Hey buddy, guess what? George has now responded to his comments on the Howard Stern show, and he says you are wrong. He did NOT say his comments were in relation to the complex societal issues you describe. Instead, he said his comments were just him telling dirty jokes in the role of a bad grandpa, and that in retrospect he shouldn't have joked about such a serious issue.
Maybe he is telling the truth, maybe not. But I would believe him more if he actually said the things you did instead of brushing it all of as a joke. Your comments are at least thoughtful and make sense historically. He decided to just call the whole thing a joke.
What difference does it make? People made up their minds, they don't care, all they want is figurative blood.
Nobody questions how someone of such significant public standing as George Takei for the very topic he spoke about would casually out himself as a sex offender in a talk show, just like that. The man who coined "oh my" would try to make a jest about sexuality as he often did? Impossible, he gets on a mike and tells the world "Hey people, despite my ongoing fight for equality and self-determination guess what, I was a sex offender all along!" - yes, that must be it!
To those people it doesn't matter. People who already chose to call him "scumbag" or worse do not care, at all. I personally do think there is more truth to it than a joke but as I explained before, how far do you think he gets trying to put his words into context for a public who to large parts has no idea what he is talking about? People that have had such a sheltered life a dirty comment infuses them with ever burning rage.
The public has lost the ability to differentiate between actual sexual harassment or even assault and trivialities. They read allegations from actual victims exposing systemic sexism next to people carrying personal quarrels into the public on a stage provided to them by being unable to differentiate between the two. And that is not good. Whether Takei ever did overstep the line or even assaulted someone we don't know, but from what we know we can piece together that his talk being a "confession" makes no sense - if he was to "confess" in such a manner, why would he now change his mind, because he couldn't anticipate people would be upset? Come on. From what we know the issue surrounding Weinstein and Hollywood is serious whereas the situation revolving around Louis CK is a completely different animal. We mustn't lose the ability to look at these situations rationally instead of clouded by emotional rage. The latter, in other fields, is what caused a lot of the current global trouble our societies are facing in terms of populism creeping into the midsts of societies everywhere.
What do you call someone who pulls down the pants of someone who is passed out and starts feeling them up?
The guy says that Takei said 'okay' and stopped when told to (hint:The fact he stopped means something was happening... Something which is scuzzy and disgusting behaviour, which should not have been happening anyway!)
And Takei's response to all this? To say 'he doesn't remember'. Which was also Kevin Spacey's trick. So what're you going to do? Put your fingers in your ears because it's George Takei? People in the industry have been looking the other way with this kind of behaviour and entitlement for too long, and now, people are being called out and held to account for their behaviours. Hey, if nothing happened, and the guy's making it all up, then I hope he gets sued for slander and defemation of character. But if something did happen, as claimed, then I thought the doctrine now was to believe all allegations of assaults. Personal popularity should be no shield.
believe all is as bad as believe none. Both are rife with opportunities for the unscrupulous. In the public realm, a suit for defamation is almost as good as a signed confession of guilt, if the two parties are sufficiently unequal in terms of fame, resources, and influence.
you can thank our addiction to litigation for that, by the way.
Acceptance without context is another nice pit to fall into. the term 'Assault' has been expanded steadily over the last forty years, you can be charged with 'assault' now in some areas for giving someone a dirty look.
why? because it made them feel "Threatened".
likewise, behavours that in 1970 were 'flirting' are now criminalized-or can be criminalized, just by the plaintiff claiming they were unwanted. we're operating from a 21st century context here, with 21st century definitions, of conduct that had an entirely DIFFERENT definition in 1967 to 1985, and we're operating without supporting evidence.
Do people do bad things?? yes, they do, they always have.
but without the context, or supporting evidence, 'believe all' becomes 'license to witch-hunt'.
And that's why we have a legal system to determine guilt or innocence, and render a verdict accordingly.
Regardless of context, pulling down someone's pants in 1967 while they are passed out, was just as scuzzy and predatory as it is today. If Takei did that*, even if he stopped when asked,the fact he did it at all* is disgusting in itself.
That he claims to not remember, is not good enough. Like I said, if the guy is making it up, then I hope Takei sues him for defamation. If the guy is telling the truth, I hope Takei feels repurcussions.
"I don't know what to believe..." - Ambassador Nanclus
*If the allegation is true.
the problem is, when the Justice system isn't involved, and instead, we get the show-trial in the media and the media-driven witch hunt. If the offense is a criminal offense, it needs to be taken to criminal courts, not blathered in media circuses. One might suggest if it's not important enough to file charges with law enforcement, maybe it's not a charge with any legs? but people don't work that way. There's too much fun indulging in 'payback' or rolling someone through the dirt from a 'tell all' pseudo-confessional done to get attention or further a personal vendetta.
"Such is life..." - Ned Kelly
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
'... I'm a teller of stories I'm a singer of songs I am Albert Namatjira And I paint the ghostly gums I'm Clancy on his horse I'm Ned Kelly on the run I'm the one who waltzed Matilda...'
'Such is Life' has the same general meaning as 'Che Sera Sera':
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
> @mirrorchaos said: > A saying often comes up: one rule for the rich and another rule for the poor. There are injustices everywhere and for George Takei, he is at the end of his long successful life and he admits he did wrong, so long as what he said is true and it can be backed up, then ultimately it's a good thing for George to come out and admit it. > > It's better than hiding it behind a court room gag order like certain people in the UK are doing with injunctions to keep their sordid details secret, even from their other half especially when all it does is damage their profiles and lives irrepairably by not disclosing it. > > After that whole Weinstein debacle, a man who couldn't keep his hands to himself and using his position of power to such extremes to cage women until he got what he wanted. George Takei doesn't even come close to the level a serial monster like that man.
Nothing has been proven against Weinstein in a court of law and he denies anything unconsentual. Some of us still believe in due process.
> mirrorchaos said:
> A saying often comes up: one rule for the rich and another rule for the poor. There are injustices everywhere and for George Takei, he is at the end of his long successful life and he admits he did wrong, so long as what he said is true and it can be backed up, then ultimately it's a good thing for George to come out and admit it.
>
> It's better than hiding it behind a court room gag order like certain people in the UK are doing with injunctions to keep their sordid details secret, even from their other half especially when all it does is damage their profiles and lives irrepairably by not disclosing it.
>
> After that whole Weinstein debacle, a man who couldn't keep his hands to himself and using his position of power to such extremes to cage women until he got what he wanted. George Takei doesn't even come close to the level a serial monster like that man.
Nothing has been proven against Weinstein in a court of law and he denies anything unconsentual. Some of us still believe in due process.
Facts no longer matter in this world. All it takes is an accusation to ruin a person's life not hard evidence. After all, look at what happened with Kevin Spacey due to one interview. He could be completely absolved of all wrongdoing, but the damage has already been done.
> mirrorchaos said:
> A saying often comes up: one rule for the rich and another rule for the poor. There are injustices everywhere and for George Takei, he is at the end of his long successful life and he admits he did wrong, so long as what he said is true and it can be backed up, then ultimately it's a good thing for George to come out and admit it.
>
> It's better than hiding it behind a court room gag order like certain people in the UK are doing with injunctions to keep their sordid details secret, even from their other half especially when all it does is damage their profiles and lives irrepairably by not disclosing it.
>
> After that whole Weinstein debacle, a man who couldn't keep his hands to himself and using his position of power to such extremes to cage women until he got what he wanted. George Takei doesn't even come close to the level a serial monster like that man.
Nothing has been proven against Weinstein in a court of law and he denies anything unconsentual. Some of us still believe in due process.
Facts no longer matter in this world. All it takes is an accusation to ruin a person's life not hard evidence. After all, look at what happened with Kevin Spacey due to one interview. He could be completely absolved of all wrongdoing, but the damage has already been done.
People will always look for some reason to cast down and condemn though, and you can forget progressing beyond the blue-nosed puritanism of the past, because it just changes form and format. Takei's "offenses" happened in the sixties and seventies, under completely different social rules than exist today. the conduct of some of the philosophers of ancient greece and rome would, today, land someone in jail for hard time and a watch-list as a class-3 offender today. A hundred years ago, a white person dating a black person could get one of them hanged and the other publicly shamed for life, meanwhile we had major political figures who ran with both a wife, and a mistress-and it was socially expected, not just acceptable.
twenty years ago, a fifty-ish president was getting his **** polished in the oval office by a nineteen year old girl. Tell me there's no power-disparity there, but the same people condemning Spacey, Takei, etc. for Their alleged misconduct were vehemently defending 'their' president from exactly the same kind of condemnation.
so you need to wonder, are we socially progressing or are we socially regressing. That is, are people offended because they know more, or are people pretending offense because they think they should?
Do you think it is acceptable to remove the garments of a drunk/stoned/passed-out person? Yes or No.
Examples aside, that's what this comes down to...
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
> mirrorchaos said:
> A saying often comes up: one rule for the rich and another rule for the poor. There are injustices everywhere and for George Takei, he is at the end of his long successful life and he admits he did wrong, so long as what he said is true and it can be backed up, then ultimately it's a good thing for George to come out and admit it.
>
> It's better than hiding it behind a court room gag order like certain people in the UK are doing with injunctions to keep their sordid details secret, even from their other half especially when all it does is damage their profiles and lives irrepairably by not disclosing it.
>
> After that whole Weinstein debacle, a man who couldn't keep his hands to himself and using his position of power to such extremes to cage women until he got what he wanted. George Takei doesn't even come close to the level a serial monster like that man.
Nothing has been proven against Weinstein in a court of law and he denies anything unconsentual. Some of us still believe in due process.
Facts no longer matter in this world. All it takes is an accusation to ruin a person's life not hard evidence. After all, look at what happened with Kevin Spacey due to one interview. He could be completely absolved of all wrongdoing, but the damage has already been done.
People will always look for some reason to cast down and condemn though, and you can forget progressing beyond the blue-nosed puritanism of the past, because it just changes form and format. Takei's "offenses" happened in the sixties and seventies, under completely different social rules than exist today. the conduct of some of the philosophers of ancient greece and rome would, today, land someone in jail for hard time and a watch-list as a class-3 offender today. A hundred years ago, a white person dating a black person could get one of them hanged and the other publicly shamed for life, meanwhile we had major political figures who ran with both a wife, and a mistress-and it was socially expected, not just acceptable.
twenty years ago, a fifty-ish president was getting his **** polished in the oval office by a nineteen year old girl. Tell me there's no power-disparity there, but the same people condemning Spacey, Takei, etc. for Their alleged misconduct were vehemently defending 'their' president from exactly the same kind of condemnation.
so you need to wonder, are we socially progressing or are we socially regressing. That is, are people offended because they know more, or are people pretending offense because they think they should?
Do you think it is acceptable to remove the garments of a drunk/stoned/passed-out person? Yes or No.
Examples aside, that's what this comes down to...
ask in 1977, during the sexual revolution, vs. post-Aids 1987 and you'll get different answers, and that's a fact, jack. it gets MORE complicated if you ask that in 1967 or 1957, though the answer in 1957 would be the same as post-aids 1987.
point being, the morality you take for granted in 2017 isn't the morality that was in place in 1977, and if you're going to judge that stuff, you need to take into account what was and wasn't acceptable when it happened, not through the lens of 40 years of cultural and social change.
That's not the question I asked you.
And this is not 'new thinking'. Back in the 90's, a friend, while at college, dished out a beating to someone who disrobed and groped one of his female friends while she was passed out... The behaviour was thought of as scuzzy then, and it is thought of as scuzzy now, and I'd bet would be thought of as scuzzy in 1977... Now how that all applies to George Takei, my thoughts haven't changed since this all came to light in November.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
> mirrorchaos said:
> A saying often comes up: one rule for the rich and another rule for the poor. There are injustices everywhere and for George Takei, he is at the end of his long successful life and he admits he did wrong, so long as what he said is true and it can be backed up, then ultimately it's a good thing for George to come out and admit it.
>
> It's better than hiding it behind a court room gag order like certain people in the UK are doing with injunctions to keep their sordid details secret, even from their other half especially when all it does is damage their profiles and lives irrepairably by not disclosing it.
>
> After that whole Weinstein debacle, a man who couldn't keep his hands to himself and using his position of power to such extremes to cage women until he got what he wanted. George Takei doesn't even come close to the level a serial monster like that man.
Nothing has been proven against Weinstein in a court of law and he denies anything unconsentual. Some of us still believe in due process.
Facts no longer matter in this world. All it takes is an accusation to ruin a person's life not hard evidence. After all, look at what happened with Kevin Spacey due to one interview. He could be completely absolved of all wrongdoing, but the damage has already been done.
People will always look for some reason to cast down and condemn though, and you can forget progressing beyond the blue-nosed puritanism of the past, because it just changes form and format. Takei's "offenses" happened in the sixties and seventies, under completely different social rules than exist today. the conduct of some of the philosophers of ancient greece and rome would, today, land someone in jail for hard time and a watch-list as a class-3 offender today. A hundred years ago, a white person dating a black person could get one of them hanged and the other publicly shamed for life, meanwhile we had major political figures who ran with both a wife, and a mistress-and it was socially expected, not just acceptable.
twenty years ago, a fifty-ish president was getting his **** polished in the oval office by a nineteen year old girl. Tell me there's no power-disparity there, but the same people condemning Spacey, Takei, etc. for Their alleged misconduct were vehemently defending 'their' president from exactly the same kind of condemnation.
so you need to wonder, are we socially progressing or are we socially regressing. That is, are people offended because they know more, or are people pretending offense because they think they should?
Do you think it is acceptable to remove the garments of a drunk/stoned/passed-out person? Yes or No.
Examples aside, that's what this comes down to...
ask in 1977, during the sexual revolution, vs. post-Aids 1987 and you'll get different answers, and that's a fact, jack. it gets MORE complicated if you ask that in 1967 or 1957, though the answer in 1957 would be the same as post-aids 1987.
point being, the morality you take for granted in 2017 isn't the morality that was in place in 1977, and if you're going to judge that stuff, you need to take into account what was and wasn't acceptable when it happened, not through the lens of 40 years of cultural and social change.
That's not the question I asked you.
And this is not 'new thinking'. Back in the 90's, a friend, while at college, dished out a beating to someone who disrobed and groped one of his female friends while she was passed out... The behaviour was thought of as scuzzy then, and it is thought of as scuzzy now, and I'd bet would be thought of as scuzzy in 1977... Now how that all applies to George Takei, my thoughts haven't changed since this all came to light in November.
it's 'Scuzzy' vs. "impale them!! without a Trial!!!"
and for that, consider that we had eight years of a President who used young women who worked for him like a happy sock with his wife and daughter in the same building, and while there was a whole fooferaw, most of the people defending that president are the same ones calling for heads to roll now...for behaviours that are both less offensive, and less extensive.
was someone a skuzzy **** forty years ago? sure, does that make them one NOW??
Your friend was defending his friend, would he have done the same for a total stranger, of a different gender, based on hearsay or even an unsubstantiated accusation?
because that's what we're really talking about here. You don't know George Takei, you don't know the person accusing him, and you don't have evidence or information on the incident beyond some word of mouth and conclusions from third sources.
yet, you are judging and convicting in absentia based on rumours and what would've been 'racy stories' thirty years gone (or MORE).
put some perspective on this. I'll wager money my parents and your grandparents did ****, and accepted ****, you and I would be absolutely disgusted by today...but in the subculture they ran in, it was considered acceptable risks, if a little on the scummy side when they were twenty-somethings, the 'sexual revolution' and Disco were a real thing, and lines of propriety were severely blurred.
Which is why I clearly said, if the guy is lying for his Fifteen Minutes, I hope Takei sues him for defamation. If he's telling the truth, I hope Takei feels repurcussion, both legal, and professional. On a personal level (as personal as one can be with someone one does not know Personally IRL) I don't like George Takei, because I think he comes across as smug and sanctimonious. I wouldn't shed a tear for him if he was guilty and this was to destroy his career. But equally, I wouldn't stand to see someone (even someone I dislike) brought down by false allegations, which is why I said what I said in November, and repeated just now
On the subject of my friend, yes, I believe he would*
*but not on a mere hearsay rumor...
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
see, I"m kind of of a different view: File criminal charges or it didn't happen. Defamation suits don't force retractions people will believe, and the innuendo is enough to permanently smear someone, even someone innocent of wrongdoing, permanently.
To be fair, filing charges for victims is not always as easy as one hopes and even after opening up to people it's difficult and pressuring them to do so as friends can even make things worse. However I do tend to agree, if you are a victim and you open yourself up to other people but not once over the case of multiple decades bring this to the authorities the very least that one has to acknowledge is that it's impossible to make a case out of it. Add to that that just putting it up social media and not even then attempting to do anything (as in "I just wanted to say it's a bad person, I don't want them to go to court") doesn't make you very believable. That's different from a case where multiple, non affiliated persons step forward once a huge obstacle was overcome, see Weinstein, Cosby and Spacey - those cases are significantly different from what we have with Takei, the Louis CK thing is right in the middle.
A case a la Weinstein deserves public attention as it exposes systemic sexism and a culture of harassment - which more or less society knows exists but ignores. Takei's case, even if true, is not a case that demands public attention, it belongs in a court. A social media campaign does not substitute for it.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
There's a reason why statute of limitations exist. One reason is to "encourage" people not to wait decades before reporting such things.
another reason very much related to this one is that human memory is notoriously unrelible when it comes to remembering things that happened decades ago, in the case of Takei the person (and IIRC it's still just 1 person) might even been harassed by an asian man back then but it still doesn't mean Takei did it even if the person thinks Takei did it, if the George Takei is the only TRIBBLE male asian celebrerity the person knowns he might have gotten merged with actual perp in the victim's mind over the years (and it doesn't even have mean the victim was a bigot, just that his mind overwrote "random guy" with something more familiar).
There's a reason why statute of limitations exist. One reason is to "encourage" people not to wait decades before reporting such things.
another reason very much related to this one is that human memory is notoriously unrelible when it comes to remembering things that happened decades ago, in the case of Takei the person (and IIRC it's still just 1 person) might even been harassed by an asian man back then but it still doesn't mean Takei did it even if the person thinks Takei did it, if the George Takei is the only **** male asian celebrerity the person knowns he might have gotten merged with actual perp in the victim's mind over the years (and it doesn't even have mean the victim was a bigot, just that his mind overwrote "random guy" with something more familiar).
Don't be a white knight, it's embarassing.
Takei himself has freely admitted that such instances and occurences have happened in the past. That he's now claiming to not remember this specific instance, which someone is taking him to task over, that makes his claim to not remember sound like nothing more than deflection, rather than a statement of genuine forgetfulness.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
> mirrorchaos said:
> A saying often comes up: one rule for the rich and another rule for the poor. There are injustices everywhere and for George Takei, he is at the end of his long successful life and he admits he did wrong, so long as what he said is true and it can be backed up, then ultimately it's a good thing for George to come out and admit it.
>
> It's better than hiding it behind a court room gag order like certain people in the UK are doing with injunctions to keep their sordid details secret, even from their other half especially when all it does is damage their profiles and lives irrepairably by not disclosing it.
>
> After that whole Weinstein debacle, a man who couldn't keep his hands to himself and using his position of power to such extremes to cage women until he got what he wanted. George Takei doesn't even come close to the level a serial monster like that man.
Nothing has been proven against Weinstein in a court of law and he denies anything unconsentual. Some of us still believe in due process.
Facts no longer matter in this world. All it takes is an accusation to ruin a person's life not hard evidence. After all, look at what happened with Kevin Spacey due to one interview. He could be completely absolved of all wrongdoing, but the damage has already been done.
People will always look for some reason to cast down and condemn though, and you can forget progressing beyond the blue-nosed puritanism of the past, because it just changes form and format. Takei's "offenses" happened in the sixties and seventies, under completely different social rules than exist today. the conduct of some of the philosophers of ancient greece and rome would, today, land someone in jail for hard time and a watch-list as a class-3 offender today. A hundred years ago, a white person dating a black person could get one of them hanged and the other publicly shamed for life, meanwhile we had major political figures who ran with both a wife, and a mistress-and it was socially expected, not just acceptable.
twenty years ago, a fifty-ish president was getting his **** polished in the oval office by a nineteen year old girl. Tell me there's no power-disparity there, but the same people condemning Spacey, Takei, etc. for Their alleged misconduct were vehemently defending 'their' president from exactly the same kind of condemnation.
so you need to wonder, are we socially progressing or are we socially regressing. That is, are people offended because they know more, or are people pretending offense because they think they should?
Do you think it is acceptable to remove the garments of a drunk/stoned/passed-out person? Yes or No.
Examples aside, that's what this comes down to...
ask in 1977, during the sexual revolution, vs. post-Aids 1987 and you'll get different answers, and that's a fact, jack. it gets MORE complicated if you ask that in 1967 or 1957, though the answer in 1957 would be the same as post-aids 1987.
point being, the morality you take for granted in 2017 isn't the morality that was in place in 1977, and if you're going to judge that stuff, you need to take into account what was and wasn't acceptable when it happened, not through the lens of 40 years of cultural and social change.
That's not the question I asked you.
And this is not 'new thinking'. Back in the 90's, a friend, while at college, dished out a beating to someone who disrobed and groped one of his female friends while she was passed out... The behaviour was thought of as scuzzy then, and it is thought of as scuzzy now, and I'd bet would be thought of as scuzzy in 1977... Now how that all applies to George Takei, my thoughts haven't changed since this all came to light in November.
it's 'Scuzzy' vs. "impale them!! without a Trial!!!"
and for that, consider that we had eight years of a President who used young women who worked for him like a happy sock with his wife and daughter in the same building, and while there was a whole fooferaw, most of the people defending that president are the same ones calling for heads to roll now...for behaviours that are both less offensive, and less extensive.
was someone a skuzzy **** forty years ago? sure, does that make them one NOW??
Your friend was defending his friend, would he have done the same for a total stranger, of a different gender, based on hearsay or even an unsubstantiated accusation?
because that's what we're really talking about here. You don't know George Takei, you don't know the person accusing him, and you don't have evidence or information on the incident beyond some word of mouth and conclusions from third sources.
yet, you are judging and convicting in absentia based on rumours and what would've been 'racy stories' thirty years gone (or MORE).
put some perspective on this. I'll wager money my parents and your grandparents did ****, and accepted ****, you and I would be absolutely disgusted by today...but in the subculture they ran in, it was considered acceptable risks, if a little on the scummy side when they were twenty-somethings, the 'sexual revolution' and Disco were a real thing, and lines of propriety were severely blurred.
Which is why I clearly said, if the guy is lying for his Fifteen Minutes, I hope Takei sues him for defamation. If he's telling the truth, I hope Takei feels repurcussion, both legal, and professional. On a personal level (as personal as one can be with someone one does not know Personally IRL) I don't like George Takei, because I think he comes across as smug and sanctimonious. I wouldn't shed a tear for him if he was guilty and this was to destroy his career. But equally, I wouldn't stand to see someone (even someone I dislike) brought down by false allegations, which is why I said what I said in November, and repeated just now
On the subject of my friend, yes, I believe he would*
*but not on a mere hearsay rumor...
see, I"m kind of of a different view: File criminal charges or it didn't happen. Defamation suits don't force retractions people will believe, and the innuendo is enough to permanently smear someone, even someone innocent of wrongdoing, permanently.
