Kevin Spacey sexual advance accusations

Tools    





And he didn't admit anything. He said either he was drunk or probably drunk and remembered nothing
That might not be admitting to that particular incident, but that's admitting he's done it before so that particular incident may be true.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Seems the story about Sheen and Haim was BS, according to Haim's mother, who says his actual abuser was the very man that named Sheen:

http://people.com/tv/corey-haim-moth...lleged-abuser/
Oh dear. I was reading her comments yesterday but didn't see the name charlir



I don’t remember is not a strong defense.
For a supposed crime of 30 years and no evidence, "I don't remember" is plausible deniability.
And when you pair that announcement with coming out as gay it also reaks of “let me deflect away from the sexual misconduct allegation with trying to pander to the media.”



And when you pair that announcement with coming out as gay it also reaks of “let me deflect away from the sexual misconduct allegation with trying to pander to the media.”
He has being accused of sexually approaching another man. Regardless of whether or not that was your takeaway, it does not compensate for the lack of the evidence or confession.
__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel



And when you pair that announcement with coming out as gay it also reaks of “let me deflect away from the sexual misconduct allegation with trying to pander to the media.”
He has being accused of sexually approaching another man. Regardless of whether or not that was your takeaway, it does not compensate for the lack of the evidence or confession.
Criminal court? Not going to make it. Civil court? Always a possibility.

Court of getting work and in the eyes of his employers? They already found him guilty. Spacey is not going to get work for a while at the least. Never at the very worst.



I liked House of Cards..



Court of getting work and in the eyes of his employers? They already found him guilty. Spacey is not going to get work for a while at the least. Never at the very worst.
That's no justice.



Court of getting work and in the eyes of his employers? They already found him guilty. Spacey is not going to get work for a while at the least. Never at the very worst.
That's no justice.
If you want justice look to God or the law in a court. But since his employers in Hollywood are interested in neither save for profit, it makes good business sense.



If you want justice look to God or the law in a court. But since his employers in Hollywood are interested in neither save for profit, it makes good business sense.
That's debatable. Regardless, I'm not here to dispute the profitability of assuming guilt, I'm here to dispute the grounds on which he's being persecuted.



That's debatable. Regardless, I'm not here to dispute the profitability of assuming guilt, I'm here to dispute the grounds on which he's being persecuted.
The grounds are:

1) Multiple accusers (dozens, it turns out).

2) The fact that he can't even muster a denial, which is pretty unusual for an innocent person.



The grounds are:

1) Multiple accusers (dozens, it turns out).

2) The fact that he can't even muster a denial, which is pretty unusual for an innocent person.
The quantity of allegations is meaningless if the allegations themselves are unsubstantiated. And absence of explicit denial, though curious, is no concession of guilt.

Frankly, I'm rather tired of this trend of assuming guilt because someone didn't explicitly deny something, let alone concede it's bad, let alone acknowledge it, let alone exist in the same country.



The quantity of allegations is meaningless if the allegations themselves are unsubstantiated.
Sure, if you know they're lies, the number doesn't matter. But that's not a description of the situation in question. Absent knowing whether allegations are true, their quantity is a piece of evidence that they are, for the simple reason that collusion and conspiracy are generally less plausible the more people would have to be involved. Particularly when many don't seem positioned to gain anything tangible.

And absence of explicit denial, though curious, is no concession of guilt.
It wasn't just an "absence of explicit denial." It was also an apology. The idea of an innocent person apologizing isn't merely "curious," it's downright bizarre.

All that said, someone doing something that is "curious" in the midst of a serious allegation is a perfectly reasonable thing to consider when evaluating how likely it is to be true.

Frankly, I'm rather tired of this trend of assuming guilt because someone didn't explicitly deny something, let alone concede it's bad, let alone acknowledge it, let alone exist in the same country.
I'm tired of a lot of the trends around accusations and burden of proof, too, but I'm not keen on people reflexively siding with the accused to try to counterbalance that, either, even in cases where the preponderance of evidence clearly points towards guilt.



Sure, if you know they're lies, the number doesn't matter. But that's not a description of the situation in question. Absent knowing whether allegations are true, their quantity is a piece of evidence that they are, for the simple reason that collusion and conspiracy are generally less plausible the more people would have to be involved. Particularly when many don't seem positioned to gain anything tangible.
It's suggestive, I'll grant. But I've seen enough people convinced of something untrue at the same time to consider any claim to "lots of allegations" to be extremely dubious.

Originally Posted by Yoda
It wasn't just an "absence of explicit denial." It was also an apology.
I believe I stated earlier that it wasn't a real apology. It was specifically predicated on IF it happened:

"But if I did behave then as he describes, I owe him the sincerest apology"

I'm quite annoyed that headlines are casting this as an outright apology because if I were the one making the accusation I would not be satisfied with this.

