[worry]

Are consequences and punishments the same thing? Where do awkward conversations rank? Is Hoffman's life nothing but interviews? Are our choices TRIAL and NOTHING? Are we even awaiting Dustin Hoffman being arrested and tried, at any point in the foreseeable future?

Besides, I thought my problem was that I was confusing your stance (you believe her) with Dustin Hoffman's (I don't remember / it didn't go down that way / it's not reflective of who I am / we all behaved that way on set / she's lying / I've been blindsided!). You believe her and I believe her. Dustin Hoffman did what she says he did, and is therefore a sexual predator. So how did you get from "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" to evoking lynch mobs and pitchforks and criminalizing denials of accusations? Hoffman didn't make the "without trial or due process" argument, you just did. About me hoping that instead of his deeds being swept under the rug again, they actually stick.

[EmperorMagus]

Nevyn, on 06 December 2017 - 11:10 PM, said:

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.

Trial or due process are there to justify the government's use of force in depriving people of their rights.

Hounding someone in interviews isn't a state-sponsored use of violence; it's speech. If Justin Hoffman or anyone else doesn't like it, they can get lost or they can sue in civil court.

I, too, think abusers and harrassers should not be given a pass when they choose to stay in public life - actually, I thought that was a non-brainer.

This post has been edited by EmperorMagus: 07 December 2017 - 02:03 AM

[worry]

If you're as tired as I am, though, please consider all the questions in that post rhetorical.

[Nevyn]

EmperorMagus, on 07 December 2017 - 01:44 AM, said:

Trial or due process are there to justify the government's use of force in depriving people of their rights.

duh

Quote

Hounding someone in interviews isn't a state-sponsored use of violence; it's speech. If Justin Hoffman or anyone else doesn't like it, they can get lost or they can sue in civil court.

What worry suggested was not speech, but harassment. You are even using the word hounding and suggesting he can sue.

That isn't leaving a matter unaddressed. That is continually bringing something up as a means of punishment. And when the public seeks to punish someone outside of the established system of justice, that is a lynch mob, which was my point. And it is bad because, among other things, it lacks due process.

Quote

I, too, think abusers and harrassers should not be given a pass when they choose to stay in public life - actually, I thought that was a non-brainer.

There is a wide chasm between giving someone a pass, and "hounding" them as you yourself put it.

You don't have to like them. You don't have to go to any work they create. You can put economic pressure on their economic partners and employers to cut ties. And all of those are reasonable, because they are your own social and economic choices, and you could make them based on any criteria.

But when you don't even care about the answers and what you want from Hoffman is his discomfort for the remainder of his life, that is rather crossing a line.

[QuickTidal]

Not to side with either notion (though you do both seem to GENERALLY agree it seems, and disagree about the particulars)...but I will say at least this:

I DO note how the court of public opinion can utterly destroy, regardless of the guilt or non-guilt.

A phenomenal past example of such destruction is Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle.

Fatty Arbuckle was the glory of the silent film era for comedy. He was a golden child actor who audiences loved to watch. He star could not have been higher. And from what I understand of the man, he was a quiet, kind, and thoughtful man of impeccable character. He essentially put early Hollywood studios on the map and into the black (like Keystone). He mentored the greats, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Bob Hope. He was at the time, the highest paid actor in Hollywood (a $13million deal in todays dollars).

In 1921 he took a break from his schedule and he and some friends headed up the coast to the St. Francis hotel in San Fran. They rented three rooms, one for Arbuckle and one friend named Fishback, and a second for the other friend (Sherman), and a third designated "the party room". Arbuckle didn't REALLY want to party, but his friends convinced him. During the party, several women were invited, amongst them a young actress named Virginia Rappe, and a well-known local woman who sometimes participated in criminal activities and sex work aimed Maude Delmont. Maude and Fishback disappeared into Sherman's room/bathroom (it's assumed to have sex) while at the party Rappe fell seemingly quite ill. Arbuckle took notice, and moved her into Sherman's room to lay her on the bed so she could keep off what he thought was heavy intoxication. Maude and Fishback told him to take her to his room and leave them alone. Arbuckle moved her. He then left her and took a shower. Turns out that Rappe suffered from Chronic Cystitis and the alcohol she imbibed at the party exacerbated that condition and sent her into distress. She had previously undergone multiple shady abortions an this made her system worse, and she was an alcoholic who routinely fell ill at parties after drinking. Arbuckle, of course, knew none of this and just thought she was a sick partygoer. When he returned to the room she had removed all her clothes (this was apparently because when she would get this sick, she would tear at her own clothes to get them away form her body). They eventually deiced to take her to the hospital, where Maude (who was in the other room the whole time and nowhere near either Rappe or Arbuckle) claimed to authorities that Arbuckle had gotten her friend drunk and raped her with a piece of ice...which the newspapers turned into a broken bottle (no idea why). Neither Fishback or Sherman could corroborate where Arbuckle was at that point, so the cops believed Maude and Arbuckle was taken into custody. Rapped died in the hospital a day later, so Arbuckle was charged with both rape and manslaughter of the young actress. There were THREE trials of Arbuckle and he was mistrialed twice, and acquitted on the third one. In all cases there was literally ZERO evidence that Arbuckle had done anything other than he had said he did, and the juries in each trial were heavily in the brief that he did nothing wrong. It later came out that Maude seemingly (in conjunction with Fishback possibly) set the entire thing up. Maude knew Rappe, knew of her condition, knew of her alcoholism, and knew of Arbuckle's money and had a shady past of extorting people. This was discovered when she tried to extort Arbuckles lawyers. Rappe's condition and the doctors assertion that there was no rape and that the woman had died of her own condition...seemingly didn't bear enough weight get Arbuckle off. They had PROOF he didn't do anything wrong, and the story Maude told was entirely fabricated...and it took a two mistrials and a third jury who found him innocent.

Arbuckle's career NEVER recovered and he was even BARRED from acting for a few years. The newspapers may have reported after the fact that he didn't do anything wrong, but after some 3+ years of scandal and trials where he was accused of an awful crime which didn't even occur...the public had already weighed in and passed judgement. Arbuckle became box office/Hollywood poison. He was let go from his contracts with the studios, spent a few years directing films for friends...but never REALLY worked in Hollywood again as an actor. Secondarily because of a weird MPAA ruling that was handed down that deemed Arbuckle an example of "poor morals" (even though he did nothing wrong) a huge swathe of his films were actively destroyed by the archives (as such that today only a fraction of Arbuckle's pioneering work remains). He retreated into alcoholism to a degree that he was never around for his then wife who divorced him citing that he was the kindest man she ever knew, but his alcoholism made him retreat into himself to a degree that left her feeling widowed. He died not long later at the age of 46.

In an issue of a magazine a while after Arbuckle's retreat from the spotlight quoted: "I would like to see Roscoe Arbuckle make a comeback to the screen." He also said "The American nation prides itself upon its spirit of fair play. We like the whole world to look upon America as the place where every man gets a square deal. Are you sure Roscoe Arbuckle is getting one today? I'm not."

Now, this is not to say that we should not believe all accusers. Far from it. Every situation is different and I'll wager there are less railroadings like what happened to Arbuckle than there are serious accusations by a LONG stretch...

My point in telling this story is simply to say: "The Court Of Public Opinion" is a NASTY fucking place where people rarely get exonerated even when they are not guilty, the actually guilty can NEVER apparently be reformed or forgiven, and your job and lifeblood is forfeit at the whims of people who buy newspapers and pass judgement on you without all the facts, and even WITH the facts they STILL will pass judgement on you.

Any excuse to tell the Arbuckle story, which I've always found fascinating.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 07 December 2017 - 05:57 PM

[worry]

Nevyn, I think I've made it clear that our conversation is getting repetitive, so I was hoping it was winding down. And you've made it clear you aren't fond of misrepresented arguments. And yet...

