Be Excellent To Each Other

And, you know, party on. Dude.
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:14

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Reply to topic  [ 392 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 13:05 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3316
Trousers wrote:
I love John Oliver

Quote:
NEW YORK — HBO host John Oliver hammered Dustin Hoffman about allegations of sexual harassment and the actor fired back with a ferocious defense, as a seemingly benign screening became an explosive conversation about Hollywood sexual misconduct on Monday night.


I also love John Oliver, but:

“It is reflective of who you were. If you’ve given no evidence to show it didn’t [happen] then there was a period of time for a while when you were a creeper around women. It feels like a cop-out to say ‘it wasn’t me.’ Do you understand how that feels like a dismissal?”

So it's on Hoffman to prove he didn't harass? Seriously?

Also this:

“Do you believe this stuff you read?” Hoffman asked.

“Yes,” Oliver replied. “Because there’s no point in [an accuser] lying.”

We've been over this over and over, and it's so so stupid. Maybe Oliver should read Dostoevsky. People aren't rational and do all kinds of stupid shit all the time. They aren't robots.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 13:39 
User avatar
EvilTrousers

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3011
I disagree.

Women have been shouted down or intimidated for years and then they get called liars when they do raise anything and they have nothing, absolutely nothing, to gain from raising historical assaults.

If a few Hollywood actors get made uncomfortable because they haven't fully addressed what happened then boo fucking hoo frankly. The balance of probabilities based on those in the limelight that are admitting such behaviour and that people in power tend to abuse that power is that something happened, so Oliver is right to at least pursue the line of questioning with more vigour than has been in evidence previously.

_________________
Everyone but Zardoz is better than me at videogames.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 13:41 
User avatar
Lupine member

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49219
Location: Nottingham
Trousers wrote:
I disagree.

Women have been shouted down or intimidated for years and then they get called liars when they do raise anything and they have nothing, absolutely nothing, to gain from raising historical assaults.

If a few Hollywood actors get made uncomfortable because they haven't fully addressed what happened then boo fucking hoo frankly. The balance of probabilities based on those in the limelight that are admitting such behaviour and that people in power tend to abuse that power is that something happened, so Oliver is right to at least pursue the line of questioning with more vigour than has been in evidence previously.

:kiss: :kiss: :kiss:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 13:51 
User avatar
Thanks

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 10282
Trousers wrote:
I disagree.

Women have been shouted down or intimidated for years and then they get called liars when they do raise anything and they have nothing, absolutely nothing, to gain from raising historical assaults.

If a few Hollywood actors get made uncomfortable because they haven't fully addressed what happened then boo fucking hoo frankly. The balance of probabilities based on those in the limelight that are admitting such behaviour and that people in power tend to abuse that power is that something happened, so Oliver is right to at least pursue the line of questioning with more vigour than has been in evidence previously.


Very germane!

_________________
He called us a mob, let's kill him!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:09 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3316
Trousers wrote:
I disagree.

Women have been shouted down or intimidated for years and then they get called liars when they do raise anything and they have nothing, absolutely nothing, to gain from raising historical assaults.

If a few Hollywood actors get made uncomfortable because they haven't fully addressed what happened then boo fucking hoo frankly. The balance of probabilities based on those in the limelight that are admitting such behaviour and that people in power tend to abuse that power is that something happened, so Oliver is right to at least pursue the line of questioning with more vigour than has been in evidence previously.


So the burden of proof should change depending on the status of the accused? That's what you're implying?

Also, according to you, the risk of having someone being wrongly accused is negligible because they're rich? I disagree. Also, i do remember when my sister, who is a lawyer, told me in the first year of her career "it's better to have 100 criminals free than to have one innocent in jail". I think i've already quoted here before, and will do again in the future if needed.

Besides, using the term "lying" in what amounts to an accusation of what happened 40 years ago is reducing this to a black and white situation. Memories are malleable and ever changing, and for some reason a 40 year old testimony holds a different weight in a court of law than a 1 year old for example.

EDIT: and now i quote something from the great Joe Miller, from The Expanse: "You know, every time you remember something, Your mind changes it, just a little, Until your best and your worst memories. They're your biggest illusions. "


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:12 
SupaMod
User avatar
Everybodys gilf

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 45770
"Chat show host things you've harrassed women" and "in jail" are really very different things.

Which is why one has a higher burden of proof than the other.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:16 
SupaMod
User avatar
Everybodys gilf

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 45770
It's also likely that the vast majority of assault and harrassments currently being reported will never make it to trial because of the weakness of personal testimony and the age of the incidents. Does that mean we should declare everyone innocent and the women all liars?

