jail? If no, then explain why you think the allegations are false.

Were you a fan of his comedy? If so, do these allegations change anything for you?

 

[Korg]

None of us know what the truth is; we don't possess even a tiny fraction of it.

The only thing we can form is conjecture.

 

[Dave Fallon]

I agree with [MENTION=1425]Korg[/MENTION], it's hard for us to know the truth with only the media reports to judge. That being said, we're not on a jury so I'll assume that conjecture is OK to this question.

I was and am a fan of Cosby's comedy. My wife bought several seasons of his show and we re-watched the entire eight seasons just a couple of years ago on Hulu. We also own some videos of his stand up comedy. I would be lying if I said these allegations didn't damper my enjoyment of his show or my estimation of the man; a person who does the sorts of things he's accused of doing over and over should not be admired, and so I don't.

I'd like to believe you could separate the "work" from the "worker", in this case the comedy from the comedian. And then, whatever demons the comedian is accused of having or has been proven to have do not effect what he's accomplished. But whether or not some level of suspension of disbelief a reasonable person can be expected to have, there are definitely limits.

I believe most people, if not everyone entirely, has secrets that could embarrass them if made public, and if you require absolute purity of the worker to enjoy the work they do, then you may be sorely disappointed over and over. So, you have to accept that an actor you may admire may have a secret drug or alcohol problem; a teacher that inspires students may also be having an extra-marital affair; a police officer that has a shining, peerless record may, in private, be racist or abusive. We've seen this happen over and over with stars, celebrities or even politicians who, once their life is under public scrutiny, are revealed to be flawed, just like most of us.

But there has to be a limit. What Cosby is being accused of is activity that goes way beyond what I would consider to be a reasonable limit. Being unfaithful or even a known womanizer is one thing; drugging, raping, and intimidating women over and over is something completely different. And to acerbate that by using his fame or status to perpetrate these acts is completely inexcusable.

This is kind of a example case of a very human phenomenon: being forced to confront that something you enjoy has a much darker side. In a way, by buying Cosby's movies and watching them I have unknowingly helped him do these awful things: if he had not the money nor the notoriety from his comedy--something I had contributed to--he probably would never have gotten away with as much as he allegedly did. And knowing that makes me angry, and means I really can't enjoy anything he did now, unless he is completely exonerated, which seems unlikely. This is the same feeling a person gets when they learn a shirt they bought was made by a poor child laborer, or the diamond ring they gave someone was dug up by slave-laborers to support a vicious gang of murdering warlords, or that the coffee they drank was made possible by an industry that cheats and robs workers and farmers. It's an unfortunately common, and very uncomfortable feeling.

So how do you go on? How do you act towards this thing you enjoyed knowing its dark past? That's a really tough and personal question. Of course, I will probably never watch the DVDs my wife bought again, and I certainly wouldn't spend another dime on his products. But what about the diamond ring? Do you throw it out when you learn its past? Or what about the coffee your already drank?

I think we are capable of deciding, when we know better, to regret the darkness of a thing and not the thing itself. So, I regret Cosby's actions, but I can decide not to regret the time I did enjoy watching his comedy before I knew about these allegations and I can decide I do not regret that my wife bought his DVDs. I just will not do so again.

Whew. Sorry for the long post. This is something near to my heart for other reasons (not related to Cosby), so I had a lot of thoughts on it.

 

[Scientia]

I do wonder what the women would gain by saying years later that he raped them. If they aren't looking for restitution, then why come out with this now if not to bring him to justice?

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

I don't trust this shit. If something happened to you, speak out when it happens - when there's a chance to gather evidence.

I understand it's easier said than done, but considering the severity of these claims, it deserves the amount of seriousness you supposedly consider rape to be.

 

[ThomasJ79]

I don't bother to follow the story. It's unlikely that I'll know anything more that the people who were there. Everything else is sensationalism.

 

[sprinkles]

It doesn't matter if I think he's guilty or not. I'm not a judge and I don't have any evidence.

On the other hand though civil cases can be a fucking joke when it is against anyone of reputation because all one has to do is say something sufficiently scandalous and basically receive money to shut up. After it's been done successfully one time and it gets out it casts suspicion in people's minds which can let loose a string of "me too"s.

