The All-Purpose, Hollywood Sexual Accusation Thread

[AJBopp]

I don't see very much attention being paid to the question of credibility. I just see the accusation being reported and the public going "there's another one."

Celebrities interact with a huge number of people, so it's pretty hard to judge how an accusation would or would not be credible.

In some cases (Spacey, Moore, Weinstein) the number of independent accusations is so high that only a conspiracy theorist would think it was false. In others (Franken) there is actual physical evidence. But in others it's an accuser's word against the accused's word. It's unjust if a true accuser is not believed for lack of being able to produce evidence. It's also unjust if an innocent accused has his career ruined because of a baseless accusation.

All I want is for people to be mindful of that. Mob "justice" is no more just today than it was in the days of lynch mobs.

I haven't heard of corroborating evidence of the accusation against Sylvester Stallone, for example. But I also haven't heard much to suggest that it's being taken very seriously. Same with many other accusations. This doesn't, for now, appear to be a she said/he said-so-he-must-be-guilty sort of situation.

I do see all kinds of attention being paid to credibility.

[salarta]

The prevalence of sexual assault and harassment, however, doesn't mean that everyone who's accused of it is guilty of it. It's just as easy to make a false accusation as a true one. My fear of a "witch hunt" isn't the fear that there are no "witches," just that people aren't really caring who burns on the pyre as long as somebody does.

Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen often? No. Given the way victims are treated by society, it is far far more likely that what they're saying really did happen to them, and it's safer to follow that path. Very few people want to step out and admit they were attacked or harassed in some way. Very few want to draw attention to themselves or have everyone who looks at them, even complete strangers, know what happened to them. The sort of person who would deliberately lie about getting attacked/harassed is incredibly rare, and would have to be stupid and callous toward actual victims of assault and harassment.

Or to put it in thought experiment terms: if you had a reason to want to do it and knew you could get away with it, would you point at someone and lie about them sexually assaulting you? Separately, can you think of a reason that you, personally, not some theoretical person, would lie about a specific person sexually assaulting you? Especially someone famous that has millions of fans? And when I say thought experiment, I mean really think about it. Discard the comfort of knowing you're never going to really do it and think as though whatever response you give is what you're going to do immediately after you've said it.

The slightly more likely risk for someone accused that's innocent would be the victim unknowingly accusing the wrong person. I say slightly because like people who would lie, very very few people would draw attention to themselves and do serious damage to someone else's life and reputation if they weren't sure of their accusation. It's far more likely for a victim who isn't certain of who did it to not name names. Especially, again, if it's someone famous.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen often? No. Given the way victims are treated by society, it is far far more likely that what they're saying really did happen to them, and it's safer to follow that path. Very few people want to step out and admit they were attacked or harassed in some way. Very few want to draw attention to themselves or have everyone who looks at them, even complete strangers, know what happened to them. The sort of person who would deliberately lie about getting attacked/harassed is incredibly rare, and would have to be stupid and callous toward actual victims of assault and harassment.

Or to put it in thought experiment terms: if you had a reason to want to do it and knew you could get away with it, would you point at someone and lie about them sexually assaulting you? Separately, can you think of a reason that you, personally, not some theoretical person, would lie about a specific person sexually assaulting you? Especially someone famous that has millions of fans? And when I say thought experiment, I mean really think about it. Discard the comfort of knowing you're never going to really do it and think as though whatever response you give is what you're going to do immediately after you've said it.

The slightly more likely risk for someone accused that's innocent would be the victim unknowingly accusing the wrong person. I say slightly because like people who would lie, very very few people would draw attention to themselves and do serious damage to someone else's life and reputation if they weren't sure of their accusation. It's far more likely for a victim who isn't certain of who did it to not name names. Especially, again, if it's someone famous.

Ezekiel Elliot just in recent memory. Granted it was domestic abuse, not sexual assault. The pragmatic approach is to assume nobody is lying and care for the victim while more facts role out. And maybe it's more likely the victim is telling the truth ( I can't tell you I don't know the numbers) it's FAR more damaging to the accused if you assume guilt and it's not true. So love the victim, just don't assume guilt on the accused. There's a middle ground besides a a full tilt all or nothing mob rule mentality.

[AndrewCrossett]

That's a pretty good approach... sympathize with the accusers, work toward the greater goal of making sexual harassment and abuse truly taboo, but don't assume that the accused are guilty unless there is real evidence.

Would *I* make a false accusation of this kind if I had something to gain and knew I could get away with it? No. But I am not representative of all the people in the country. Some (many) people are sociopaths who just don't care. Some are angry people with scores to settle, or people hired by them. Some people are greedy for money or publicity, or desperate for it. Some people are delusional. If there's anything I've learned recently it's that there is nothing that some people won't stoop to. Nothing.

I am *not* saying this is commonly happening among the accusers. But I am absolutely determined to maintain an attitude of innocent until proven guilty. In many of these cases, there is plenty of indication of guilt. In others there is only someone's say-so. I will not accuse anyone of lying without evidence of that, but neither will I take anything on faith. I've seen too much of how the world works circa AD 2017.

[salarta]

That's a pretty good approach... sympathize with the accusers, work toward the greater goal of making sexual harassment and abuse truly taboo, but don't assume that the accused are guilty unless there is real evidence.

Would *I* make a false accusation of this kind if I had something to gain and knew I could get away with it? No. But I am not representative of all the people in the country. Some (many) people are sociopaths who just don't care. Some are angry people with scores to settle, or people hired by them. Some people are greedy for money or publicity, or desperate for it. Some people are delusional. If there's anything I've learned recently it's that there is nothing that some people won't stoop to. Nothing.

I am *not* saying this is commonly happening among the accusers. But I am absolutely determined to maintain an attitude of innocent until proven guilty. In many of these cases, there is plenty of indication of guilt. In others there is only someone's say-so. I will not accuse anyone of lying without evidence of that, but neither will I take anything on faith. I've seen too much of how the world works circa AD 2017.

The intent of the thought experiment is to note how unlikely it is for someone to lie about assault/harassment. You're not representative of all people, but when it comes to laws and morality, a great majority of people would behave the same way. We would've had complete chaos by now with everything going on in the world if they didn't. As such, you can expect that except in rare extreme cases, a person is not going to accuse someone of this type of crime if they know the person didn't commit it. That some people would do it doesn't change that a great majority would not.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The intent of the thought experiment is to note how unlikely it is for someone to lie about assault/harassment. You're not representative of all people, but when it comes to laws and morality, a great majority of people would behave the same way. We would've had complete chaos by now with everything going on in the world if they didn't. As such, you can expect that except in rare extreme cases, a person is not going to accuse someone of this type of crime if they know the person didn't commit it. That some people would do it doesn't change that a great majority would not.

Well first off the idea that it's the rarest unicorn in the world for a false allegation is just something you posited that is impossible to quantify considering 99% of these cases are too people by themselves in a room and it's an instant he said she said. So I'd have to ask you what your barometer is. Is it the verdict in court cases? Can't be that because quite a few of the accused are found not guilty and we know that can be slanted with burden of proof there. So I view that as a very false metric in general that we just have to take your word for and assume one person is lying and one person is telling the truth. Granted for people like Weinstien, Cosby, and Trump who have multiple accusers I lean on the side of the accused, but in the hundreds or thousands of one offs? That's impossible to determine a metric on who is lying and who isn't without some type of a definitive proof where there isn't one.

So I think it's kind of a poor thought experiment especially when the outcome is "I'm going to believe anybody who accuses someone of this crime as a base and then proceed to label someone an assaulter and trash their career and reputation and ruin their life off a he said she said, without any proof besides someone else's word that I am correct or not".

We know false accusations of every crime happen. We know false accusations of this crime happen. This particular crime is often one person's word against another person's word, making any real definitive conclusion on who was telling the truth exceptionally difficult compared to the great majority of the crimes. It just comes off as taking sides with the blindfolds on. I don't understand the rush to condemnation without having any knowledge besides a he said vs she said. It's so much easier to just sympathize with the victim and not make an assumption of guilt until the facts unfold then to potentially damage someones reputation because you felt the need to go on a crusade off very little information. Why there is even a need to do that I don't know. With people who have dozens of accusers and have been getting away with it for years, yeah then the situation changed and you start seeing patterns. It's why it's easy for us to look at Weinstien or Cosby and say "you know even if all of those cases aren't true, there's no way all those women are lying". In a case like CK who admitted it, again same thing. The majority of cases though, no not really. Better to err on the side of caution. You aren't hurting anyone by comforting the accusers, while not assuming guilt.

[AndrewCrossett]

All it takes is one false accuser to get caught, and the MRA's would spin it into a backlash that would threaten any progress that might come out of this whole deal. All they need is one small peg to hang a whole conspiracy theory on.

[The One and Only]

Jefferey Tambor leaves Amazon series TRANSPARENT over sexual misconduct allegations.

[Sighphi]

Jefferey Tambor leaves Amazon series TRANSPARENT over sexual misconduct allegations.

at this point i think this harassment wave was done to bring down these internet tv channels.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Russell Simmons Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Teen As Brett Ratner Watched

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ushpmg00000009

[Cyke]

Again this presumes that false accusations never happen, which they do.

False accusations happen, but statistically speaking, they happen so infrequently compared to accusations that turn out to be true, and unreported cases altogether that it's comparable to climate "scientists" that deny climate change (2-3%, according to the FBI). The only places where it happens as frequently is in Lifetime movies and in mens' imaginations, but the math just isn't there.

You're essentially saying that the anomaly, the one exception, is enough to question the validity of any victim. Except that's the mindset that's protected assault and abuse, and precisely *why* it's taken so long for victims to speak out. That atmosphere of disbelief is the major deterrent in unreported rape and assault cases -- the victim's fear being that no one will believe them, that they're completely isolated and their reputation ruined, and worst of all, the accusation that *they* are at fault.

If this topic were about climate change, it would be like questioning entire fields and multitudes of trained scientists because you had one cold day in August. Or because a coin didn't roll off your desk, it thus "proves" the world is flat.


This article probably sums it best -- skepticism is one thing, but the default should be to assume truth and then work to prove or dispel it because rape is so common in the first place.

When a woman says she’s been brutally raped by seven men at a public party on a bed of broken glass, as the UVA accuser did, and when that woman has a history of strange lies, as the UVA accuser also did, there’s nothing wrong with being skeptical. But if a woman without any history of dramatic falsehoods says she went home with a man and, after they’d kissed a while consensually, he held her down and forced her into sex—in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, you can just assume it’s true. This is not because of any political dictum like “Believe women.” It’s because this story looks exactly like tens of thousands of date rapes that happen every year, and nothing at all like a false rape accusation.

[AndrewCrossett]

The effect of that, however, is the assumption that accusation is the same as guilt. Most people who are accused of sexual assault are guilty, therefore, everyone accused of sexual assault is guilty by the law of averages. Which is quite satisfying for everyone except the one or two accused who actually are innocent and have their lives ruined unjustly.

This is why our justice system is held to the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" even though it's much more satisfying to just hang the bastard and go have a beer.

[Jokerz79]

Anyone ever post this old Redeye clip? It's a skit with Louie CK where he referenced as Comedian/Masturbator

[Jokerz79]

Charlie Rose too Jesus everyday it seems.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

False accusations happen, but statistically speaking, they happen so infrequently compared to accusations that turn out to be true, and unreported cases altogether that it's comparable to climate "scientists" that deny climate change (2-3%, according to the FBI). The only places where it happens as frequently is in Lifetime movies and in mens' imaginations, but the math just isn't there.

You're essentially saying that the anomaly, the one exception, is enough to question the validity of any victim. Except that's the mindset that's protected assault and abuse, and precisely *why* it's taken so long for victims to speak out. That atmosphere of disbelief is the major deterrent in unreported rape and assault cases -- the victim's fear being that no one will believe them, that they're completely isolated and their reputation ruined, and worst of all, the accusation that *they* are at fault.

If this topic were about climate change, it would be like questioning entire fields and multitudes of trained scientists because you had one cold day in August. Or because a coin didn't roll off your desk, it thus "proves" the world is flat.


This article probably sums it best -- skepticism is one thing, but the default should be to assume truth and then work to prove or dispel it because rape is so common in the first place.

That's kind of misnomer because you are talking about a he said vs she said where it was considered PROVEN to be completely false. Which is a very high standard.

By comparison if you look at RAIN's statistics on rape accusations per 1000 (https://www.rainn.org/statistics/cri...justice-system) 7 of every 1000 actually lead to a clear cut conviction. If you only go by the 310 of 1000 that actually are reported to the police you are still talking about .02 percent that actually definitively lead to a conviction (which is part of the difficulty with rape crimes).

So you are talking about a massive grey area where a tiny percentage of these crimes that are definitively proven both false and true. So there is this giant area in between where you have to assume what actually happened and take great leeway one way or the other in a situation that basically comes down to two people in a room by themselves and only those two people know what actually happened. That's why it's so easy to manipulate statistics for this. To get a definitive answer one way or the other to say it's definitely true or false is such a high burden for these types of a crimes that you can go either way and suggest well the conviction rate is low, the clear exoneration rate is low, and then the middle ground is like in the 90 something percentile.

The problem is if you take an all or nothing approach in these cases you come to a point where you are taking a hard stance that could effect someone's entire life over a situation where the evidence is one person's word against the others in a situation where there is very little proof one way or the other of what happened. It would be great if this was an easy thing where everything was black and white and it was clear cut. But a lot of these cases come down to two intoxicated people who have sex and one of them claims they were too intoxicated to have reasonably given consent and it's entirely a judgement call at that point.

It's not comparable to climate change where like 99% of experts are in a agreement. It's like a few percent on either side are completely sure either way and then the rest are varying degrees of uncertain.