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:22 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3316
Cras wrote:
It's also likely that the vast majority of assault and harrassments currently being reported will never make it to trial because of the weakness of personal testimony and the age of the incidents. Does that mean we should declare everyone innocent and the women all liars?


Maybe neither? Why the hyperbole? Fortunately the age of "Acts of faith" is past. Courthouses exist for a reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:26 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3316
Cras wrote:
"Chat show host things you've harrassed women" and "in jail" are really very different things.

Which is why one has a higher burden of proof than the other.


Burden of proof is burden of proof. Not "higher" or "lower". Even if the person in question doesn't do to jail, name and personal reputation is very important, it may in fact be the most important thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:26 
User avatar
EvilTrousers

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3011
What Cras said basically.

"Oliver is right to at least pursue the line of questioning with more vigour than has been in evidence previously." is hardly "THEY SHOULD ALL BE LOCKED UP"

A Tweet on my timeline that Jon Ronson just highlighted sums up my feelings on it well;

"On the John Oliver thing and so on. The redistribution of discomfort does not mean hating men. It’s a movement of some discomfort from women experiencing things to men facing them."

_________________
Everyone but Zardoz is better than me at videogames.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:35 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3316
Trousers wrote:
What Cras said basically.

"Oliver is right to at least pursue the line of questioning with more vigour than has been in evidence previously." is hardly "THEY SHOULD ALL BE LOCKED UP"
"


Yes, he did question Hoffman, which he did reply that it never happened. Now what? Apparently Oliver isn't happy until Hoffman gives the answer he desires.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:40 
SupaMod
User avatar
Everybodys gilf

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 45770
RuySan wrote:
Cras wrote:
"Chat show host things you've harrassed women" and "in jail" are really very different things.

Which is why one has a higher burden of proof than the other.


Burden of proof is burden of proof. Not "higher" or "lower". Even if the person in question doesn't do to jail, name and personal reputation is very important, it may in fact be the most important thing.


You should talk to your sister the lawyer again. There are very many different levels of burden of proof. Civil cases, for example, have a lower burden of proof than criminal ones. Which is why OJ Simpson was found guilty of murder in a civil court but not a criminal one.

Someone being mean to you on a chat show has a lower burden still.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:41 
User avatar
Lupine member

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49219
Location: Nottingham
Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:56 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3316
Lonewolves wrote:
Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.


The thing is, why should I believe anyone I don't know? I don't believe or disbelieve hoffman nor i believe or disbelieve the accuser. I do not know any of them personally. That's for the courts to decide.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:57 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 26135
Location: Kidbrooke
RuySan wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.


The thing is, why should I believe anyone I don't know? I don't believe or disbelieve hoffman nor i believe or disbelieve the accuser. I do not know any of them personally. That's for the courts to decide.


But things happen that don’t go to court. If you heard that a friend was being a dick on a night out from a few sources, you wouldn’t assume they were being fine because it didn’t go to court.

_________________
I've got a bad feeling about this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:58 
User avatar
Thanks

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 10282
If 'Rain Man 2, He Still Won't Fly' gets cancelled because of this shit, I'll be very upset.

_________________
He called us a mob, let's kill him!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:59 
User avatar
Lupine member

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49219
Location: Nottingham
It's weird how it's only sexual assault victims we don't automatically believe. If I say my car has been stolen, everyone is sympathetic. No one asks to see my empty driveway or police report or waits until the alleged burglar is found guilty.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:01 
User avatar
Thanks

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 10282
Sorry to hear about your car man, that sucks.


<< hugs >>

_________________
He called us a mob, let's kill him!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:01 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3316
Curiosity wrote:
RuySan wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.


The thing is, why should I believe anyone I don't know? I don't believe or disbelieve hoffman nor i believe or disbelieve the accuser. I do not know any of them personally. That's for the courts to decide.


But things happen that don’t go to court. If you heard that a friend was being a dick on a night out from a few sources, you wouldn’t assume they were being fine because it didn’t go to court.


You're talking about something personal and people whom i know. I might have believed more or less depending who was the friend being a dick.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:02 
User avatar
Lupine member

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49219
Location: Nottingham
Hearthly wrote:
Sorry to hear about your car man, that sucks.


<< hugs >>

If only. It's been a complete money sink since I got it. :'(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:04 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3316
Lonewolves wrote:
It's weird how it's only sexual assault victims we don't automatically believe. If I say my car has been stolen, everyone is sympathetic. No one asks to see my empty driveway or police report or waits until the alleged burglar is found guilty.


What a silly analogy. When you say your car has been stolen you're not accusing anyone. The potential for slander is zero.

Do you think if this woman accused Hoffman of stealing her car, then everyone would believe?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:05 
User avatar
EvilTrousers

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3011
RuySan wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.


The thing is, why should I believe anyone I don't know? I don't believe or disbelieve hoffman nor i believe or disbelieve the accuser. I do not know any of them personally. That's for the courts to decide.


That is effectively saying the ONLY way to resolve these matters is through the courts.

Jimmy Saville was never convicted in a court.

_________________
Everyone but Zardoz is better than me at videogames.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:09 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 62844
Location: Your Mum
Lonewolves wrote:
Hearthly wrote:
Sorry to hear about your car man, that sucks.


<< hugs >>

If only. It's been a complete money sink since I got it. :'(

At least it has cupholders.

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:10 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3316
Trousers wrote:
RuySan wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.


The thing is, why should I believe anyone I don't know? I don't believe or disbelieve hoffman nor i believe or disbelieve the accuser. I do not know any of them personally. That's for the courts to decide.


That is effectively saying the ONLY way to resolve these matters is through the courts.

Jimmy Saville was never convicted in a court.


Wasn't this a case of there being multiple witnesses corroborating a modus operandi?

Isn't Hoffman a case of "he said/she said" instead?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:10 
User avatar
Lupine member

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49219
Location: Nottingham
Grim... wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Hearthly wrote:
Sorry to hear about your car man, that sucks.


<< hugs >>

If only. It's been a complete money sink since I got it. :'(

At least it has cupholders.

:kiss:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:18 
User avatar
EvilTrousers

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3011
RuySan wrote:
Trousers wrote:
RuySan wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.


The thing is, why should I believe anyone I don't know? I don't believe or disbelieve hoffman nor i believe or disbelieve the accuser. I do not know any of them personally. That's for the courts to decide.


That is effectively saying the ONLY way to resolve these matters is through the courts.

Jimmy Saville was never convicted in a court.


Wasn't this a case of there being multiple witnesses corroborating a modus operandi?

Isn't Hoffman a case of "he said/she said" instead?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26312001

It always starts off with denial or some attempt to reduce the impact or to undermine the accuser.

_________________
Everyone but Zardoz is better than me at videogames.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:28 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3316
Trousers wrote:
RuySan wrote:
Trousers wrote:
RuySan wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.


The thing is, why should I believe anyone I don't know? I don't believe or disbelieve hoffman nor i believe or disbelieve the accuser. I do not know any of them personally. That's for the courts to decide.


That is effectively saying the ONLY way to resolve these matters is through the courts.

Jimmy Saville was never convicted in a court.


Wasn't this a case of there being multiple witnesses corroborating a modus operandi?

Isn't Hoffman a case of "he said/she said" instead?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26312001

It always starts off with denial or some attempt to reduce the impact or to undermine the accuser.


We had a similar case here. Our ex-most respected TV presenter was more than 10 years in jail for being a peadophile.

Which he was most certainly was. But in the same case every day there was a new name of a celebrity being called as belonging into the same paedophile ring. The victims lawyer said to a tv reporter "children never lie" and that was indeed the case with the public opinion because many of those accused had their names forever smeared. I don't doubt there were many molesters that escaped conviction but there were many accused that were cleared of all charges were their careers finished.

So i don't know where this "people never believe the victims" comes from.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:29 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3316
Also, I would most certainly believe a child much faster than an adult, so it's not as if i'm any different.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:31 
User avatar
EvilTrousers

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 3011
RuySan wrote:
We had a similar case here. Our ex-most respected TV presenter was more than 10 years in jail for being a peadophile.

Which he was most certainly was. But in the same case every day there was a new name of a celebrity being called as belonging into the same paedophile ring. The victims lawyer said to a tv reporter "children never lie" and that was indeed the case with the public opinion because many of those accused had their names forever smeared. I don't doubt there were many molesters that escaped conviction but there were many accused that were cleared of all charges were their careers finished.

So i don't know where this "people never believe the victims" comes from.


I said it starts off with denials - I certainly said didn't say "never". Those people that do come forward first are brave as fuck because they are going to face the most vehement denials and character assassinations.

_________________
Everyone but Zardoz is better than me at videogames.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hollywood Assaults
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 20:24 
User avatar
SavyGamer

Joined: 29th Apr, 2008
Posts: 7105
Looks like Bryan Singer has been fully fired, and his production company kicked out of the fox studios.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 392 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: krazywookie, Pod People, Vogons and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search within this thread:
You are using the 'Ted' forum. Bill doesn't really exist any more. Bogus!
Want to help out with the hosting / advertising costs? That's very nice of you.
Are you on a mobile phone? Try http://beex.co.uk/m/
RIP, Owen.

Powered by a very Grim... version of phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.