fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3117 ]

[ SECRET POST #3117 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3117 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02. http://i.imgur.com/j8N0B0a.gif
[linked for gif, OP's request]

__________________________________________________

03. http://i.imgur.com/k16VpGi.gif
[same as above]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Dark Tower]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

[Ring of Honor Final Battle 2010, Steen vs Generico]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Fallen London]

__________________________________________________

12. [SPOILERS for Orphan Black]

__________________________________________________

13. [SPOILERS for Welcome to Night Vale]

__________________________________________________

14. [SPOILERS for 999 and Virtue's Last Reward]

__________________________________________________

15. [SPOILERS for Hannibal]

__________________________________________________

16. [WARNING for incest]

[The Grifters]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #445.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

There was, with respect, a plethora of evidence, and these allegations had been in the public sphere for years before people started taking them seriously.

It's difficult for me to see what other evidence you would need to wait for.

Evidence that wasn't just accusations. Accusations ain't evidence, especially against a celebrity.

At no point do they become evidence? Even with corroborating evidence and multiple accounts? Even when there's a strong case to be made that, for various familiar reasons, this is a case where the justice system has fallen down and failed?

The accounts only corroborate if they aren't independent. Its clear that a lot of them were just from the usual fifteen minutes of fame candidates and were only echoing things others had said. There will be a lotta books and made for tv movies cashing in on the Cosby story in the next few years. There is the motive to lie. The only solid piece of evidence was from Cosby hisself, and that is when they started getting some cedibility. Before that it was just beatdown the black man, again.

I'm sorry to say but not every criticism of a black person is founded on racism.

But very many of them are, and the ones that are not are coopted by racists. That is why the evidence against a black person, especially in the court of public opinion, has to be iron clad. And that is real iron clad, not tumblr version of iron clad. Before they unsealed those old court proceedings, it wasn't even close.

No, it was never about beating down the black man. Cosby got away with what he did for YEARS because he was rich and powerful. The women he took advantage of were not in the position of power he was.

The fact that the public only recently started to take this seriously is proof of how much power he held and for so long.

Let's also not forget that it was Hannibal Buress, a black male comedian, who brought this all up and caused the recent news cycle about it.

Many women had spoken about this even before Hannibal Buress, but it wasn't until he spoke about it that the public took it seriously.

The Cosby case has more to do with sexism and rape culture then racism, so please stop with the excuses to not believe the victims.

Actually, evidence is always evidence. Evidence is something which is evident. Even in a legal context evidence can be a whole range of things. A single persons testimony is evidence. 40 people's corroborating stories are fucking compelling evidence

However, evidence does not necessarily have value. Evidence is not necessarily the same a proof, which I think is what you're trying to say. Evidence needs to be scrutinized. Evidence needs to be weighed and argued against for its value as proof of a fact to be determined. In the legal system we have the chance to do that. In the court of public opinion (in which we are encouraged not to hear or present arguments for fear of being a misogynist, a rape apologist, a victim blamer, or a bad person who should feel bad and WILL be dog-piled for it) we have no chance to do that. We have some or a lot of evidence, and we are told "this is all the evidence you should need, stop questioning it and accept it as proof" and in that just isn't right to me.

Evidence does not become proof until it is scrutinized and argued against and weighed against all conceivable circumstances. This is why we have an adversarial legal system, so that all evidence can be presented, weighed, argues can scrutinized and the truth (or as close as can be) can be found. The evidence presented by the media does not count as proof, not even under an inquisitorial standard, because there is no obligation (or in my opinion reason to trust that there will be an attempt) to present everything.

Do I believe Cosby is guilty? Oh fuck yes, I can't imagine a single thing that would make any defence tenable, but neither my nor the public at large's imagination should be used to determine guilt. That is a dangerous and frankly amoral president to start. My belief in his guilt does not make the system that lead me to this belief acceptable.

weighed, argueD AND scrutinized and the truth

But we are not talking about a legal process or a legal punishment here. What we're talking about here is precisely the standards which are necessary to justify a private citizen, as a private citizen, in the belief that Cosby is guilty. I don't believe that anyone's made a claim to anything more - I certainly don't think I have.

In other words, I would say the most anyone's trying to claim is that it's okay to do precisely what you do in this post - conclude that Cosby is probably guilty.

Yes, that is OK. But what people are doing is Concluding that he is guilty, and then judging the people who do not reach that conclusion.

SA

I would also say that the adversarial legal system serves many masters besides the strict determination of fact. And I don't just mean that it is sometimes faulty or biased - even in ideal circumstances, guilt in a legal sense is categorically distinct from moral fault. It just is.

So that is the problem, to me, with relying entirely on legal processes. They just don't function in the way that you want me to.

I mean, if your intent is that we can't figure out what Cosby did or did not do outside of a court of law - well, Cosby will never face any legal punishment for any of these things. He's not going to face criminal charges, any civil suits will probably be settled or already have been.

So are we just supposed to throw up our hands and say that we have no way of determining what happened and it's just a mystery, despite all the evidence which we do possess? That seems like a ridiculous conclusion to me and patently wrong on its face.

Oh, the legal system is by no means perfect nor is it free from abuse. It is however severely regulated and controlled in a way that offers the maximum available benefit to all parties. This is not always perfect, but it is a damnsight more reliable than the way we have been presented the evidence outside of the legal system.

For example, in an inquisitorial system which the media is the closest approximation to, the people rendering the judgements have by necessity have to have first hand experience of the evidence. The speak to everyone personally, they gather all the facts available. Now what we have is the media presenting the facts it wants to. How many of his accusers have you spoken to personally to determine the validity of their accounts? I would suspect none. You have a third party report, and if you can honestly say you don't believe news sources edit things to make them more salacious, then I deeply envy your outlook.

I am not saying this is what the situation is, but I am saying there is a better system that can be used to render judgement, and we have this system to cut the abuse to a minimum. There is a reason why jurors are made to not consume news media in a high profile case, because it is not unbiased and they need to be kept as open to the possibility of innocent or guilt as possible.

My main intent is not to comment on Cosbys situation specifically at all. My intent (and this might be the main thing I'm trying to say, so please feel free to disregard the waffle above) is to point out that there is valid room for a reasonable person to want to withold judgement inspite of the mountain of evidence presented by a relatively unregulated system that has no obligation or design to see the evidence turned in to proof of anything.

Yes, we can't find a legal punishment for cosby, yes, you should feel free to take the evidence as it is presented however you want (Including judging him as guilty yourself and taking whatever steps you feel necessary), but a person who is unwilling to take that evidence as proof is also entitled to do the same, and a person should not be judged for expecting or needing a higher standard of scrutiny than the media will provide.

So are we just supposed to throw up our hands and say that we have no way of determining what happened and it's just a mystery

You are supposed to do whatever you see fit to do with the evidence, but it would be very good of you, and everyone else, to not judge harshly the people who do not share your conviction, because as I hope I have demonstrated, there is room (Far too much room) to doubt the evidence when presented by something like the news compared to the way the legal system demands it be presented.

I believe Cosby is guilty as sin, but I do not think it is a good idea to expect and encourage people to put their faith so completely in the most fallible of judicial systems: The media and the court of public opinion.

SA

My GF Just read this for me to make sure I am being clear and has advised me that she would be judging me hard if I though Cosby was innocent.

Please let me be clear. I am not arguing for the people who believe in his innocence. The only evidence that has been presented is evidence to his guilt, anyone ignoring that, and going against it is... Being obtuse. is infering innocence from nothing. they are, in my opinion, wrong.

I am arguing for the people who are unwilling to render judgement.

I agree that the evidence has to be taken on the terms in which it is presented, with an awareness of how compelling it is given its source, etc etc etc. And I agree in principle that the appropriate thing to do is to use your reason to come to some conclusion, and that "We don't have enough evidence to figure out either way" is a valid conclusion.

At the same time, it's not so much that I judge anyone who refuses to come to a conclusion; it's just that I strongly feel the evidence presented as presented is more than sufficient to allow a reasonable person to reach a conclusion, and I have difficulty following the train of logic which would lead someone to come to this conclusion in this specific case. I feel strongly that anyone reaching that conclusion is, in fact, wrong. And I think that the broad points of principle about the legal system etc, while valid in and of themselves, are not relevant to the specific point in this case.

In other words, I think that Cosby did it, and I think that this is a bad example case for talking about those principles and ideas.

Ok, So Where you say sufficient to allow a reasonable person to reach a conclusion I agree. I'm not going to say "No-one is trying to disallow your conclusion" because someone is always trying to disallow your conclusion regardless of the conclusion. I will point out that none of the people I have seen being dog piled or insulted have seemed to be saying that.

Where you say sufficient to allow a reasonable person to reach a conclusion I would say "insufficient to compel a reasonable person to reach a conclusion".

In this specific case we have a set of media stories and reports and a social uproar, and in so many cases before this has been enough to ruin innocent people's lives, so I can absolutely understand why someone would need more to be certain enough to add to the number of people attacking someone.

Look at the famous Go-to example of the Dukes Lacrosse team. There was evidence. It had not been properly converted in to proof, it was reported, and lives were ruined. The evidence seems much more solid to me in this case, but it probably seemed pretty fucking solid back in the day. and it will always seem solid in the future, because the news does not make it's money on "Maybe this maybe that" it makes it's money on definitive solid facts presented in the most balls out way it can get away with.

Like I say I'm convinced already, but I can not abide the judging of people who need to question deeper than I do.

I think that Cosby did it, and I think that this is a bad example case for talking about those principles and ideas

And I think that by necessity ideals and principals need to be applied to all cases, even cases that seem like an inconvenient case.

As I pointed out yesterday, the Duke case was at its base a situation of prosecutorial misconduct, not a situation where a media rush to judgment was fundamentally at fault.

I don't know that the evidence would compel a reasonable person to reach that conclusion. But it does approach that point for me, to be honest, where it becomes difficult to see what train of logic would lead a reasonable person to seriously question it - besides a general refusal on principle to reach conclusions on cases, which I think is silly for reasons already cited.

And I think that by necessity ideals and principals need to be applied to all cases, even cases that seem like an inconvenient case.

I should probably rephrase my point - it's not that the principles and ideals don't apply here, that this is somehow inconvenient or exceptional. Rather I think this is a case where they're not especially relevant because I don't think many of the grey areas, reasonable doubts, etc just don't exist in this case. It's not that we should set aside our morals in this case; it's just that, because of those specific details of this instance, the moral principles do not lead clearly and directly to action in a way that they otherwise might.

The problem with the Dukes case was that the evidence had not been vetted of confirmed before the media spread the guilty angle. The media pushing the guilty idea without any kind of process of validation IS at fault for the bulk of the damage that was done. It was not the start of the problem, but it is what made the situation as bad as it was.

I don't see how it's 'difficult' to see the train of thought. "He's probably guilty based on what I've seen, but I can't trust that what I have seen is everything, or that what I have seen was presented in an honest or unbiased way, so I will not add to the people attacking him, even if they are right to do so." Does this still seem silly to you? Because I think a person has every right to err on the side of caution, and I would consider that to be perfectly reasonable.

I don't think many of the grey areas, reasonable doubts, etc just don't exist in this case.

How can you know that? You can believe that with all conviction, and you can be right, but we have a legal system specifically to explore all of these fully. "I don't believe possible defence could be valid, I don't need any more evidence" is fine for you, but it must not be the case that everyone has believe that.

Also the start I don't think is perfectly acceptable to me. I will not judge you for not needing more, my problem is that people have, have, have to be allowed to think differently for there to be any real justice in any system. If people had been encourage, or at least not actively discourage from from this, the Dukes case would not have done so much damage.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3117 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject