Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

did we just wake up in Nazi Germany? KEVIN SPACEY blacklisted!!!!!


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, limey said:

There can be extremely persuasive reasons (like fear of reprisals) for an individual to hold back from immediately trying to get justice.

Bull****.

If the offense is real, that's nothing but cowardice.

I would never convict anyone on a 30-year-old "memory". It simply can't be trusted.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, darkblue said:

Bull****.

If the offense is real, that's nothing but cowardice.

I would never convict anyone on a 30-year-old "memory". It simply can't be trusted.

 

If it was nothing more than a memory, then you'd be extremely unlikely to get a conviction - it would take collaborating evidence, such as  witnesses or physical proof - things that become harder to establish as time passes. The legal system assumes innocence until proven otherwise, so the burden of proof is on the accuser.

If your health/career/your families livelihood is threatened by the risk of reprisals, then it's less a case of cowardice, but one of pragmatic survival. These situations & one's reactions to them are rarely as black & white as you imply.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, limey said:

The legal system assumes innocence until proven otherwise, so the burden of proof is on the accuser.

Thank God.

Not reporting a serious crime is as irresponsible as it gets. Trying to sell a story years later instead is just weak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, darkblue said:

Thank God.

Not reporting a crime is as irresponsible as it gets. 

Committing that crime should probably be considered the greater wrongdoing.

The responsibility for reporting a crime is a little more complicated when you're the victim & still likely to suffer reprisals for taking action. It may be better in the overall scheme of things to do so, but I could certainly understand that reluctance, for the reasons I've already described.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, limey said:

Committing that crime should probably be considered the greater wrongdoing.

The responsibility for reporting a crime is a little more complicated when you're the victim & still likely to suffer reprisals for taking action. 

Bull****.

If it goes unreported, there's no reason to believe it  happened - and if it didn't happen, then it's the accused years later that's the victim.

I have no idea what kind of "reprisals" can justify letting a "rapist" go free - what, that people might say something unkind about you for reporting it? Give me a freaking break - I thought women were supposed to be mature, equal adults.

Coming forth years later with some revised concoction of a story is bull****. It doesn't deserve to be listened to and there are far too many cucks these days accepting this ****.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, darkblue said:

I have no idea what kind of "reprisals" can justify letting a "rapist" go free - what, that people might say something unkind about you for reporting it? Give me a freaking break - I thought women were supposed to be mature, equal adults.

Try being forced from your job, or physical threats and, yes - shame. You don't have to tax your imagination too hard to think of situations that could coerce someone into silence. And sexual abuse is more than than just rape & who says such abuse only happens to women?

29 minutes ago, darkblue said:

It doesn't deserve to be listened to

Sorry, but no. Every case should be considered on it's merits. Just as those accused shouldn't be considered guilty until proven so.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, limey said:

Try being forced from your job, or physical threats and, yes - shame.

Physical threats, my ***.

If you're raped, you report it to the police and they will advise you on what to do regarding the collecting of evidence and the process of convicting the perp.

As far as "forced from your job" - that is no reason to let a rapist off the hook to begin with....... and anyway, there are a million lawyers who'll take up your cause in a heartbeat and won't even charge you anything until they get you a settlement from the perp and the company.

I don't know why you want to encourage women to remain helpless children rather than growing up and becoming real adults, but then I'm not a cuck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, darkblue said:

I don't know why you want to encourage women to remain helpless children rather than growing up and becoming real adults, but then I'm not a cuck.

Nothing I've written encourages women (or any victim of abuse) to remain helpless, as you put it. It does however, suggest reasons why someone might feel that they'd need to keep quiet. It's up to the individual reader to consider the validity of those suggestions, along with what they might do if faced with that scenario themselves. It's somewhat naive to think that every case is going to be an easy win for your hoards of lawyers, or that a victimized person won't believe that they'll suffer further trauma by reporting what happened.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, limey said:

It does however, suggest reasons why someone might feel that they'd need to keep quiet.

Because women are helpless children? Yeah, sure. Just not too helpless to stop their manipulating hundreds of millions of cucks into swallowing their bull**** feminist claptrap.

*****-whipped simps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, limey said:

Nothing I have written disagrees with what you have just written - even what Spence wrote didn't. He expressed an opinion, which you promptly assumed was rhetoric designed to hold down all accusers. An expressed opinion (even one that dissents from those you hold) does not automatically equate to the kind of rhetoric you describe.

My caution is in creating an environment where those accused are punished without/before due investigation of the facts. Punishment should be the domain of the legal system and an individual's beliefs in divine retribution.

Public facing employees (actors,  musicians,  pro-athletes) have always been subjected to being sanction for 'off-the-field' behavior but there does appear to be an increase in these type of sanctions.    I believe the latest NFL case with Elliot will lead to the players' union wanting to change how much power the NFL front office has over players related to their off-the-field behavior in the next round of contract negotiations.    (but I don't think the players will go on strike just to get this changed).     

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, darkblue said:

Because women are helpless children? Yeah, sure. Just not too helpless to stop their manipulating hundreds of millions of cucks into swallowing their bull**** feminist claptrap.

*****-whipped simps.

I am impressed by the sheer number of ***'s that you manage to feature in your posts, darkblue...

:P

For the record, I consider feminism as equally good/bad as masculinism. Equality is more desirable. I've no problem with ladies opening doors for me. And I still open doors for them!

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Public facing employees (actors,  musicians,  pro-athletes) have always been subjected to being sanction for 'off-the-field' behavior but there does appear to be an increase in these type of sanctions.    I believe the latest NFL case with Elliot will lead to the players' union wanting to change how much power the NFL front office has over players related to their off-the-field behavior in the next round of contract negotiations.    (but I don't think the players will go on strike just to get this changed).     

In these occupations, it could be argued that sanctions outside the legal system are part of their contractual agreements (which shifts the thing into the realm of fair contract law) - but in an ideal world, such sanctions would not be applied until after responsibility for whatever misdeeds had first been determined by the legal system.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, limey said:

In these occupations, it could be argued that sanctions outside the legal system are part of their contractual agreements (which shifts the thing into the realm of fair contract law) - but in an ideal world, such sanctions would not be applied until after responsibility for whatever misdeeds had first been determined by the legal system.

I agree and I believe what the NFL players' union will be pushing for is only punishment (e.g. suspension),  after the legal system has determined that an actual 'misdeed' (something illegal),  has taken place.

This is at the heart of the Elliot case;  The DA didn't press charges for domestic violence due to conflicting statements from the accuser.   The NFL then goes on to hire a PI, taking on the role of police,  prosecutor,  judge and jury.    The same thing occurred in the Rice case.    Note I don't support these guys (Elliot has a documented history of being a bonehead and there is that video of Rice punching his wife in a elevator), but when actual legal authorizes believe a crime was NOT committed (or at least there isn't enough evidence to file charges),  an employer should NOT pick up the slack by taking on duties reserved for our legal system.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I agree and I believe what the NFL players' union will be pushing for is only punishment (e.g. suspension),  after the legal system has determined that an actual 'misdeed' (something illegal),  has taken place.

That should be the policy with every employer.

All this public witchifying revenge crud that's perpetrated on many of us just because some people don't like something they've heard really frosts my cantaloupes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 25, 2017 at 8:34 PM, limey said:

Nothing I have written disagrees with what you have just written - even what Spence wrote didn't. He expressed an opinion, which you promptly assumed was rhetoric designed to hold down all accusers. An expressed opinion (even one that dissents from those you hold) does not automatically equate to the kind of rhetoric you describe.

My caution is in creating an environment where those accused are punished without/before due investigation of the facts. Punishment should be the domain of the legal system and an individual's beliefs in divine retribution.

I apologize for not responding sooner:

Please pay me the courtesy of assuming my comments are not the result of unthinking, or knee-jerk reactions, but are well-thought and reasoned.  I characterized Spence's comments the way I did because they are rhetoric designed to discourage people from reporting abuses.  My purpose is to raise people's awareness of how social and cultural biases condition people's reactions.  His assumption that the sheer number of accusers must by definition delegitimize them, and his further disparagement of their character by ascribing them monetary motives without the slightest evidence, is exactly the standard response designed to defend the status quo.  The principle of innocence before proven guilt is used in these instances not as a means of pursuing justice, but of trying, convicting and condemning the victim, and forestalling justice.  Even if it were a perfect world, where violators could not take advantage of their place in a hierarchy, or society, where the police and justice systems were not indifferent, uncaring, reluctant, or even in league with the violators (as was, and may still often the case), if cases do come to trial, the victim is exposed to the attacks of defense council, open to character assassination, and forced to relive a traumatic, horrifying event in excruciating detail, while the accused is protected from similar exposure.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slaytonf said:

 I characterized Spence's comments the way I did because they are rhetoric designed to discourage people from reporting abuses.  My purpose is to raise people's awareness of how social and cultural biases condition people's reactions.  His assumption that the sheer number of accusers must by definition delegitimize them, and his further disparagement of their character by ascribing them monetary motives without the slightest evidence, is exactly the standard response designed to defend the status quo

 

On 11/23/2017 at 4:28 AM, spence said:

At first I believed all these now far too many sexual allegations, but now they seem to be jumping on the $financial;$ banmdwagon

As I read that, Spence states

  1. that he initially believed the allegations
  2. that there are now too many
  3. that they seem to be jumping on the financial bandwagon

1 is self explanatory.

2 could either be taken as there are an awful lot of reports emerging, or to imply that these reports may be invalid. I read it as the former, you apparently read it as the latter.

3 could be taken either as some of the reports the media are picking up are probably motivated by money, or that all those reports are. Again I gave it the benefit of the doubt, especially since he used 'seem'.

These are just my interpretations of what I'd read - Spence is the only person who can confirm/deny.

However, I honestly don't believe that there was enough in Spence's comment to categorize it as rhetoric - that is, persuasive dialog designed to infer that all, or even that the majority of the reports are false. To me, it sits more as a simple opinion that some of the reports emerging have some probability of being suspect - which I think is fair comment.

Some of the posts in the thread probably do qualify as rhetoric (in terms of black & white thinking that one side is always right and the other always wrong), but some of your responses seemed to follow their own rhetoric - that any suggestion that some reports could be false equals an assertion that all reports are false. That's the point I was trying to make & I apologize if I failed to make that clear.

 

 

 

Edited by limey
clarification
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slaytonf said:

Even if it were a perfect world, where violators could not take advantage of their place in a hierarchy, or society, where the police and justice systems were not indifferent, uncaring, reluctant, or even in league with the violators (as was, and may still often the case), if cases do come to trial, the victim is exposed to the attacks of defense council, open to character assassination, and forced to relive a traumatic, horrifying event in excruciating detail, while the accused is protected from similar exposure.  

You want to convict men of "abuse" without allowing them to defend themselves?

Well, that kind of system is fast manifesting up here in Canada and here's some advice - don't **** off your wife or any other woman you meet, whatever you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, slaytonf said:

I apologize for not responding sooner:

Please pay me the courtesy of assuming my comments are not the result of unthinking, or knee-jerk reactions, but are well-thought and reasoned.  I characterized Spence's comments the way I did because they are rhetoric designed to discourage people from reporting abuses.  My purpose is to raise people's awareness of how social and cultural biases condition people's reactions.  His assumption that the sheer number of accusers must by definition delegitimize them, and his further disparagement of their character by ascribing them monetary motives without the slightest evidence, is exactly the standard response designed to defend the status quo.  The principle of innocence before proven guilt is used in these instances not as a means of pursuing justice, but of trying, convicting and condemning the victim, and forestalling justice.  Even if it were a perfect world, where violators could not take advantage of their place in a hierarchy, or society, where the police and justice systems were not indifferent, uncaring, reluctant, or even in league with the violators (as was, and may still often the case), if cases do come to trial, the victim is exposed to the attacks of defense council, open to character assassination, and forced to relive a traumatic, horrifying event in excruciating detail, while the accused is protected from similar exposure.  

The point here is that when an accusation is 'he said \ she said' with no eye witnesses and no physical evidence (say of assault but often that there was even physical contact),    NO ONE knows what percentage of the accusations are legit or NOT.

Of course there are social and cultural biases,  and I'm sure your aware that you have them (as well as people like Gloria Allred).   

Note that in many Islamic countries this type of 'who did what' is taken care of by restricting the movement of women.   E.g. they must be escorted by a male family member.     

Anyhow,  since we are NOT going to do what Islamic countries do,  what can be done?    The Obama admin did make major changes with regards to college sexual assaults (basically guilty without need for evidence)  but some of these were found to be unconstitutional and even the ACLU has filed suit again them (and the ACLU isn't some pro-men-rights group). 

  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2017 at 5:43 PM, Vautrin said:

Yep. Sorry, father knows best ain't coming back. Neither is the rest

of the 1950s. Bummer man. :(

Father Knows Best may not be coming back, but I see one particular throwback here to Neanderthal days so don't unbar the door yet, Vautrin. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's who I think it is, I consider the comparison quite a compliment, DB.

And as usual, yes you are right about all Nazi issues and anything else in the world.

Can I also say how entertaining I find your posts.

By the way, your incipient memory losses seem to be increasing since you must have forgotten you posted this remark below earlier in November of 2017:

 

darkblue

  • child of vision
  •  
  • darkblue
  • Members
  •  
  • 15,544 posts
  On 11/9/2017 at 11:15 AM, papyrusbeetle said:

Did we just wake up in Nazi Germany? KEVIN SPACEY blacklisted!!!!!

No.

Nazi America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GordonCole said:

If that's who I think it is, I consider the comparison quite a compliment, DB.

And as usual, yes you are right.

Can I also say how entertaining I find your posts.

No need for my permission.

Live free or die.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2017 at 1:18 PM, darkblue said:

Because women are helpless children? Yeah, sure. Just not too helpless to stop their manipulating hundreds of millions of cucks into swallowing their bull**** feminist claptrap.

*****-whipped simps.

I'm not one to pray usually, but I pray you never change, DB! Now don't you let them send you to Anger Management classes or anything, as I would so miss your sophisticated raconteur qualities. I haven't enjoyed myself this much reading such intellectually stimulating posts by you, since I met Professor Irwin Corey once on the train.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...