Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 malamis wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
No one goes around saying "witch trials are dead" or "slavery is dead" because such a statement is accepted as a basic truth.

Except in the latter case it really isn't. I'll say nothing of The Deep South for the former case.

We both know I was referring to completely different things than you referenced here.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why is it that we're defending Takei but not the other people in this thread?

1 accuser vs multiple accusers who's stories match and acquaintances of the accused saying, "ya he did it".

I'm not defending takei, I'm just saying it can never be known for sure what happened, or if anything actually happened.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why is it that we're defending Takei but not the other people in this thread?

I was wondering the same thing myself.

Good thing there's posts in the thread from several people saying their reasons why, so you don't need to wonder.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

Spoiler:

nfe wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists. If someone said "witch trials are a problem in society" the response would be of confusion over why someone would have such a silly viewpoint. It's like when when people say "racism is dead" or "sexism is dead" if it were actually dead no one would make that statement. No one goes around saying "witch trials are dead" or "slavery is dead" because such a statement is accepted as a basic truth.

That doesn't really follow, just because you have to say that creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution doesn't make creationism a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution

You're presenting an example that supports the argument you're challenging. People only say 'creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution' because there is a significant group of people argue otherwise. The expression only exists because the problem exists.

You misunderstood the argument, NinthMusketeer argued that if people felt a need to deny something, that thing actually exists or at least a strong confirmation of it existing, not just that people that argue for it exists.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists.

So my point was that doesn't make sense and I used the example of denying creationism as legitimate science, in NinthMusketeers world that would be a strong confirmation that creationism was actually a legitimate science

Apples to oranges. Scientific concepts are not social values or practices.

Eddie Braganza, one of the editors at DC Comics has been fired.

He has been alleged to have been harassing female staff for, well, years.

Again, this seems to have been an 'open secret' in the industry and has been a source of several women leaving DC over the years. And others I know of who have refused to work with DC Comics as a result of this.


I guess this all feeds back to the whole 'rape culture' discussion. You've got this guy, barely any consumers and readers of comic books has probably heard of and he's been protected for years by a company, who must have been fine losing out on dozens of talented female writers, artists and so on. Even dropping all moral and ethical points from the discussion, there's absolutely no rationality to it.

I don't think we are defending Takei so much as pointing out the flaws in the potential case against him.

1. It's one man's word against another's.
2. It happened 40 years ago.
3. Both were supposedly seriously drunk.
4. There is no pattern of accusations against Takei.
5. Takei has given a full and frank account of his version of events.
6. Etc. etc.

But most importantly of course he is a well-known left-winger and supporter of the Demcrats, much like Weinberger, whom the left-wing media and populace are givng an equally easy ride.

Unlike the Republican Moore, whose party has rightly condemned for his apparent paedophilia.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
But most importantly of course he is a well-known left-winger and supporter of the Demcrats, much like Weinberger, whom the left-wing media and populace are givng an equally easy ride.

Unlike the Republican Moore, whose party has rightly condemned for his apparent paedophilia.

Another accuser for Roy Moore came forward today.

Mr. Moore reached over and began groping me, putting his hands on my breasts. I tried to open my car door to leave, but he reached over and locked it so I could not get out. I tried fighting him off, while yelling at him to stop, but instead of stopping he began squeezing my neck attempting to force my head onto his crotch. I continued to struggle. I was determined that I was not going to allow him to force me to have sex with him. I was terrified. He was also trying to pull my shirt off. I thought that he was going to rape me. I was twisting and struggling and begging him to stop. I had tears running down my face.

At some point he gave up. He then looked at me and said, "You are a child. I am the District Attorney of Etowah County. If you tell anyone about this, no one will believe you." He finally allowed me to open the car door and I either fell out or he pushed me out. I was on the ground as he pulled out of the parking area behind the restaurant. The passenger door was open as he burned rubber pulling away leaving me laying there on the cold concrete in the dark.

It's going to be hard to claim he didn't know this woman, since he signed her high school yearbook.

Ouze beat me to it. This one is #5 I think. I see Allred got her publicity seeking hooks in first, thats a negative.

Moral of the story, never trust someone wearing a cowboy hat unless they are from Texas, the Southwest, or Norte Mexico.*



*Kind of takes the old "all hat and no cattle" phrase to a completely different place.

It's going to be hard to claim he didn't know this woman, since he signed her high school yearbook.

Am I the only one who finds that creepy as sin?

He also wears a leather waistcoat.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
He also wears a leather waistcoat.

And waives a pistol around. To those who CC and are serious about it, thats what you would call a douche bag move (and illegal at least in Texas). Waive a pistol at me and its Bill Drill time.

But we should not hold this against Alabama, they have a really cool battleship that I almost fell off of.

 Frazzled wrote:
Ouze beat me to it. This one is #5 I think. I see Allred got her publicity seeking hooks in first, thats a negative.

Moral of the story, never trust someone wearing a cowboy hat unless they are from Texas, the Southwest, or Norte Mexico.*



*Kind of takes the old "all hat and no cattle" phrase to a completely different place.

It's going to be hard to claim he didn't know this woman, since he signed her high school yearbook.

Am I the only one who finds that creepy as sin?

Paedophiles LOVE to do that kind of things. They want to make the child feel helpless, and they always try to go as far as they can without the adults around them, and the childs they are molesting, take notice about anything. We as a society too, always make mental excuses to that kind of "creepy" behaviour, because, who wants to believe that the guy/woman is a paedophile?
They are like Pennywise from "IT". They make adults look at the other way, meanwhile they are torturing psichologically the childs they are abusing.

Bush Snr is back in the news: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41974116
"George Bush Snr 'groped 16-year-old girl' during 2003 photo op"

A woman has said she was 16 when former US President George HW Bush groped her buttocks as she posed for a photo with him and her mother.
Rosyln Corrigan is the sixth woman to accuse Mr Bush of inappropriately touching her in similar circumstances.
She told Time Magazine she met Mr Bush at a 2003 meeting of CIA officers in Texas, where her father worked.
"My initial reaction was absolute horror," she said about the incident. "I was really, really confused."
"I was a child," Ms Corrigan added.

I'm not sure it's paedophilia as such.

It seems to me that there's a certain proportion of men who seemingly can't deal with mature women on a level of equality, so they go to the young girls instead.

I mean, the girls that Moore seems to have preyed on -- allegedly -- are "nubile" in the technical sense that they have sexually mature bodies. He isn't interested -- allegedly -- in actual children. He is interested in girls who have a developed body but not a developed mental and social situation that would help them fend off his advances. Allegedly.

I imagine Genghis Connie would simply have shot the fether and good riddance. One time I approve the US gun culture.

It's amazing how far we've come. There was some case in the 30s about one US politician accusing another one of fething pigs, to make him deny. Now we've got people accusing a politician of fething children and his friends aren't denying it, they are finding excuses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, not excuses really, but reasons why it's OK.

I'm not saying what you have said isn't part of this specific problem, Kilkrazy. But I was talking about paedophilia in a more generic sense.

The past year in Spain we had a case that become mainstream when a guy that for years had been taking photos, profesionally, for children, for private schools, sport clubs, etc... was exposed as a paedophile. After knowing that, you could go to his Tweeter and saw all the photos of him with little children in his house (The house of the paedophile) with texts like:
"Taking pictures for the new yearbook!" or "Maria with the new school uniform!". And it was creepy as f****.
They love to hide in plain sight. Paedophiles are some of the most mentally disturbed individuals that exist.

This was the guy. Just searching for the photos make me sick :


So the next time you see someone acting as a creep with children, like the video I pass before of some USA politician, don't look at the other say or make excuses. The most probable thing is that he is a monster in "disguise"

 Frazzled wrote:
Am I the only one who finds that creepy as sin?

What, you never signed a high school girls yearbook calling her beautiful when you were in your thirties?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why is it that we're defending Takei but not the other people in this thread?

Honestly probably because Takei is kind of awesome, while others in this thread are people who were already thought/known to be kind of iffy on the subject. So people don't want to believe Takei did it, and maybe he didn't idk, but I think one of the hallmarks of why this problem persists is the unwillingness to believe that figures we admire could have done something wrong. Remember Lance Armstrong? How many years did literally nearly everyone deny that he could have been cheating before it was finally accepted?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm not sure it's paedophilia as such.

It seems to me that there's a certain proportion of men who seemingly can't deal with mature women on a level of equality, so they go to the young girls instead.

I mean, the girls that Moore seems to have preyed on -- allegedly -- are "nubile" in the technical sense that they have sexually mature bodies. He isn't interested -- allegedly -- in actual children. He is interested in girls who have a developed body but not a developed mental and social situation that would help them fend off his advances. Allegedly.

I imagine Genghis Connie would simply have shot the fether and good riddance. One time I approve the US gun culture.

It's amazing how far we've come. There was some case in the 30s about one US politician accusing another one of fething pigs, to make him deny. Now we've got people accusing a politician of fething children and his friends aren't denying it, they are finding excuses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, not excuses really, but reasons why it's OK.

They have run into them, they call 'em "creepers." Yes she has a can of mace the size of a garbage can. When legally able she will take official possession of her Beretta attitude adjuster.

 Frazzled wrote:
Ouze beat me to it. This one is #5 I think. I see Allred got her publicity seeking hooks in first, thats a negative.

Moral of the story, never trust someone wearing a cowboy hat unless they are from Texas, the Southwest, or Norte Mexico.*



*Kind of takes the old "all hat and no cattle" phrase to a completely different place.

It's going to be hard to claim he didn't know this woman, since he signed her high school yearbook.

Am I the only one who finds that creepy as sin?

I don't know if I agree with that moral. I was living in Texas when Clayton Williams was comparing rape to rain.. .

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why is it that we're defending Takei but not the other people in this thread?

Because people are afraid of being accused of being homophobic.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why is it that we're defending Takei but not the other people in this thread?

Because people are afraid of being accused of being homophobic.

Just like all the people defending Kevin Spacey

Relapse wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Ouze beat me to it. This one is #5 I think. I see Allred got her publicity seeking hooks in first, thats a negative.

Moral of the story, never trust someone wearing a cowboy hat unless they are from Texas, the Southwest, or Norte Mexico.*



*Kind of takes the old "all hat and no cattle" phrase to a completely different place.

It's going to be hard to claim he didn't know this woman, since he signed her high school yearbook.

Am I the only one who finds that creepy as sin?

I don't know if I agree with that moral. I was living in Texas when Clayton Williams was comparing rape to rain.. .

And he lost.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why is it that we're defending Takei but not the other people in this thread?

Because people are afraid of being accused of being homophobic.

People are afraid of being accused of a negative character trait... on the internet... And this is influencing their posting behavior...

Have we been visiting different internets?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think we are defending Takei so much as pointing out the flaws in the potential case against him.

1. It's one man's word against another's.
2. It happened 40 years ago.
3. Both were supposedly seriously drunk.
4. There is no pattern of accusations against Takei.
5. Takei has given a full and frank account of his version of events.
6. Etc. etc.

But most importantly of course he is a well-known left-winger and supporter of the Demcrats, much like Weinberger, whom the left-wing media and populace are givng an equally easy ride.

Unlike the Republican Moore, whose party has rightly condemned for his apparent paedophilia.

The 'lefties' in Hollywood by and large stood by Polanski for decades. Pretending like it's a stark dividing line between political parties is simply playing into the partisan divide.

Just today I was reading an article about the change of how the world reacted in the case of Polanski and now:

https://smoda.elpais.com/moda/2017-2009-no-cuando-normal-apoyar-los-depredadores-sexuales/

I don't recall how Polanski was affiliated with the Democratic Party...

 Compel wrote:
Again, this seems to have been an 'open secret' in the industry and has been a source of several women leaving DC over the years. And others I know of who have refused to work with DC Comics as a result of this.