Absolutely, allegations can permanently damage someone, but as mentioned, statute of limitations come into play, which make later-action difficult. Ironically, I hold contrasting viewpoints, over two similar cases: In this instance, I believe the guy accusing Takei of molestation. In the instance of Ke$ha against Dr. Luke, I disbelieve her, due to her own prior testimony of no wrongdoings occuring: She's purjured herself one way or another, so I find her hard to believe. In both instances, I say the same thing: If they're telling the truth, I hope the guilty party feels legal and professional repurcussions. If they're lying for their share of 'Me Too' attention, I hope they get sued into poverty for defamation of character...
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Comments
"Such is life..." - Ned Kelly
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
I'm a singer of songs
I am Albert Namatjira
And I paint the ghostly gums
I'm Clancy on his horse
I'm Ned Kelly on the run
I'm the one who waltzed Matilda...'
'Such is Life' has the same general meaning as 'Che Sera Sera':
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
> A saying often comes up: one rule for the rich and another rule for the poor. There are injustices everywhere and for George Takei, he is at the end of his long successful life and he admits he did wrong, so long as what he said is true and it can be backed up, then ultimately it's a good thing for George to come out and admit it.
>
> It's better than hiding it behind a court room gag order like certain people in the UK are doing with injunctions to keep their sordid details secret, even from their other half especially when all it does is damage their profiles and lives irrepairably by not disclosing it.
>
> After that whole Weinstein debacle, a man who couldn't keep his hands to himself and using his position of power to such extremes to cage women until he got what he wanted. George Takei doesn't even come close to the level a serial monster like that man.
Nothing has been proven against Weinstein in a court of law and he denies anything unconsentual. Some of us still believe in due process.
Facts no longer matter in this world. All it takes is an accusation to ruin a person's life not hard evidence. After all, look at what happened with Kevin Spacey due to one interview. He could be completely absolved of all wrongdoing, but the damage has already been done.
Examples aside, that's what this comes down to...
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
And this is not 'new thinking'. Back in the 90's, a friend, while at college, dished out a beating to someone who disrobed and groped one of his female friends while she was passed out... The behaviour was thought of as scuzzy then, and it is thought of as scuzzy now, and I'd bet would be thought of as scuzzy in 1977... Now how that all applies to George Takei, my thoughts haven't changed since this all came to light in November.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
On the subject of my friend, yes, I believe he would*
*but not on a mere hearsay rumor...
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
To be fair, filing charges for victims is not always as easy as one hopes and even after opening up to people it's difficult and pressuring them to do so as friends can even make things worse. However I do tend to agree, if you are a victim and you open yourself up to other people but not once over the case of multiple decades bring this to the authorities the very least that one has to acknowledge is that it's impossible to make a case out of it. Add to that that just putting it up social media and not even then attempting to do anything (as in "I just wanted to say it's a bad person, I don't want them to go to court") doesn't make you very believable. That's different from a case where multiple, non affiliated persons step forward once a huge obstacle was overcome, see Weinstein, Cosby and Spacey - those cases are significantly different from what we have with Takei, the Louis CK thing is right in the middle.
A case a la Weinstein deserves public attention as it exposes systemic sexism and a culture of harassment - which more or less society knows exists but ignores. Takei's case, even if true, is not a case that demands public attention, it belongs in a court. A social media campaign does not substitute for it.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
My character Tsin'xing
another reason very much related to this one is that human memory is notoriously unrelible when it comes to remembering things that happened decades ago, in the case of Takei the person (and IIRC it's still just 1 person) might even been harassed by an asian man back then but it still doesn't mean Takei did it even if the person thinks Takei did it, if the George Takei is the only TRIBBLE male asian celebrerity the person knowns he might have gotten merged with actual perp in the victim's mind over the years (and it doesn't even have mean the victim was a bigot, just that his mind overwrote "random guy" with something more familiar).
Takei himself has freely admitted that such instances and occurences have happened in the past. That he's now claiming to not remember this specific instance, which someone is taking him to task over, that makes his claim to not remember sound like nothing more than deflection, rather than a statement of genuine forgetfulness.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth