"That 70s Show" star Danny Masterson sentenced to 30 Years to Life for Two Rapes

Frank Underwood

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
tommie said:
Getting a Golden Era Simpson comparison is a compliment of the highest order btw.
Click to expand...
What the heck, I'll take it then!

tommie said:
As for Danny Masterson - people still haven't come up with a good reason why he's supposedly "framed".

Same with Russell Brand. Just vague "they're dangerous to the main stream" - like ooh. Come on now, as Leila K once said.
Click to expand...
Personally speaking, I'm just expressing the idea that it's hard to know who to trust. Women can be incentivized to come forward and make these allegations. Sometimes it's to benefit themselves, and other times it's at the behest of others. It's happened before, and what really compounds the issue is that the alleged encounters usually happened years (often decades) prior. Then you have laws that are created to revoke the statute of limitations under special conditions, and the cases end up meeting those conditions.

It's hard to think of a strong reason someone would frame Masterson other than a means to take on the Church of Scientology. It gets easier with polarizing and controversial figures like Brand, Julian Assange, and Brett Cavanaugh. Again, it doesn't mean their accusers are lying, but I can't say that I firmly believe them either. As I said before, I don't want to see rapists go free even if I agree with them politically. Sadly, human nature prevents me from being able to completely trust every potential victim that comes along.

#MeToo ultimately did more harm than good. Too many narcissists perverted the movement and made it about taking down men at any cost, due process be damned.

And thanks to a lack of reading comprehension skills and an understanding of nuance, some people conflate everything I just said with making a "pro-rapist argument."
 
Last edited:
Snarky Oracle!

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
8
 
Awards
21
Brian Kinney said:
Only for people who get banned and don't accept rules. For example: about spamming. Constantly repeating the same pro-rapists arguments whenever a celebrity is accused of sexual abuse is spam. Another rule is: if you aren't willing to read public information because you're lazy and only watch YT videos by lunatics, don't engage in discussions and think you know more than a judge in a criminal case.

Also: I know you have your personal reason to argue against bans - we can't discuss it if you're biased. ;)
Click to expand...

Brian Kinney said:
Two or three crazy lunatics from the far right who defend rapists are not "a lot". And how do you know they're gay? They're misogynists as countless other threads prove. One is an "independent" Nazi and the other one or two are old fools - they have no other sources than YouTube conspiracy videos by other weirdos to use as proofs in arguments for their extreme views. Frustrated incels who always believe in the opposite of facts and common sense. This shouldn't be discussed, it should be banned.
Click to expand...

Silly, shallow, pseudo-liberal and intellectually lazy. From the "believe all accusers" brigade, so proudly.


Frank Underwood said:
Projection, strawman arguments, lazily calling people "far right," equating skepticism with "pro-rapist arguments," assumes judicial system always carries out justice fairly, equates stating an opinion or making an argument more than once with "spam," equates discussion about the views and treatment of men vs. women with "misogyny," calls people who bring up fact-checked, nuanced takes to discussions about the Ukraine/Russia war "Nazis," wants to censor people you disagree with rather than engage with their ideas, and just good old ad hominem attacks like "crazy lunatics" and "incels." Wow, not an original thought to be found. Just typical neoliberal smear merchant commentary.

Anybody who equates being anti-war, pro-living wage, pro-universal healthcare, and pro-free speech with the far right should seriously consider getting their head checked.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Snarky Oracle!

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
8
 
Awards
21
Frank Underwood said:
What the heck, I'll take it then!


Personally speaking, I'm just expressing the idea that it's hard to know who to trust. Women can be incentivized to come forward and make these allegations. Sometimes it's to benefit themselves, and other times it's at the behest of others. It's happened before, and what really compounds the issue is that the alleged encounters usually happened years (often decades) prior. Then you have laws that are created to revoke the statute of limitations under special conditions, and the cases end up meeting those conditions.

It's hard to think of a strong reason someone would frame Masterson other than a means to take on the Church of Scientology. It gets easier with polarizing and controversial figures like Brand, Julian Assange, and Brett Cavanaugh. Again, it doesn't mean their accusers are lying, but I can't say that I firmly believe them either. As I said before, I don't want to see rapists go free even if I agree with them politically. Sadly, human nature prevents me from being able to completely trust every potential victim that comes along.

#MeToo ultimately did more harm than good. Too many narcissists perverted the movement and made it about taking down men at any cost, due process be damned.

And thanks to a lack of reading comprehension skills and an understanding of nuance, some people conflate everything I just said with making a "pro-rapist argument."
Click to expand...

But objectivity, or the attempt at objectivity, feels like "bias" to some people (or even "pro-rape nazi" bias) especially to those who are unable to make cogent arguments yet believe they are.

Who knows about Masterson or Brand, but certain people really should experience what it's like to be falsely accused. And to be told they are incapable of being innocent, and that anyone who calls for calm detachment is a misogynazi who needs to be banned.

They need to see what it's like.

believe-women.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommie

tommie

Telly Talk Hero
LV
3
 
Awards
9
I think conspiracy theorists have an issue with formulating why people are framed, except for that they're framed.
 
tommie

tommie

Telly Talk Hero
LV
3
 
Awards
9
Frank Underwood said:
Who are these conspiracy theorists that are asserting people were framed? Or is that how you describe people who find these cases too complex to actually choose sides?
Click to expand...
Right, are you trying to convince me that there aren't people who are trying to frame Masterson and Brand as innocent and they're just victims of a large plot?
 
Frank Underwood

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
Snarky Oracle! said:
Well, you just conspired to write a sentence I couldn't understand -- and, see? It worked!
Click to expand...
I think he's saying that there are people who believe Masterson and Brand are innocent, and that the accusations against them are part of a large plot to bring them down.

And while I know some people believe they're innocent definitively, that's not what's been articulated in this thread. I guess recognizing that people can have ulterior motives automatically means you side with the accused to some people. It's like with politics where you're expected to make a binary choice, and it's considered a cop out if you refuse.
 
Last edited:
Snarky Oracle!

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
8
 
Awards
21
Frank Underwood said:
I think he's saying that there are people who believe Masterson and Brand are innocent, and that the accusations against them are part of a large plot to bring them down.

And while I know some people believe they're innocent definitively, that's not what's been articulated in this thread. I guess recognizing that people can have ulterior motives automatically means you side with the accused. It's just like in politics where you're expected to make a binary choice, and it's considered a cop out if you refuse.
Click to expand...

Yes, all we're calling for is reasonable skepticism -- and some people think that's "misogyny" because, of course, women never lie. And never lie elaborately.

Who knows what the motive might be to frame Masterson (if indeed there was one)?, while the motive to frame Brand should be obvious (a high-profile podcaster who skewers the system and others in the media who run interference for that system).

Those things may or may not be conspiracies, but it's reasonable to not take such allegations on face value. And some are saying we should.
 
Frank Underwood

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Champion
LV
3
 
Awards
9
Interestingly enough, the neoliberals are pushing a conspiracy theory about Brand. They're claiming his distrust of the media was part of a plot to turn his audience against the media as well. That way, they would believe Brand when these allegations came to light. Although I knew who Brand was, I didn't follow him for his political views until a year or two ago. By then, I had already been down the anti-establishment rabbit hole for at least five years. I imagine that's true for a good portion of Brand's audience. I didn't need Brand to turn me against establishment narratives. Their corporate owners and advertisers took care of that, along with pushing authoritarian policies and lying us into war.
 
Last edited:
Top