[Nevyn]

 Whisperzzzzzzz, on 05 December 2017 - 02:32 PM, said:

Even if these people are guilty as sin, trying them solely in the court of public opinion is not right. I understand that many of those who were (or felt) victimized didn't feel that they had legal recourse for many reasons — money, career, reputation, lack of evidence, and so on. And I think it's important for their stories to be heard, both as warning and exposé.

But the way in which society takes these stories and treats the word of one as a judgement is sickening. It's McCarthyism in pursuit of progressive values. These are witch trials, and it doesn't change anything if the accused are abusers or wealthy — they still deserve to be given the benefit of doubt.

I think Goose said it better than you did.

The court of public opinion is not a court. There is also a great limitation to the consequences of a 'conviction' in it. And once an accusation is out there, a person can give the benefit of the doubt to the accuser or to the accused.

In criminal proceedings the presumption always goes to the accused. Because being found guilty can lead to imprisonment and suspension of one's freedoms. Losing an acting job, or movie royalties, or having people give you dirty looks are not the same standard. You could have those consequences for any number of activities not only not proven but not actually criminal. And it would be beyond absurd to suggest to people that they should go on being nice to people, and consumers to go on consuming their entertainment as if their opinions had not changed. And not for nothing, but there is no actual official mechanism for proving something in the court of public opinion anyway. If you did give them the benefit of the doubt, what would be the means to overcome it.

And McCarthyism? Very different.


And calling not harassing and assaulting people a progressive value ought to be an insult to conservatives.

So yeah, there is a certain downside to a rush to public judgement here. But these people are not being denied their freedom, nor tortured. They get publicly ostracized. And that can happen to a person for any number of things which are not only unproven, but not even necessarily illegal or immoral.

[Malankazooie]

My Consey is still in the clear. How do you like them apples?

[Nevyn]

 worry, on 05 December 2017 - 04:09 AM, said:

John Oliver just confronted Dustin Hoffman about his gross behavior during a Wag the Dog anniversary panel thing (not in an ambush way, but as host).
https://deadline.com...ity-1202220185/

What a coward Hoffman is. I mean, come to your own conclusions, but he even tries the "it was another time" excuse. It's relatively easy for Oliver to be 'fearless' on his own show, with no oppositional guests and a sympathetic audience, so I'm very happy to see him be so sharp and astute and right in a riskier setting.

On this one in particular, I don't think it was as bad as you've made out. Or other articles about it either.

Watch the video instead of reading the excerpts. For such a big ambush, I thought Hoffman carried himself reasonably well.

Doesn't mean I think he is a good guy, or innocent, but he kept a level head and engaged

But I didn't hear Hoffman try to say it was another time. Hoffman's basic answer is that he doesn't remember the intern (quite likely), that dirty talk on set was common, but that not remembering the person and it being 40 years ago he can't remember what he said or did not say, nor the context.

And really, I think that is all fine. The issue for Hoffman is the groping part of the allegation. Because either you didn't do it, you did it and ought to remember, or you did it regularly and thus can't remember this incident. So if he is going to deny there, it ought to be stronger.

Also, I don't think Oliver should get a huge bravery medal. He was moderator of a panel in front of an audience and had complete control of the interview. And don't really find that in any way riskier. He had a guest not expecting the topic, who chose to engage instead of just walking off or refusing to discuss, and from there it is shooting fish in a barrel.

[worry]

Didn't know there was video (it's an update to the story), so thanks.

Now that I've watched it, Hoffman's response is so much more weaselly than it seemed in writing. He actually defends the "if" part of the "if you felt offended/abused/victimized" form of apology, which is like Sleazeball 101. Then he definitely tries to suggest the context of the time and place it was happening excuse the general behavior, with at best like a "maybe I went too far once or twice, but we all did" caveat.

I don't find any of his behaviors, even those one might consider lower tier than groping, acceptable in the workplace and I certainly don't find any of his reasoning palatable. That "if you engage, it makes it worse" stuff is exactly the same garbage Louis C.K. spewed for all these years. The "we were a family blowing off steam" excuse isn't any better than Trump's "locker room talk". Especially with an intern -- who is definitely not his friend, or his joking buddy, or anywhere near on the same power level as him on set.

Before last night, I was more than willing to think of him as someone who was egocentric and caddish as a young movie star -- it wouldn't excuse the bad behavior, but it's a pretty familiar story where it might not even have seemed wrong because it was so typical. I'm not saying he's singularly responsible for it being normalized (which pre-dates him by forever) or perpetuating it (he's clearly not alone). But all I saw in that interview was dismissal and excuse-making...essentially a retraction of the already godawful apology he released. He even does the "she waited 40 years" thing. How on the nose is that, w/ Roy Moore parallels.

I definitely didn't see an ambush...this is fresh headline news AND the movie they're there for is Wag the Dog. John Oliver answered all of Hoffman's whining with sound points -- particularly "neither of us is the victim here." We do see, laid out pretty plain, how his embarrassment -- even in being confronted courteously about his own past awful behavior -- is to some people so much more important than a woman's actual body autonomy, her ability to go to work and do her job without being harassed or accosted.

[amphibian]

Today I ended a friendship of about twelve years. I need to give a little context first to show how it is relevant to this.

This person is in their late seventies and is very much to the left politically. Had a public oriented career, hobbies involve local conservation and history, lots of anti Trump and critical of GOP talk on social media etc. He's been living with family friends for about fifteen years and I got to know him that way. I also got the impression that he was a very closeted gay man who turned to religion to deal with that. There were some odd interactions over the years that suddenly made sense once I thought of this.

He decided to start posting on Fbook about how Minnesota Public Radio would get no more money or support from him until they reinstated Garrison Keillor. Multiple times. I frowned and said nothing. Then he posted an opinion column by two men saying that James Levine, a big time orchestra conductor publicly accused by at least three men of sexual assault of the then-teenagers he taught 40-50 years ago, shouldn't be treated as he is now (suspended from job, being talked about publicly etc).

I spoke up and said that seeing him post this was disappointing. He then posted a link to Pope Francis talking about homosexuals who want to be involved with the church in the manner of "who am I to judge" and repeated that line in a comment talking about how he was a Christian to the post on my wall. I responded by saying I did not like the quasi equivalence of homosexuality and sexual assault of teenagers by a man well into his twenties, but I was willing to engage him in a Christian manner. I referenced about a dozen bits of the Bible and said that several people within the Bible command Christians to be watchful, to confront sin, to be guardians of each other, and to stop sexual abuse from occurring.

He responded by saying I was not his confessor. That he was around during the 70s with these people, that the accusations were not credible. A close friend of his is Levine's brother. He said I was a lawyer and not a priest, that I should not quote scripture to him, and that he stood by his statements.

At that point, I decided to end the interaction and end the friendship. He pulled the Roy Moore special - 1) saying the accusers were not credible 2) that it was all a long time ago 3) "Who am I to judge?".

This is a very liberal person who constantly spoke about how Trump should be prosecuted for his sexual assault allegations, cheered for Weinstein's fall and more. But since Keillor and Levine are people he likes, he'll do the same thing Roy Moore supporters are gonna do to justify continued support. And that's disgusting and sad, especially from a man who probably is a closeted gay man.

We aren't good people because we have similar politics as other people or produce media that lots of people like. We can also be bad people who hurt others whether once or repeatedly even if we treated yet others nicely. That's kinda how this whole thing works - they don't treat everyone the same, the bad actions often happen without witnesses and a ton of ambiguity and denial are present for many who were not there.

I'm angry that someone I respected and liked is willing to do this. My best friend said she's no longer surprised at who says this kind of stuff because she's experienced so many people of all kinds pull this kind of contortions to justify not having to deal with this in real life.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

Perhaps my initial post was a little too hardline in its comparisons. I still feel disgruntled that mere accusations are enough to vilify people. And no, I don't think lawyers are doing — or can do — due diligence on supposed events that happened decades ago. My guess is most of these people have bad PR or morality clauses in their contracts.

On my phone, or I'd quote and reply in more detail to all the good posts in reply to mine.

This post has been edited by Whisperzzzzzzz: 05 December 2017 - 11:26 PM

[worry]

I think what you're getting at -- the presumption of innocence -- is perfectly sound principle, and is the fundamental guidepost to our justice system. Further, if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that with such serious accusations and such serious stakes, we should tread lightly -- be extra cautious -- in condemning people with lifelong damaging consequences. In theory, in a vacuum, I don't think there's anything wrong with that argument either.

But in reality, alongside the weight of history, alongside the crush of horror women (and many men, and countless children) have endured at the hands of those who had the power to get away with it, who does it really protect? Do you think, all told, that in the history of describing such contentions as unknowable or "he said/she said" that men and women have come out about 50/50 in the bargain?

These #s are for rapes:


I don't have the #s (not sure they exist), but I think we can all agree, hopefully, that things like groping and sexual harassment and coercion with power imbalances happen more often than rape. It's my belief -- and you may agree or disagree -- that it's likely that even more so than rape, these things go unreported. The recipients of these behaviors get on with their days, for whatever reason, whether they take it in stride or are really upset by it, anywhere on that range.

If we take the Hoffman example. He groped a teenage intern, though hasn't admitted it. He's said some extremely disgusting sexual things to people who aren't his peers by a long shot, and that he's at least conceded was possible. It was 40 years ago and he doesn't remember. Why doesn't he remember? Cuz it was casual, it meant nothing to him, it was just something he did back then, nothing to it, no biggie. It made no impression on him. And how fortunate. Because she remembers it. She remembers what he said and did, and she remembers how it made her feel. I know there are exception-to-every-rule purists out there, but I'm gonna wager going through it, enduring it, remember it, none of those things improved her life. Coming forward about it may have improved her life in terms of a weight off her chest -- which is something -- but there's no particular gain from all of this. It's just something he did to her, and she's lived with, and he hasn't lived with, because there were no consequences in all those 40 years.

Now, like, multiply that by billions. Multiply it by every woman you know, and every woman you don't know, and some of the men you know and don't know, and so so many of the children. Consider if you think more of their abusers have been punished, or more of their abusers have gotten away with it. What do you think?

One of the other bedrocks of our justice system, any good justice system really, is that it's better for 10 guilty men to go free than for the state to punish 1 innocent man. It's right and just, and it's one trade-off of living in a civilized society. There are specters of when it's gone awry, when it's broken those principles, when grave mistakes were made, and it's natural to want to avoid that. But the justice system is just one system. It's not the only way to know things, to draw conclusions, or even to do right by victims.

[Malankazooie]

Priapism

A buddy of mine suffered from it. Even after sex with his gf he was still afflicted by it. He finally got it under control after seeing a few different doctors. Not fun.

[Nevyn]

 worry, on 05 December 2017 - 10:41 PM, said:

Didn't know there was video (it's an update to the story), so thanks.

Now that I've watched it, Hoffman's response is so much more weaselly than it seemed in writing. He actually defends the "if" part of the "if you felt offended/abused/victimized" form of apology, which is like Sleazeball 101. Then he definitely tries to suggest the context of the time and place it was happening excuse the general behavior, with at best like a "maybe I went too far once or twice, but we all did" caveat.

He mentions the if, because as he says when the video started, he doesn't think he did the groping but his PR people told him that denying would only extend and amplify the story. They told him to do a weasely apology.

The reason it is 'sleaze 101' is because it is an apology for people who didn't think they did anything wrong.

Quote

I don't find any of his behaviors, even those one might consider lower tier than groping, acceptable in the workplace

Who does?

Quote

I definitely didn't see an ambush...this is fresh headline news AND the movie they're there for is Wag the Dog. John Oliver answered all of Hoffman's whining with sound points -- particularly "neither of us is the victim here." We do see, laid out pretty plain, how his embarrassment -- even in being confronted courteously about his own past awful behavior -- is to some people so much more important than a woman's actual body autonomy, her ability to go to work and do her job without being harassed or accosted.

If the person is not expecting the topic and then you talk to him for 30 minutes, dredging up every allegation of him, and making quips at his responses as if you are hosting your show, that is most definitely an ambush.

I'm not saying Hoffman is in the right.

I am saying that it is entirely possible that until the day the allegations came out it had never once occurred to him that he had done anything wrong or that anyone had been offended, that the accusations don't match his recollection, and that his memory of it is far fuzzier than hers.

None of that makes it ok. But most dudes, whether outright predator or ignoramus, would have shut down on that line of questioning and just left, not openly participated in the discussion sharing their viewpoint.

Put it this way, I give Hoffman far more credit for that interview than for his initial dismissive apology. I mean, good guys or bad, right or wrong, innocent or guilty, wouldn't you rather get a more complete version of their side of the story instead of a BS pr line and then hiding in a bunker?



Also, "neither of us if the victim here" is not a 'point'. It is an applause line.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 06 December 2017 - 02:17 AM

[worry]

Don't agree, but I do applaud the point Oliver was making: that male discomfort -- Dustin Hoffman's discomfort in particular, but also Oliver's own discomfort in discussing the subject -- is nothing next to what Dustin Hoffman did to a teenage intern on the set of a movie she was working on.

Nothing Oliver says strikes me as a "quip" -- the closest thing is his "I'm glad" in response to "You weren't there", and even that seems like an honest response to a gross cliche.

Edit: that said, I'm not trying to change your POV on Oliver. Ultimately I was just happy to see him being dogged on the subject from outside the confines of his show, but that wasn't the main part of my op.

This post has been edited by worry: 06 December 2017 - 02:53 AM

[Nevyn]

 worry, on 06 December 2017 - 02:34 AM, said:

Don't agree, but I do applaud the point Oliver was making: that male discomfort -- Dustin Hoffman's discomfort in particular, but also Oliver's own discomfort in discussing the subject -- is nothing next to what Dustin Hoffman did to a teenage intern on the set of a movie she was working on.

Nothing Oliver says strikes me as a "quip" -- the closest thing is his "I'm glad" in response to "You weren't there", and even that seems like an honest response to a gross cliche.

Edit: that said, I'm not trying to change your POV on Oliver. Ultimately I was just happy to see him being dogged on the subject from outside the confines of his show, but that wasn't the main part of my op.

I like Oliver fine. I like his show fine.

But I didn't find this to be his shining moment. And I don't credit too much Oliver's purported discomfort at discussing an issue he chose to raise when his subject couldn't go anywhere, and then continued hammering for a half hour. He was perfectly comfortable.

And no, that does not make Hoffman wronged or a victim. But a lot of that interview was Oliver chiding Hoffman for not giving something he couldn't.

And the "point" you are referring to is an emotional appeal to the audience. Perfectly fine to say she was far more disforted that Hoffman is in the interview. But how is a person meant to respond to that when he doesn't remember the incident or the accuser, and doesn't believe the description of his behaviour is accurate? I mean, that could all be wrong. But even if a murdering is lying protesting innocence on the stand, if the prosecutor says "don't you feel the least bit bad for what you did? Aren't you sorry for what _____'s family went through" that is not an argument for guilt or innocence.

The main good point Oliver made was that the victim would have no reason to lie, which was part of why he believed her.

[Malankazooie]

[worry]

I believe the article mentions that Oliver's initial exchange w/ Hoffman lasted ~15 minutes, and then later on Hoffman brought it up again for the other 15 minutes, if those details are important. Though I'm not sure I'd describe anything John Oliver ever does, let alone this discussion, as "hammering" -- but again, I'm not trying to change your POV on that matter. "Chose to raise" is just, to me, another in-a-vacuum argument though. You can look at it as John Oliver having made a decision to bring it up, or fulfilling his responsibility to bring it up, and clearly I believe the latter. It would have been a farce not to mention it.

The notion that Hoffman was stuck with not being able to give "something he couldn't" strikes me as wrong for at least two reasons: 1) He already gave an apology, as lame as it was; 2) He spends a lot of time in this discussion trying to discredit his victim. There's much less "I don't remember" and much more "You weren't there" and "You do things, you say things" and "Do you believe this stuff that you're reading??...Why??" and "There is a point in her not bringing this up for 40 years."

To your last part, maybe we're both right. It was more an emotional appeal than an argument, I guess we can agree. And I admit I sometimes find appeals to emotion to be emotionally appealing, particularly when I believe they're the correct emotions. For instance, disgust towards actor and sexual predator Dustin Hoffman's victim-blaming, or incredulity at Dustin Hoffman's cowardly attempt to play the victim of a "gotcha" moment. I know this is the internet, so we're supposed to pretend "emotions" and "logic" are opposites for some reason, but I'm just not really on that wagon.

[Nevyn]

 worry, on 06 December 2017 - 04:12 AM, said:

"Chose to raise" is just, to me, another in-a-vacuum argument though. You can look at it as John Oliver having made a decision to bring it up, or fulfilling his responsibility to bring it up, and clearly I believe the latter. It would have been a farce not to mention it.

Wag the Dog could be argued as very tangetially related but is not on the nose. This wasn't a public forum on those incidents.

It is a 20th anniversary screening of the movie with a paid audience. The video is cell phone video. Robert De Niro, producer Jane Rosenthal, and director Barry Levinson are also sitting on stage doing a typical Q&A about the movie, and Oliver brings up the general topic, gets a general comment from Levinson, and then gets into that with Hoffman. I don't think any of them were expecting the topic.

And lets be clear, what Hoffman did was wrong. But this was not Harvey Weinstein. What he is alleged to have done, it is absolutely plausible that he never had the slightest clue this woman or other crew were the least bit uncomfortable with his behaviour. That does not make it right, but it makes it fairly rich to say that there was a moral imperative to make the whole evening about that. Something none of the panel came to talk about, and none of the audience came to hear about.

It was a choice.

Quote

The notion that Hoffman was stuck with not being able to give "something he couldn't" strikes me as wrong for at least two reasons: 1) He already gave an apology, as lame as it was;

As you yourself said, it was a boilerplate non apology apology. An apology with conceding facts or agreeing with the victim's account.

And Oliver was putting him in spots where to satisfy the answers Oliver was demanding, he would have to cross that barrier.

Quote

2) He spends a lot of time in this discussion trying to discredit his victim. There's much less "I don't remember" and much more "You weren't there" and "You do things, you say things" and "Do you believe this stuff that you're reading??...Why??" and "There is a point in her not bringing this up for 40 years."

He didn't say "you weren't there" to say nothing happened. He said it in the argument over "I'm not that guy". I mean, OIiver cut him off with a zinger so he never finished the thought, but Oliver had just basically said there was a period of time were Hoffman was creepy around women. So "you weren't there" isn't about the victim. It is about the context, which would include the reactions Hoffman got from other women and other crew and whether others engaged in similar talk/behaviour. None of which is an excuse. But all of which could make it plausible he had no idea he was making people uncomfortable and no basis to think his behaviour was out of the ordinary. That could be right or wrong, but it is not an attack on the victim.

The last two are more to discredit the victim, but they are cutting right back to why he couldn't give Oliver the answer in the first place.

First, let me say that I suspect the victim's account is not embellished, and near literally what happened. But I think her memory of it is much clearer than Hoffman's. And I think it is perfectly normal for a person, confronted with a transcript of their words nearly 40 years later, to know they said and did something but think "there's no way I said THAT". Etc. So his position would be he knows he was flirty on the set, he knows there was a lot of sex talk and he engaged in it, but he does not specifically recall the accusations but doesn't think they are right, or remembers them differently.

So if he thinks it is inaccurate, there's really not much for him to do but question the veracity of the account.

 worry, on 06 December 2017 - 04:12 AM, said:

or incredulity at Dustin Hoffman's cowardly attempt to play the victim of a "gotcha" moment.

I mean, Hoffman was not expecting the subject, still tried to give an answer, got told he was creeping around women as a statement of fact, and then got his response to that cut off by an applause line. To suggest he is playing the victim or cowardly suggests it is an affectation to get out of the moment. But when you get blindsided by the topic and then your answers are cut off by zingers so you can't even get your thought out, you are probably legitimately gonna feel like the victim of a gotcha moment.

You may not sympathize because of what he did, or like his answer, and it is nothing like what the victim went threw.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 06 December 2017 - 03:00 PM

[QuickTidal]

Not that I'm surprised considering his history, but Michael Rappaport has weighed in with a shitty POV on this.

[worry]

Nevyn, here's where we may be crossing wires. I want Dustin Hoffman to be confronted by his sexual assault of a teenage girl in every interview he does until the day he dies. His choices -- since he is not going to see any other consequences, as a wealthy and powerful man -- should be between that and disappearing all together. He wasn't Harvey Weinstein. He wasn't Jack the Ripper. He wasn't Count Dracula. I don't care at all about where he ranks.

In terms of this particular discussion, what you're arguing are very fine details of interpretation. But I wasn't writing a review of the discussion, I was commenting on how I think John Oliver did the right thing, and Dustin Hoffman's response was disgusting. Watching it several times over, I'm only more sickened by him. So like every time you say something like "Oliver cut him off" my reaction isn't "good point", it's "no he didn't". I don't see the interaction there like that at all. At the risk of repeating myself, Hoffman's "you weren't there" is exactly what it sounds like, and Oliver's reaction is a very natural equivalent of "Jesus Christ, not this horseshit excuse! Holy hell, I can't believe he actually said that." -- but encapsulated in -- as you say -- a quip. You seem to think some of Oliver's responses are performative, rather than the natural & appropriate responses one might have to a sexual predator spouting every possible cliche, but I'm telling you there are zero moments in the video where Oliver's response didn't approximate my own. So that's why I'm saying these are details of interpretation. And arguing back and forth on that any further is probably pointless (not to sound too much like Silencer in god-mode). I just think we've covered our positions pretty thoroughly.

Bigger picture: you say you believe her. Once you're there, you don't have to pretend that when Oliver says Hoffman was creeping around women "as a statement of fact" that he's wrong to do so. If it's not a statement of fact, then you're saying she's lying. So that's what Hoffman is doing, with every word out of his mouth. He's saying his accuser is lying. Whether he remembers it or not couldn't be less relevant, because we have her account. She was there and she remembers. Every non-contrite, non-apologizing, non-begging-for-mercy word out of Hoffman's mouth regarding his abuse of her is calling her a liar.

[Nevyn]

 worry, on 06 December 2017 - 08:44 PM, said:

Nevyn, here's where we may be crossing wires. I want Dustin Hoffman to be confronted by his sexual assault of a teenage girl in every interview he does until the day he dies.

Ah, pitchforks, I get it.

I don't agree, but I get it. The great thing about lynch mob justice is the sense of belonging.

 worry, on 06 December 2017 - 08:44 PM, said:

Bigger picture: you say you believe her. Once you're there, you don't have to pretend that when Oliver says Hoffman was creeping around women "as a statement of fact" that he's wrong to do so. If it's not a statement of fact, then you're saying she's lying.

If you're not aware that fact and belief are different things, there really is no point to debating this with you. Especially when you are confusing them while misrepresenting my argument. Because my argument wasn't about whether I considered it a fact or not. It was about whether Hoffman did.

And you are also on a massive slippery slope if you are going to make disputing an accusation itself into a crime.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 06 December 2017 - 09:38 PM

[amphibian]

Weird fact that Terry Crews noted - Hoffman's agent is Adam Venit, the man who sexually harassed Crews.

[worry]

That is a very tut-tut-ing post. Which is fine. Folks can decide for themselves whether my desire for an unrepentant sexual predator being verbally confronted about his actions is the same as pitchforks and lynch mobs.

Regarding the entirely different subject of "misrepresenting arguments": The rest of that paragraph, the part you didn't quote, addresses Hoffman -- my point being his memory is irrelevant because we have hers, and if you believe her (generic YOU, but including you, and including Dustin Hoffman), then there's no room for Hoffman calling her a liar (I know he doesn't use the word liar, but it's the gist of what he's saying throughout). So it's not that he doesn't remember, it's that he is disputing her account. In that light, when you suggest what he means is "in context, I didn't know it was wrong" -- you are misrepresenting his argument. His argument is: "Do you believe this stuff that you're reading? Why?" (re: her account) and "There is a point in her not bringing this up for 40 years" (in other words, she has an ulterior motive, thus her account should be questioned). When he says he doesn't remember, or that the vibe of the set made that kind of thing normal -- those are preliminary tests of what listeners will accept. Like once I say these things, the subject can be dropped. John Oliver doesn't accept them, instead he pushes, and then we get the more honest victim-blaming stuff from Hoffman in a torrent. That's why what Oliver did is commendable.

Anyway, I'm happy to let my above post stand as a Closing Argument. I believe every word of it. Everyone else can vote on who's right by calling their local constabulary and shouting one of our screen names at whoever answers.

This post has been edited by worry: 06 December 2017 - 10:23 PM

[Nevyn]

 worry, on 06 December 2017 - 10:21 PM, said:

That is a very tut-tut-ing post. Which is fine. Folks can decide for themselves whether my desire for an unrepentant sexual predator being verbally confronted about his actions is the same as pitchforks and lynch mobs.

Verbally confronted constantly, for the remainder of his life. As a punishment, and without trial or due process.

Yes, they can.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 06 December 2017 - 11:17 PM