Originally Posted by Yoda
The idea of an innocent person apologizing isn't merely "curious," it's downright bizarre.
Hardly. Provided the current culture of "listen and believe" pervading everything, progressives are under intense social pressure to cast themselves as endlessly fallible people. If you're not undually "privileged" in some way, you've "internalized oppression" in some way. This is neither the first, nor second, nor even third time in the past couple years I've seen someone accused of sexual harassment of some kind and saying "I don't remember if I did it, but if I did, I'm sorry". Some were guilty, some weren't.

Originally Posted by Yoda
All that said, someone doing something that is "curious" in the midst of a serious allegation is a perfectly reasonable thing to consider when evaluating how likely it is to be true.
Certainly.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I'm tired of a lot of the trends around accusations and burden of proof, too, but I'm not keen on people reflexively siding with the accused to try to counterbalance that, either,
I'm not on Kevin Spacey's side, if he's a serial sexual predator then **** him. I've got no loyalty. I only want to see something damning before you punish an potentially innocent man.

Originally Posted by Yoda
even in cases where the preponderance of evidence clearly points towards guilt.
A preponderance of evidence would be damning, but that's not what I see here. I see allusions, self-described victims of three-decade-old crimes and a purposeful misrepresentation of the accused's words. If I had it my way and this went to court; I would reject the case and fine the plaintiffs for wasting tax dollars.



It's suggestive, I'll grant. But I've seen enough people convinced of something untrue at the same time to consider any claim to "lots of allegations" to be extremely dubious.
Yeah, see, this is kind of what I'm getting at when I talk about "counterbalancing." It doesn't feel like this is actually just an assessment of the evidence against a particular person: it feels like this incident is being used as a proxy for larger political issues, much in the same way people might reflexively believe an accuser to make a larger point about the seriousness of sexual abuse. And I dislike it in both instances.

I'm categorically against conscripting accused people and/or victims into the culture war. I think, when we view these discrete cases as skirmishes in some larger fight, we really do a disservice to all the individuals involved, given that potentially life-wrecking trauma is taking place in any such case, whether the allegations are true or not.

I'm quite annoyed that headlines are casting this as an outright apology because if I were the one making the accusation I would not be satisfied with this.
I understand the distinction, but the fact that he made an allowance for the possibility strongly suggests he recognizes some tendency or habit in himself that makes it plausible.

If someone told me I'd gotten drunk and groped them, technically I couldn't discount the possibility that it had happened, since you can get drunk and not remember stuff. But this is so far outside of my character (I don't even really drink) that I can, and would, immediately and completely deny it. If, on the other hand, I knew I drank a lot, and had been drunk a lot, and/or had a history of doing stuff like this, then I might preemptively apologize, knowing that it's quite possible I did it. So the mere act of apologizing is essentially Spacey himself saying "I know myself to be the kind of person who might do this." He's basically acting as a character witness against himself.

A preponderance of evidence would be damning, but that's not what I see here. I see allusions, self-described victims of three-decade-old crimes and a purposeful misrepresentation of the accused's words. If I had it my way and this went to court; I would reject the case and fine the plaintiffs for wasting tax dollars.
Just taking these in order:

1. "Allusions." I'm not sure what this means. He's been specifically accused of specific acts by multiple people. He's not being judged only on hazy references to non-specific rowdy behavior, or something.

2. "Self-described victims." This seems like a weirdly pejorative way to describe them, given that anyone who claims to be a victim is "self-describing" themselves that way. I was also going to ask why you don't describe him as "self-described innocent," before realizing he's actually not even describing himself that way. Heh.

3. "Three-decade-old crimes." Some of them are not nearly that old: some of them are much more recent, like the driver who picked him up and drove him to a House of Cards set. Also, much in the way lies do not become truths with frequency, truths do not become lies over time.

4. "Purposeful misrepresentation of the accused's words." This has no bearing on Spacey's guilt or innocence. And the fact that it's being talked about alongside the basic facts is, I think, pretty strong evidence about what I said earlier, about this being used as a proxy.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Chris,this is my take. Everything that came out of his mouth was scripted by his lawyer. Everything being picked up by the press is through lawyers on both sides. I'm not taking spacy's side. I'm doing my usual and sitting back taking no one's side, but I'm also doing my usual and playing devil's advocate AGAINST bg powerful law firms because they are corrupt (not in a tinfoil hat way) and this is what I said

**&^*)(uy&^((+_)+_(i()_&()(_+)_+i()*t^&r%$%q@#~.
&^&*(&)i(_))*(^*(*()*(*%^#$#!~@$!%$^%^&#$!$%%^&(*()(&*(^^&$^%&&#$%@!@~%$$%$^%#$#^%*&()*)(&%$%#$#!@!~ @!$#$#!@#@#!@%$$%$^^

Ok I think I well and trululy got my point across. Spoke so fast I Didnt take a breath.



Yeah, see, this is kind of what I'm getting at when I talk about "counterbalancing." It doesn't feel like this is actually just an assessment of the evidence against a particular person: it feels like this incident is being used as a proxy for larger political issues,
Not sure how acknowledging that Ad Populum isn't a reliable method for determining truth comes across as a "larger political issue".

I think it's important to distinguish between two senses of determining truth: The first being the probabilisticly determined likelihood of a given statement being true. In this sense, the more claimants to a particular claim, the more likely the given claim is true, this is provided that all considered claimants are assumed to also value truth and are being honest. This also precludes any and all refutations, it is merely an assessment of competing probabilities (in some cases this is all you can ever do). The second sense is that of determining "absolute" truth through hard evidence and logic. Whereas in the first sense a lot of circumstantial evidence could appear damning, it is a judgment elicited in the absence of falsifiability, such as the possibility that said evidence could be mutually exclusive, or witnesses could be wrong, or the alleged perpetrator was demonstrably never at the scene of the crime.

Whereas I see the value in the first sense of determining truth, and I use it daily to make judgments, it is not the means by which I would trust my own or anyone else's future in the face of severe criminal allegations. It is why appeals to popularity, personal anecdotes, and circumstantial evidence are commonly considered to be weak forms of evidence.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I'm categorically against conscripting accused people and/or victims into the culture war. I think, when we view these discrete cases as skirmishes in some larger fight, we really do a disservice to all the individuals involved, given that potentially life-wrecking trauma is taking place in any such case, whether the allegations are true or not.
I can kinda sorta see where you're coming from, though I don't believe I am subordinating a scandal to any sort of political agenda (if that is what you're suggesting). Though I find it "curious" that there should be no grounds to view this scandal in part with the larger context of other similar scandals. Video related:



Originally Posted by Yoda
I understand the distinction, but the fact that he made an allowance for the possibility strongly suggests he recognizes some tendency or habit in himself that makes it plausible.
That is true and that shouldn't be overlooked, but do bear in mind that it was 30 years ago. I've been told I've done things I can't remember and have said, "I don't remember that, but that does sound like something I might have done", even if it was something embarrassing or I would never be caught dead doing now, and I don't have the excuse of having been plastered at a party for not remembering.

Originally Posted by Yoda
If someone told me I'd gotten drunk and groped them, technically I couldn't discount the possibility that it had happened, since you can get drunk and not remember stuff. But this is so far outside of my character (I don't even really drink) that I can, and would, immediately and completely deny it. If, on the other hand, I knew I drank a lot, and had been drunk a lot, and/or had a history of doing stuff like this, then I might preemptively apologize, knowing that it's quite possible I did it. So the mere act of apologizing is essentially Spacey himself saying "I know myself to be the kind of person who might do this." He's basically acting as a character witness against himself.
I agree, it's no concession of guilt, but it's a bad move to make if he's innocent.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Just taking these in order:

1. "Allusions." I'm not sure what this means. He's been specifically accused of specific acts by multiple people. He's not being judged only on hazy references to non-specific rowdy behavior, or something.
Perhaps a less than ideal word, I apparently don't find "allegations" as ostensibly vacuous as you do.

Originally Posted by Yoda
2. "Self-described victims." This seems like a weirdly pejorative way to describe them, given that anyone who claims to be a victim is "self-describing" themselves that way.
I mean as opposed to them actually being victims.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I was also going to ask why you don't describe him as "self-described innocent," before realizing he's actually not even describing himself that way. Heh.
Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Yoda
3. "Three-decade-old crimes." Some of them are not nearly that old:
I'm sure, but they do get that old, that particular instance is the one for which he was said to have made the "apology".

Originally Posted by Yoda
Also, much in the way lies do not become truths with frequency, truths do not become lies over time.
I'm not sure what this is in reference to.

Originally Posted by Yoda
4. "Purposeful misrepresentation of the accused's words." This has no bearing on Spacey's guilt or innocence.
At least as far as my conversation with Gunslinger has gone, I believe his perceived guilt or innocence is heavily influenced by that. You yourself brought up the apology, from my own experiences most people will not go on to acknowledge that it is not in fact a concession of guilt, but a concession of the possibility of guilt.

I think when mob justice is weighing in, calling out it's bull**** is quite relevant in the pursuit of establishing truth.

Originally Posted by Yoda
And the fact that it's being talked about alongside the basic facts is, I think, pretty strong evidence about what I said earlier, about this being used as a proxy.
You could turn this into "just another example of the media lying" and I think that would be fair, but I think that's rather beside the central question of whether or not a large quantity of allegations and a not-apology give you a fair and informed verdict.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Sounds like you and I should agree more than we do.
I only recall disagreeing with you once then we sorta did the boxers after' a bout hug and moved on in peace until the next time you knock me down which hasnt happened yet. Dont hurt me too much in the next 10 days or so. I have a cracked sternum and 4 cracked ribs' and if you so much as hug me super gently I'll probably scream the house down.

You should see the other guy!!!

Yeah I'm not into vigilante ' justice' aka the pitchfork crowd. The only time I agree with vigilantes is in movies.

But I dont trust those big wig pricks who sit at the top of the food chain swimming around like big fat piranha in moster law firms either.



Kevin Spacey is back!

Addressing the accusations against him over the past year in character as Frank Underwood from House of Cards. He is due in court on January 7 for a sexual assault charge stemming from an incident a couple years ago.

Man, I love this guy as an actor!

__________________
“Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are, it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!” ~ Rocky Balboa