Here's what I wrote:

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

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.

In response to that, you've cited lynch mob justice, pitchforks, making "disputing an accusation itself into a crime", punishment without trial or due process, and "not speech, but harassment".

Now you are either grossly overestimating the %age of multimillionaire sleazeball Dustin Hoffman's life that is taken up by (forced?) interviews, or you are misrepresenting what I said.

[Nevyn]

worry, on 07 December 2017 - 07:58 PM, said:

Nevyn, I think I've made it clear that our conversation is getting repetitive, so I was hoping it was winding down. And you've made it clear you aren't fond of misrepresented arguments. And yet...

It takes two to exit a repetitive conversation. If you want it to stop then stop.

Saying I want it to stop, so here are my last argument and its over ..... NOW! is, um, silly. Either let it go or keep looking at it.

Quote

Here's what I wrote:

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

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.

In response to that, you've cited lynch mob justice, pitchforks, making "disputing an accusation itself into a crime", punishment without trial or due process, and "not speech, but harassment".

Now you are either grossly overestimating the %age of multimillionaire sleazeball Dustin Hoffman's life that is taken up by (forced?) interviews, or you are misrepresenting what I said.

Ok, you seem to have a bit of trouble keeping your eye on the ball as to what comments relate to what, so we will take this as focused as we can

You are interviewing Dustin Hoffman, and confront him about this incident. What is your goal in the confrontation? What are you hoping to achieve?

[Abyss]

Nevyn, on 07 December 2017 - 08:50 PM, said:

...

You are interviewing Dustin Hoffman, and confront him about this incident. What is your goal in the confrontation? What are you hoping to achieve?

Ratings.

[Nevyn]

Abyss, on 07 December 2017 - 09:27 PM, said:

Ratings.

In that case you should ask him about whatever Donald Trump just tweeted.

[worry]

That his sexual predation upon teenagers isn't trumped by a lifetime of esteemed art. That his blaming the victim isn't acceptable. And that while he may have benefited from decades (on the shoulders of centuries) of predators getting away with it, has lived a wholly insulated life free of consequences for his predation, the tide is changing.

Also that we recognize his predation doesn't exist in a vacuum. He's one thread in a pattern that's industry-, society-, nation-, world-wide. But predators who arrive in his wake should heed the warning. The walls of silence are crumbling.

[worry]

Now a question for you: How do you think it would look if someone did a softball interview with Bill Cosby right now? No mention of his crimes whatsoever. Just some questions about his career highlights, maybe even a celebratory tone. And the same for every interview with him after that.

What message do you think that sends him? Or his peers? Or those following in his footsteps? Or the industry?

What do you think that says to his victims?

[Nevyn]

worry, on 07 December 2017 - 09:46 PM, said:

That his sexual predation upon teenagers isn't trumped by a lifetime of esteemed art. That his blaming the victim isn't acceptable. And that while he may have benefited from decades (on the shoulders of centuries) of predators getting away with it, has lived a wholly insulated life free of consequences for his predation, the tide is changing.

Also that we recognize his predation doesn't exist in a vacuum. He's one thread in a pattern that's industry-, society-, nation-, world-wide. But predators who arrive in his wake should heed the warning. The walls of silence are crumbling.

Ok. So what you are saying is, you are asking him questions without even caring about the answers. His response is not relevant

The questions serve only to not allow a public interview with this person on any other topic. Thus it is not really an interview but a confrontation.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 07 December 2017 - 10:14 PM

[Nevyn]

worry, on 07 December 2017 - 10:02 PM, said:

Now a question for you: How do you think it would look if someone did a softball interview with Bill Cosby right now? No mention of his crimes whatsoever. Just some questions about his career highlights, maybe even a celebratory tone. And the same for every interview with him after that.

What message do you think that sends him? Or his peers? Or those following in his footsteps? Or the industry?