I guess this all feeds back to the whole 'rape culture' discussion. You've got this guy, barely any consumers and readers of comic books has probably heard of and he's been protected for years by a company, who must have been fine losing out on dozens of talented female writers, artists and so on. Even dropping all moral and ethical points from the discussion, there's absolutely no rationality to it.

The one I've been thinking about for a while is Leon Wieseltier, who was the culture editor at New Republic. I don't know if this fits with the guy at DC, but it could explain why he was able to do what he did, despite having little actual power through his own work.

After the accusations against Wieseltier, Vanity Fair re-released their once suppressed piece on him from back in the mid-90s. There was nothing in there about sex crimes, but it was a pretty harsh take down on Weinstein in its own way. Among other stuff, a massive cocaine habit and a career that produced not one original work, it showed Wieseltier as a man who maintained a ruthless powerbase inside New Republic - he forced out several more senior staff at New Republic and built a culture where people were afraid to challenge him on even the most minor things.

It isn't true in every case, but I think we're missing a big part of the story if we only look at the women who became sexual victims. That's obviously the worst of the issue, but that isn't the only power dynamic at play. Often there's a greater pattern of bullying that forces many people to submit or distance themselves, and that isolates the women. Men like this can corrupt whole organisations.

sirlynchmob wrote:
It is entirely possible he wouldn't remember. As he was drunk himself he could be prone to blackouts. I've seen that happen to many people. Along with that though the victim being so drunk could have dreamt the incident and his drunk mind thought it was real.

Which is why the he/she said incidents are so hard to get to the truth of it all.

I might be wrong, but I don't believe Brunton ever suggested Takei was drunk. Although it is possible, Brunton might not have noticed Takei was also drunk, or might have forgotten that part of the story over the years.

I agree it is very hard to reach any kind of satisfactory conclusion about this one.

and speaking to the culture, apparently 37% of "you know who" are more willing to back moore because of the assaults. His actions also were common knowledge in his circles.

Yep. And now there's chants of 'nut or slut' attacking the women who spoke out.

One positive is Mitch McConnell, senate majority leader, saying Moore should step aside, and saying "I believe the women".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why is it that we're defending Takei but not the other people in this thread?

Because there has only been one accusation against Takei. That is critical, because one person can make a story up, or be part of a horrible misunderstanding. But when three or four or more people all detail very similar experiences with the same person, all independent of each other, its way beyond the bounds of plausibility that they all made up extremely similar stories.

And note I'm inclined to believe Brunton and not Takei. But I understand why Takei's case is a lot more defensible than any of the others so far accused.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Yes, I don't think you would just forget something like this. And at the same time, why the hell would someone make up something like this.

Yeah, which I think means it is likely that someone was lying. I think it's pretty much a guess at this point as to who is lying, though I lean towards Takei lying about something he is quite ashamed of. But it's a guess.

But the part I wanted to adres was the drinks thing. They had dinner so it shouldn't have been an empty stomach and Brunton said this:

It was his second drink at Takei's place. It's possible they had already had drinks before. It would be weird if they hadn't. As to the meal - good pick up, I thought they'd been at a bar, but I think that was me getting confused with the details of previous times they met. As a dodge... it was the '80s and dinner was a huge plate with like two peas and a prawn on it?

But yeah, this is just speculation, but I think it is more believable that Brunton drank too much and it caught up with him, than Takei drugged him. Although Brunton's description, of being black out drunk, then waking up and being sober enough to leave and drive home doesn't sound like any drinking experience I've had, witnessed or been told about, so who knows.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's amazing how far we've come. There was some case in the 30s about one US politician accusing another one of fething pigs, to make him deny. Now we've got people accusing a politician of fething children and his friends aren't denying it, they are finding excuses.

The one and only LBJ. I don't know if the story has ever been confirmed, but it's told that he wanted to run a smear against a primary opponent in one of his early elections, and when told the claim wasn't true, LBJ said "I know it isn't true, but I want him to have to deny it." It's pretty close to the perfect example of mudslinging, the story doesn't have to be true, it doesn't have to be believed, it doesn't even have to be believable. It can do harm just by having your opponent associated with the charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
The 'lefties' in Hollywood by and large stood by Polanski for decades. Pretending like it's a stark dividing line between political parties is simply playing into the partisan divide.

I think conservatives have some strange idea that George Clooney rocks up at DNC meetings and says he can get Katy Perry to sing at the convention, but only if 'free Polanski' is added to the party platform. Or the Railworkers Union wants to push for higher wages, but will not act until they can get Barbara Streisand's approval.

The 'lefties' in Hollywood are just a bunch of people who are on the left of politics, the only difference between them and any random blogger is a few more people pay attention when a celebrity says they don't like the president. The various causes and values of 'the left' are not undermined because one or a few celebrities are shown to be hypocrites, any more than the various causes of the right would be undermined if it was revealed than some right wing blogger also defended Polanski.

What's happened with Moore has been entirely different. There we've seen a coordinated defense among many established elements of the right wing, with FOX News suddenly starting a new argument that 'most accusers' are liars, in direct contradiction to how they treated previous accusations. At the same time Breitbart is running a defense calling to reject the claims of the article entirely because it came from WaPo, which just happens to be the exact same defense Moore himself has attempted. The majority of senators have gone with an 'if true' statement, pretending they just can't tell if 5 women coming up with similar stories independant of each other just might be telling the truth*. In response to this, a very large majority of Republicans in Alabama are still committed to voting for Moore, with 37% saying that are more likely to vote for him after the allegation. It is impossible to dismiss this as not being part of the right wing as a whole, it covers all its elements, its elected leaders, its media and its voters. It is what the right wing is.


*Thankfully, some senators have now spoken out saying the believe the women, including Mitch McConnell.

Several more have now distanced themselves from candidate / sexual predator Moore, just as a local newspaper is reporting security at a local mall used to keep an eye on Roy Moore as he was known to try and pick up 14-16 year old girls.

Speculation is that if he wins the election, the senate may refuse to seat him under the "unfit" clause that I'm not going to look up right now, and replace him with... Jeff Sessions, which is quite the case of turning lemons into lemonade.

 Ouze wrote:
Several more have now distanced themselves from candidate / sexual predator Moore, just as a local newspaper is reporting security at a local mall used to keep an eye on Roy Moore as he was known to try and pick up 14-16 year old girls.

Speculation is that if he wins the election, the senate may refuse to seat him under the "unfit" clause that I'm not going to look up right now, and replace him with... Jeff Sessions, which is quite the case of turning lemons into lemonade.

That is political genius. Republicans can take a stand against Moore and still get to keep their two vote lead in the senate. Alabamans can be told not to worry about Moore being a predator, because a vote for Moore will actually mean getting Sessions back. And Trump gets to move Sessions out of the AG role, and install someone who'll be more... 'active'... in handling Mueller's investigation.

If that comes to pass it will be one of the most skillful political maneuvers I've ever seen. Cynical to the core as well, of course.

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Several more have now distanced themselves from candidate / sexual predator Moore, just as a local newspaper is reporting security at a local mall used to keep an eye on Roy Moore as he was known to try and pick up 14-16 year old girls.

Speculation is that if he wins the election, the senate may refuse to seat him under the "unfit" clause that I'm not going to look up right now, and replace him with... Jeff Sessions, which is quite the case of turning lemons into lemonade.

That is political genius. Republicans can take a stand against Moore and still get to keep their two vote lead in the senate. Alabamans can be told not to worry about Moore being a predator, because a vote for Moore will actually mean getting Sessions back. And Trump gets to move Sessions out of the AG role, and install someone who'll be more... 'active'... in handling Mueller's investigation.

If that comes to pass it will be one of the most skillful political maneuvers I've ever seen. Cynical to the core as well, of course.

That's so genius, it'll never happen.

I believe it takes a super majority of the senate to remove a "seated" Senator.