 

[Lark]

I remember the Cosby show but just barely, its never rerun, unlike the fresh prince or shows like it, Roseanne would probably be more popular if it was rerun, Home Improvement would be more popular than either, all of which has given me a sort of flash of how old I am and how much TV schedules and comedy have changed over the years (can you believe that some of the cast of Big Bang Theory and Scrubs got their first roles in Roseanne? Even before 8 Simple Rules).

I dont really think I was a fan and I only watched it because there was nothing else on or because the show was sandwiched between shows I wanted to watch. A lot of the racial humour or racial aspect of the shows was lost on me and a lot of the people I knew growing up, northern ireland at that time was pretty monocultural or monoracial, still is.

So the accusation that Cosby has committed crimes is unaffected by his celebrity for me, the OJ Simpson trial was surely the first instance of celebrity criminality, then there was Michael Jackson, I'm sure there's others if I gave it some more thought.

One thing I would say is that there's been allegations about Cosby for some time, I remember a really distasteful meme, game in which you could control a little bobble head Cosby which mumbled and made no sense in the way I've seen people spoofing Cosby in his old age and the character went around a town and to some place where he had apparently stashed bodies of people he'd murdered.

I couldnt understand this and asked some Americans and they said that it could be that people were spoofing the fact Cosby had become a curmudgeonly moralist character but also that there was a lot of sinister stories attached to him, although they thought it could be racism in the media.

If he's done things then I think he should suffer the consequences, due process, no trial by media or mob, just proper order and law and consequences.

 

[sprinkles]

If he's done things then I think he should suffer the consequences, due process, no trial by media or mob, just proper order and law and consequences.

It's too late for that now. His reputation has been ruined to such a degree that he may as well be condemned by now without a trial. Innocent until proven guilty obviously does not apply to the media and at this point I think he's suffered more damage than jail could ever do - entire image being destroyed - all without a shred of evidence.

Just think about it. He can't go anywhere or do anything now without people wondering and changing how they treat him. In effect it might as well be a guilty verdict. Changing how we treat people in this manner pretty much bypasses and makes a mockery of due process.

 

[Gaze]

I watched Cosby growing up and enjoyed the clean wholesome image of the show. As an adult, his actions haven't affected me but if these accusations were true and given the attention it was given today 20 years ago, it would have had a more profound effect on me. I've come to separate the work from the worker as @Dave Fallon mentioned. If he did it, he should be tried and convicted. However, I don't think this completely dismantles all the good his show has achieved in terms of media representations of black families for example. I don't think his behavior should be excused. With almost anyone, you can appreciate their achievements yet dislike who they are and what they do as an individual. But today image is everything. People associate the public with the private. They don't separate the two.

It's too late for that now. His reputation has been ruined to such a degree that he may as well be condemned by now without a trial. Innocent until proven guilty obviously does not apply to the media and at this point I think he's suffered more damage than jail could ever do - entire image being destroyed - all without a shred of evidence.

Just think about it. He can't go anywhere or do anything now without people wondering and changing how they treat him. In effect it might as well be a guilty verdict. Changing how we treat people in this manner pretty much bypasses and makes a mockery of due process.

This is my issue with the media, is that the accusations are sensationalized, so true or not, he's being publicly scandalized and informally convicted without any evidence yet to prove the accusations true. It's a little odd. Not that he has helped his own case by remaining silent or refusing to acknowledge the accusations. I think some of the accusers are not trustworthy and may be using the other accusations to cash in on the attention. I also don't think that all the accusations are false.

 

[Dave Fallon]

This is my issue with the media, is that the accusations are sensationalized, so true or not, he's being publicly scandalized and informally convicted without any evidence yet to prove the accusations true. It's a little odd. Not that he has helped his own case by remaining silent or refusing to acknowledge the accusations. I think some of the accusers are not trustworthy and may be using the other accusations to cash in on the attention. I also don't think that all the accusations are false.

Not to devolve the conversation into a critique of the media, but I really agree with both [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1669]pics[/MENTION]. I think the media used to have some form of integrity that has gone out the window. It used to be people would look down their noses at tabloids and sensationalist rags, but now it appears that business model has seeped into everything the media does. This would probably be a good thread in itself, if it isn't out there already.

But back to Cosby: I agree that he's being tried without a trial, and I sympathize with that, but if you really want to suspend judgement against him based on the fact that we don't have all the evidence, you should probably do that with the alleged victims as well. I somewhat disagree with [MENTION=5511]o_q[/MENTION]. If you want a reason why a victim does not come forward right away, the media's activity and the comments about the victims are a great example. You might be able to say that Cosby lost his right to a media free existence when he chose his career path, but if the victims are truly victims, then they did not choose but were forced to make a decision: let Cosby get away with it or set yourself up for scrutiny and the out-of-control media circus. I don't blame them at all for not coming forward until it was revealed that, not only were they not alone, but each was one of potentially dozens of other women.

 

[sprinkles]

Not to devolve the conversation into a critique of the media, but I really agree with both [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1669]pics[/MENTION]. I think the media used to have some form of integrity that has gone out the window. It used to be people would look down their noses at tabloids and sensationalist rags, but now it appears that business model has seeped into everything the media does. This would probably be a good thread in itself, if it isn't out there already.

But back to Cosby: I agree that he's being tried without a trial, and I sympathize with that, but if you really want to suspend judgement against him based on the fact that we don't have all the evidence, you should probably do that with the alleged victims as well. I somewhat disagree with [MENTION=5511]o_q[/MENTION]. If you want a reason why a victim does not come forward right away, the media's activity and the comments about the victims are a great example. You might be able to say that Cosby lost his right to a media free existence when he chose his career path, but if the victims are truly victims, then they did not choose but were forced to make a decision: let Cosby get away with it or set yourself up for scrutiny and the out-of-control media circus. I don't blame them at all for not coming forward until it was revealed that, not only were they not alone, but each was one of potentially dozens of other women.

I can understand that but the onus remains on the accuser regardless of whether you're a street bum or Bill Cosby.

Whether the victims are actually victims or not, hearsay is not how we do things. It'd be incredibly unfortunate if it were true but an even greater danger is being able to make specious claims about anyone you please.

Edit: and they have to prove that they're not specious because they are the accusers. It is not up to Cosby to prove that he is innocent - that isn't how it works.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I think [MENTION=1425]Korg[/MENTION] has it right.
The women who have waited 20 years +? I cant imagine a whole lot of evidence surviving that time frame.

 

[myself]

[video=youtube;qWUBnrIaphQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWUBnrIaphQ[/video]

 

[Dave Fallon]

I can understand that but the onus remains on the accuser regardless of whether you're a street bum or Bill Cosby.

Whether the victims are actually victims or not, hearsay is not how we do things. It'd be incredibly unfortunate if it were true but an even greater danger is being able to make specious claims about anyone you please.

Edit: and they have to prove that they're not specious because they are the accusers. It is not up to Cosby to prove that he is innocent - that isn't how it works.

Ok, fair enough, [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]. If the public opinion is a court, then you are right that the basic order should be innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, it really isn't a court, and that's why the rules aren't enforceable on the media or random bloggers or forum posters. For us poor fools discussing this based solely on what is trickling down through sensationalist media outlets, we have a choice to join in the hubbub or enforce upon ourselves some degree of the integrity that our media has lost.

So, you're right: the women coming forward have a duty to prove what happened; Cosby doesn't have to say anything, and he's not. But at the same time, if this public court is a trial, it is not the women coming forward that are on it. What I object to is attacks against them as credible based on sensationalist hearsay just as the attacks against Cosby.

There are a lot of reasons why a victim would not have come forward right away. Now that they are coming forward, there's a lot of evidence lost and many statutes of limitations are passed, so it's more or less unlikely that Cosby will actually go to prison, and at his age sending him to prison really doesn't accomplish much. Instead, I think these women are coming forward to make a point and to support one another. Yes, some of them may also want to make money off of this, but just as Cosby deserves to be innocent until proven guilty, so do they on that respect. And, technically, there's no law against making money on a story; it's just more evidence of how bad our media really is. Judge the media for offering these women money for their stories, not the women themselves.

But back to us: if you are a fan of Cosby's work, as I am, you have to decide whether that "innocent until proven guilty" means you support him or not. I choose not. I feel I have done that with my integrity intact, based on what evidence I have, sensationalism aside.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=11771]Dave Fallon[/MENTION]

I agree. I don't particularly like Cosby either TBH. I don't support him. This is more or less academic to me really.

I'd agree that it isn't fair to outright accuse these women of anything. Saying that they could be making things up for their own gain is not really an accusation, rather it is the very reason that we don't simply take someone's word. It's the reason why the burden of proof is on them in the first place.

Moreover I also don't think it is fair to anyone to take their word for it simply because they appear to be victims.

Edit:
Also I'm more concerned about how the media and general populace is handling this than the women. The women can say what they want, I can completely understand why they would, and I can empathize why they'd be quiet for 20 years. But 90% of the unfairness is not from them, it's from the media smearing it around and scandalizing both sides more than necessary which is what drums up this weird sense of social justice which isn't actually happening and probably shouldn't be happening.

You see an article and empathize with the women but remember, it's not the women talking to you. It's the media feeding you lines. Take it with some salt.

 

[Lark]

I think @Korg has it right.
The women who have waited 20 years +? I cant imagine a whole lot of evidence surviving that time frame.

At the same time its not an unrealistic time frame for the reports to have been made, I know that I've read good literature from trauma counselling organisations which suggest that Irish troubles related survivors and victims may only come forward requesting assistance with traumatic symptoms ten to fifthteen years later.

Nexus one of the biggest rape and incest counselling services here in NI work with people who only come forward twenty years after the fact and those are not all children or adolescents coming forward after that timescale.

Those are just the victims/survivors services too, the police response often does nothing more than caution victims and survivors about the likelihood that the public prosecution service will not seek to progress complaints in the courts were convictions are unlikely or unsure, a lot of law and not much justice as the saying goes, the approach is in theory to manage expectations and clarify with victims what they may hope for by way of satisfaction but it is practically a very dissuasive and demotivating process. In the mean time during any investigation, afterwards whether they are convicted or not, the perpetrator is afforded the greatest possible protection from the law, either from attack or even any besmirching of their reputation or damages to their prospects.

A lot of the time, especially if it is a child who has been admitted to the care of a local authority by social services, the whole process only makes sense in terms of a possible criminal injuries claim on the part of the child which would afford them money when they reach the age of majority to hopefully look after themselves and not become reliant upon abusive, negligent parents or similar characters in the community.

That's all in the UK so I dont even know if that's in anyway transferable to the US but its how it is. I personally think that despite all the obstacles to satisfaction anyone who is the victim of sex offenders should progress any action they can take within the law against the offender that they can. If only to publicise just how badly the system is rigged and how much it fails to provide consequences to criminals and therefore act as a deterrence to crime.

 

[Lark]

But back to us: if you are a fan of Cosby's work, as I am, you have to decide whether that "innocent until proven guilty" means you support him or not. I choose not. I feel I have done that with my integrity intact, based on what evidence I have, sensationalism aside.

Do you think that you can seperate his actions, should he be guilty, from his seperate public persona or the character he plays in his comedy?

I'm curious about this, I used to like some of Michael Jackson's music, the movie moonwalker and the video game until all the revelations about his definite craziness and possible offender profile.

I used to like Arthur Koestler's work, Darkness at Noon, the other book about creativity and another one on occultism or esoteria I think he wrote but then I heard he was definitely mysogynistic and a violent rapist of the wife or a one time Labour Party leader and I disposed of all the books I had by him, including one which as a collectors item and I sold for a lot less than it was worth.

 

[sprinkles]

Do you think that you can seperate his actions, should he be guilty, from his seperate public persona or the character he plays in his comedy?

I'm curious about this, I used to like some of Michael Jackson's music, the movie moonwalker and the video game until all the revelations about his definite craziness and possible offender profile.

I used to like Arthur Koestler's work, Darkness at Noon, the other book about creativity and another one on occultism or esoteria I think he wrote but then I heard he was definitely mysogynistic and a violent rapist of the wife or a one time Labour Party leader and I disposed of all the books I had by him, including one which as a collectors item and I sold for a lot less than it was worth.

I don't know about him but I can do this.

I don't idolize artists or celebrities. I appreciate a work for what it is, not who made it - who made it is nearly so irrelevant as to be merely a walking index for what they do.

I said in another thread that I feel western people focus too much on a person rather than their product and this is exactly what I meant by that.

Edit:
Moreover I would argue that idolizing celebrities kills them. Like it did with Michael Jackson, and Elvis Presley.

 

[bionic]

I think he's a disgusting piece of shit and I feel a lot of respect for the women finally coming out and talking about it.