What do you think that says to his victims?

Nope, we're staying focused on one thing at a time here. No more conversation sprawl.

[worry]

Lol, okay, boss man. Your questions are relevant and get to the heart of the matter (whether Dustin Hoffman gets to do interviews about his job anymore -- we should all be concerned) and mine (the cumulative effect predators getting away with their predation through personal and systemic insulation from consequences has had on that industry, our society, the victims) are way off base. They're in another universe. Totally not what we're talking about here.

Definitely happy to oblige your domineering tone and micro-focus with a reply -- reiterating yet again -- as to whether I think Dustin Hoffman's excuse-making and victim-blaming responses are relevant, in light of the fact that -- as has also been established several times over -- we both believe his victim.

I urge you to keep refreshing your browser until you see it.

[Nevyn]

You were complaining about my reaction to what you said about his interviews, so I was trying to explain just that and get to the point, because when I add in thoughts on any other part of the conversation you lump them up into your ball of rage and think 5 separate thoughts are all addressing the same point. I was trying to go slow and stay focused so you'd get it. But it is pretty clear you are unhappy to do that and want to keep casting off in all directions.

So, new approach. To heck with the back and forth. There are a number of different things you have said that I have found troubling, excessive, weird or wrong. So over the next couple days, I'm just going to go through each with its own reply. Handily separated so hopefully it stays clear to you what I'm referring to. Each will be my final word on that specific point. Read them or not, understand or not, or agree or not. Feel free to reply with your last word wherever you feel appropriate. You get last word wherever you like it. I honestly at this point don't find your position reasonable enough that any form of agreement can be reached, anyway. But maybe it will at least end the bickering.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

QuickTidal, on 07 December 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:

Not to side with either notion (though you do both seem to GENERALLY agree it seems, and disagree about the particulars)...but I will say at least this:

I DO note how the court of public opinion can utterly destroy, regardless of the guilt or non-guilt.

A phenomenal past example of such destruction is Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle.

Fatty Arbuckle was the glory of the silent film era for comedy. He was a golden child actor who audiences loved to watch. He star could not have been higher. And from what I understand of the man, he was a quiet, kind, and thoughtful man of impeccable character. He essentially put early Hollywood studios on the map and into the black (like Keystone). He mentored the greats, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Bob Hope. He was at the time, the highest paid actor in Hollywood (a $13million deal in todays dollars).

In 1921 he took a break from his schedule and he and some friends headed up the coast to the St. Francis hotel in San Fran. They rented three rooms, one for Arbuckle and one friend named Fishback, and a second for the other friend (Sherman), and a third designated "the party room". Arbuckle didn't REALLY want to party, but his friends convinced him. During the party, several women were invited, amongst them a young actress named Virginia Rappe, and a well-known local woman who sometimes participated in criminal activities and sex work aimed Maude Delmont. Maude and Fishback disappeared into Sherman's room/bathroom (it's assumed to have sex) while at the party Rappe fell seemingly quite ill. Arbuckle took notice, and moved her into Sherman's room to lay her on the bed so she could keep off what he thought was heavy intoxication. Maude and Fishback told him to take her to his room and leave them alone. Arbuckle moved her. He then left her and took a shower. Turns out that Rappe suffered from Chronic Cystitis and the alcohol she imbibed at the party exacerbated that condition and sent her into distress. She had previously undergone multiple shady abortions an this made her system worse, and she was an alcoholic who routinely fell ill at parties after drinking. Arbuckle, of course, knew none of this and just thought she was a sick partygoer. When he returned to the room she had removed all her clothes (this was apparently because when she would get this sick, she would tear at her own clothes to get them away form her body). They eventually deiced to take her to the hospital, where Maude (who was in the other room the whole time and nowhere near either Rappe or Arbuckle) claimed to authorities that Arbuckle had gotten her friend drunk and raped her with a piece of ice...which the newspapers turned into a broken bottle (no idea why). Neither Fishback or Sherman could corroborate where Arbuckle was at that point, so the cops believed Maude and Arbuckle was taken into custody. Rapped died in the hospital a day later, so Arbuckle was charged with both rape and manslaughter of the young actress. There were THREE trials of Arbuckle and he was mistrialed twice, and acquitted on the third one. In all cases there was literally ZERO evidence that Arbuckle had done anything other than he had said he did, and the juries in each trial were heavily in the brief that he did nothing wrong. It later came out that Maude seemingly (in conjunction with Fishback possibly) set the entire thing up. Maude knew Rappe, knew of her condition, knew of her alcoholism, and knew of Arbuckle's money and had a shady past of extorting people. This was discovered when she tried to extort Arbuckles lawyers. Rappe's condition and the doctors assertion that there was no rape and that the woman had died of her own condition...seemingly didn't bear enough weight get Arbuckle off. They had PROOF he didn't do anything wrong, and the story Maude told was entirely fabricated...and it took a two mistrials and a third jury who found him innocent.

Arbuckle's career NEVER recovered and he was even BARRED from acting for a few years. The newspapers may have reported after the fact that he didn't do anything wrong, but after some 3+ years of scandal and trials where he was accused of an awful crime which didn't even occur...the public had already weighed in and passed judgement. Arbuckle became box office/Hollywood poison. He was let go from his contracts with the studios, spent a few years directing films for friends...but never REALLY worked in Hollywood again as an actor. Secondarily because of a weird MPAA ruling that was handed down that deemed Arbuckle an example of "poor morals" (even though he did nothing wrong) a huge swathe of his films were actively destroyed by the archives (as such that today only a fraction of Arbuckle's pioneering work remains). He retreated into alcoholism to a degree that he was never around for his then wife who divorced him citing that he was the kindest man she ever knew, but his alcoholism made him retreat into himself to a degree that left her feeling widowed. He died not long later at the age of 46.

In an issue of a magazine a while after Arbuckle's retreat from the spotlight quoted: "I would like to see Roscoe Arbuckle make a comeback to the screen." He also said "The American nation prides itself upon its spirit of fair play. We like the whole world to look upon America as the place where every man gets a square deal. Are you sure Roscoe Arbuckle is getting one today? I'm not."

Now, this is not to say that we should not believe all accusers. Far from it. Every situation is different and I'll wager there are less railroadings like what happened to Arbuckle than there are serious accusations by a LONG stretch...

My point in telling this story is simply to say: "The Court Of Public Opinion" is a NASTY fucking place where people rarely get exonerated even when they are not guilty, the actually guilty can NEVER apparently be reformed or forgiven, and your job and lifeblood is forfeit at the whims of people who buy newspapers and pass judgement on you without all the facts, and even WITH the facts they STILL will pass judgement on you.

Any excuse to tell the Arbuckle story, which I've always found fascinating.

This is a great post that really highlights how unfounded and long-lasting the opinions in the court of public opinion can be — and even how they can have perturbations throughout systems that are supposed to be impartial and independent. What someone says is not the truth. What someone admits to is not even the truth.

Public apologies are not always admissions of guilt; they can also be a tacit acknowledgement that there is really only one way out of an accusation with no proof like we've been seeing — be (or act) remorseful long enough, and hope people move on. Whether you're guilty or not, that's the only move with any potential of success.

I'm not sure why everyone else is overlooking your post, but I found it to be a nice bit of history.

This post has been edited by Whisperzzzzzzz: 08 December 2017 - 01:09 AM

[Mentalist]

Whisperzzzzzzz, on 08 December 2017 - 01:01 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 07 December 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:

Not to side with either notion (though you do both seem to GENERALLY agree it seems, and disagree about the particulars)...but I will say at least this:

I DO note how the court of public opinion can utterly destroy, regardless of the guilt or non-guilt.

A phenomenal past example of such destruction is Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle.

Fatty Arbuckle was the glory of the silent film era for comedy. He was a golden child actor who audiences loved to watch. He star could not have been higher. And from what I understand of the man, he was a quiet, kind, and thoughtful man of impeccable character. He essentially put early Hollywood studios on the map and into the black (like Keystone). He mentored the greats, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Bob Hope. He was at the time, the highest paid actor in Hollywood (a $13million deal in todays dollars).

In 1921 he took a break from his schedule and he and some friends headed up the coast to the St. Francis hotel in San Fran. They rented three rooms, one for Arbuckle and one friend named Fishback, and a second for the other friend (Sherman), and a third designated "the party room". Arbuckle didn't REALLY want to party, but his friends convinced him. During the party, several women were invited, amongst them a young actress named Virginia Rappe, and a well-known local woman who sometimes participated in criminal activities and sex work aimed Maude Delmont. Maude and Fishback disappeared into Sherman's room/bathroom (it's assumed to have sex) while at the party Rappe fell seemingly quite ill. Arbuckle took notice, and moved her into Sherman's room to lay her on the bed so she could keep off what he thought was heavy intoxication. Maude and Fishback told him to take her to his room and leave them alone. Arbuckle moved her. He then left her and took a shower. Turns out that Rappe suffered from Chronic Cystitis and the alcohol she imbibed at the party exacerbated that condition and sent her into distress. She had previously undergone multiple shady abortions an this made her system worse, and she was an alcoholic who routinely fell ill at parties after drinking. Arbuckle, of course, knew none of this and just thought she was a sick partygoer. When he returned to the room she had removed all her clothes (this was apparently because when she would get this sick, she would tear at her own clothes to get them away form her body). They eventually deiced to take her to the hospital, where Maude (who was in the other room the whole time and nowhere near either Rappe or Arbuckle) claimed to authorities that Arbuckle had gotten her friend drunk and raped her with a piece of ice...which the newspapers turned into a broken bottle (no idea why). Neither Fishback or Sherman could corroborate where Arbuckle was at that point, so the cops believed Maude and Arbuckle was taken into custody. Rapped died in the hospital a day later, so Arbuckle was charged with both rape and manslaughter of the young actress. There were THREE trials of Arbuckle and he was mistrialed twice, and acquitted on the third one. In all cases there was literally ZERO evidence that Arbuckle had done anything other than he had said he did, and the juries in each trial were heavily in the brief that he did nothing wrong. It later came out that Maude seemingly (in conjunction with Fishback possibly) set the entire thing up. Maude knew Rappe, knew of her condition, knew of her alcoholism, and knew of Arbuckle's money and had a shady past of extorting people. This was discovered when she tried to extort Arbuckles lawyers. Rappe's condition and the doctors assertion that there was no rape and that the woman had died of her own condition...seemingly didn't bear enough weight get Arbuckle off. They had PROOF he didn't do anything wrong, and the story Maude told was entirely fabricated...and it took a two mistrials and a third jury who found him innocent.

Arbuckle's career NEVER recovered and he was even BARRED from acting for a few years. The newspapers may have reported after the fact that he didn't do anything wrong, but after some 3+ years of scandal and trials where he was accused of an awful crime which didn't even occur...the public had already weighed in and passed judgement. Arbuckle became box office/Hollywood poison. He was let go from his contracts with the studios, spent a few years directing films for friends...but never REALLY worked in Hollywood again as an actor. Secondarily because of a weird MPAA ruling that was handed down that deemed Arbuckle an example of "poor morals" (even though he did nothing wrong) a huge swathe of his films were actively destroyed by the archives (as such that today only a fraction of Arbuckle's pioneering work remains). He retreated into alcoholism to a degree that he was never around for his then wife who divorced him citing that he was the kindest man she ever knew, but his alcoholism made him retreat into himself to a degree that left her feeling widowed. He died not long later at the age of 46.

In an issue of a magazine a while after Arbuckle's retreat from the spotlight quoted: "I would like to see Roscoe Arbuckle make a comeback to the screen." He also said "The American nation prides itself upon its spirit of fair play. We like the whole world to look upon America as the place where every man gets a square deal. Are you sure Roscoe Arbuckle is getting one today? I'm not."

Now, this is not to say that we should not believe all accusers. Far from it. Every situation is different and I'll wager there are less railroadings like what happened to Arbuckle than there are serious accusations by a LONG stretch...

My point in telling this story is simply to say: "The Court Of Public Opinion" is a NASTY fucking place where people rarely get exonerated even when they are not guilty, the actually guilty can NEVER apparently be reformed or forgiven, and your job and lifeblood is forfeit at the whims of people who buy newspapers and pass judgement on you without all the facts, and even WITH the facts they STILL will pass judgement on you.

Any excuse to tell the Arbuckle story, which I've always found fascinating.

This is a great post that really highlights how unfounded and long-lasting the opinions in the court of public opinion can be — and even how they can have perturbations throughout systems that are supposed to be impartial and independent. What someone says is not the truth. What someone admits to is not even the truth.

Public apologies are not always admissions of guilt; they can also be a tacit acknowledgement that there is really only one way out of an accusation with no proof like we've been seeing — be (or act) remorseful long enough, and hope people move on. Whether you're guilty or not, that's the only move with any potential of success.

I'm not sure why everyone else is overlooking your post, but I found it to be a nice bit of history.

I'm hesitant to jump into the discussion, but QT brought up an excellent point about the possibilty of wrongful accusations, and the impact a media shitstorm can have on people's lives. So here's my 2 cents on how i'm understanding the latest back and forth here.

From where I'm standing, the crux of the disagreement b/w worry and Nevyn goes back to the basic underpinning of the current justice system. And one thing that seems inherently "wrong" and "unnatural" about it is this: In teh criminal justice system, the victim has no special rights , being essentially, a very special kind of witness
Worry's position, which is understandable, and quite humane, is that this lack of interest from the state in redressing the victim's plight (since the goal is to punish the accused criminal, NOT to provide redress to the victim- the victi is expected to seek such redress themselves, if anything) leaves a void which the society fills- and public ostracism is the most effective way of doing so, "on the victim's behalf".

Whereas Nevyn's position would be that doing so is essentially allowing society to take law into its own hands, and thus undermining the whole idea of due process.

Feel free to point out what I've misinterpreted.

[Nevyn]

Topic 1: On the severity of what Hoffman did, other examples and the way we talk about it.

Throughout this argument, you have frequently referred to Hoffman as a predator. You have dismissively acknowledged that he is not as bad as Weinstein or Cosby but indicated that you do not think it matters at all with respect to this discussion. And you reinvoked Cosby to try to set an absurd example for your position on how you want Hoffman handled in interviews.

And I am telling you that the distinctions matter. There is a reason the criminal justice system categorizes crimes in degree, with aggrevating factors, and judicial discretion in sentencing. One thing is not another. Painting a dramatic brush on what Hoffman did with inflammatory terms may simply reflect your anger, or might just be your sophist technique for argue. But predator. Sexual Assault. Cosby. Weinstein. These are the things you invoke.

Bill Cosby drugged women into unconsciousness and then performed sex acts on them. There has been no apology of any sort nor acknowledgment that anything happened. He wholly disputes the accounts while refusing to discuss them.

For reference, what Hoffmans accuser has alleged, backed up by her transcribed diaries, is that:

1) When one girl stopped rubbing his feet and, he asked her to do it. She said she was only good at necks and he said pretend it's a neck.
2) In a conversation with 4 other people around, Hoffman talked about breasts and things he likes or doesn't. No indication it was directed at anyone.
3) Asked if she had had sex the previous weekend
4) Made a comment to another woman about her breasts when asked what she wanted for lunch. Again that one was another person and overheard by the victim.
5) put his hand on her butt 4 times during one walk to the limo, to which she hit him and called him a dirty old man.
6) Made the soft boiled clitoris comment
7) On hearing her talking about the last 2 with another person, ask if she is bad mouthing him. Later, she tells him she did not appreciate the touches or comments, he apologizes.
8) Made a comment after she watched Warren Beatty that she had had a 'fuck me Warren' look when he was on set.

