Be Excellent To Each Other

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.

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!

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. "

"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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

If 'Rain Man 2, He Still Won't Fly' gets cancelled because of this shit, I'll be very upset.

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.

Sorry to hear about your car man, that sucks.


<< hugs >>

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.

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

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?

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

Jimmy Saville was never convicted in a court.

At least it has cupholders.

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.

Also, I would most certainly believe a child much faster than an adult, so it's not as if i'm any different.

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.

Looks like Bryan Singer has been fully fired, and his production company kicked out of the fox studios.

He did die before all of his abuse came to light!

Because nobody spoke out, as he was in a position of power. Which is sort of a point here

Max Landis accused of having beaten up several women. Seemingly those he was in abusive relationships with.

Fourth high profile instance of something along these lines from Netflix in the last few months, right? I wonder if it's them being new kids on the block and not having policies to combat this stuff. Or maybe not being as experienced in covering it up. Or not having as many establishment connections etc.

A lot of people said he was a complete arsehole which was enough to put me off watching Dirk Gently, so I'm not entirely surprised by this.

Yeah Chronicle was good, but rest of his work I've seen has been pretty bad.

And from what I've seen him voluntarily say/do publicly I thought he was probably a bit of a jerk, so hearing these allegations about his private life didn't come as much of a surprise.

Being the son of a famous Hollywood director is probably somewhat conducive to thinking you can get away with anything. Kinda feels like he's fallen upward for most of his career.

Closest fitting thread I could find: I Made the Pizza Cinnamon Rolls from Mario Batali’s Sexual Misconduct Apology Letter

I just read that after you Tweeted it and thought it was excellent. Not the rolls though.

The Scroobius Pip Distraction Pieces podcast with Lena Heady covers the subject well - Lena Heady seems to be a bit awesome.

Aziz Ansari.

https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari ... ssion=true

Eliza "Faith off Buffy" Dushku was apparently assaulted on the set of True Lies by her stunt coordinator.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/20 ... llegations

She was twelve.

Fucking hell

That New York Times article completely ignores that even AFTER she had said ‘no’ he continued to push for sex and try to manipulate her into it. It says he stopped at that point.

Which does seem to somewhat cheapen their point that he’s fine because he stopped as soon as she said she was uncomfortable.

Bill S. Preston

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... ar-1081204

In case anyone doesn't click the link, it's him revealing he was abused, not him being accused.

Yeah, I think everyone's heart sank when Grim.. posted that.

And then were relieved when it just turned out he'd been horribly sexually abused when he was a kid.

Which says something about the human condition.

I thought it was the deathless thread.

Well, he is a vampire.

So, what the heck is Kevin Spacey doing?

Going for all-out creepy.