Now, all of that is absolutely sexual harassment. It is not appropriate nor is it right and I don't doubt any of it happened. And the touching is even a step beyond. All too common then and now, but this is still a flirtatious touch over clothing in public.

So that is like what Cosby did the way shoplifting penny candy is like armed robbery.

And the distinction is not just between sex acts and no, force and no,etc.

There is a serious issue of intent, and that matters too. Cosby intended to have sex with prone women whether they wanted it or not. Weinstein wanted to extort sexual behaviour from young actresses by dangling their careers in front of them.

I don't know what was in Hoffman's mind. Neither do you, nor does the victim. It is possible, I suppose that he was pure malicious evil, and wanted to make the girl uncomfortable and exert power over here. But it is equally if not more possible that he viewed (and still does ) his actions as banter, and expected amusement and flirtation, and that it never occurred to him they may be scarring or hurtful or even unwanted. It certainly seems he was surprised and at least temporarily remorseful when told she did not welcome them according to her own account.

That does not make it ok. But it is a long way from being a predator. And his state of mind is what he spent a bunch of that interview trying to give his view on. When not being cut off by one liner interjections.

It is good that she came forward. His level of behaviour (and even milder forms of harassment) is not ok. But they both were and are commonplace, which is a problem not only that it happens, but that it can appear acceptable in how it is received and how often it happens. Her telling the story and Hoffman having to apologize may give the next man an idea up front that this is not ok. It may embolden the next stage hand to say right away "I am not comfortable with this".

But if this happened today on camera in front of witnesses, it likely would not even rise to the point of a criminal or civil proceeding. He'd lose jobs and endorsements and have to do a apology tour.

What's more, it is pretty clear you are for more angry at Hoffman about this than the victim is. She still talks about liking the actor and enjoying his work. She hasn't given any real indication of wanting any sort of consequence to befall him, and seems to have come forward more to advance the conversation about harassment in Hollywood than to invoke consequence.

And beyond all of this, his attacks of the victim as you phrase them need to be quantified too. He did not say she was liar, or that nothing happened, or that she was asking for it. His initial statement was an apology, neither conceding nor disputing any facts. In the interview he denied specific memory of the person, acknowledged sex talk on set while giving you his frame of mind, that he considered it normal, playful, and engaged in by others there. And he expressed skepticism at other specific points of her account. More on that later, but it is not the same as how Cosby or Trump or Clinton or others treated victims.

So maybe slow your roll on some of this. He is deservedly getting blowback for his actions, but your reactions seem way out of line with what he actually did then or what he said about it now. And it comes out in every part of how you talk about this, as well as how you view everything he said in the interview.

[worry]

Okay, Nevyn. I was "complaining", while you were engaging in civil discourse about how I'm not aware fact and belief are different things and making measured responses like "duh". I was a "ball of rage", while you were politely trying to "go slow" for me. I was "excessive", while you were reasonably referencing lynch mobs. I had trouble staying "focused", while you were making the singular argument that Dustin Hoffman was ambushed, and that from his perspective he didn't do anything wrong so how could he cop to it?, and that even if he did do it it wasn't as bad as Harvey Weinstein, and that I'm on a slippery slope of criminalizing denials of wrongdoing, and that while you believe the victim there hasn't been a trial or due process, and that I, personally, am pro-harassment.

I concede all of the above, and wish you all the best on your not-troubling, not-weird, extremely reasonable plan to spend the next two days dissecting all of my posts line by line.

While you're doing that, feel free to tally all the times I insulted you or demeaned your understanding, and compare it to the reverse.

[worry]

Dang, I had that window open a long time! Not ignoring the other posts, and I plan to read QT's post after work.