Is catching a beating a lesser crime than rape? or murder like Mathew Broderick did while driving drunk?
Wahlberg was arrested, charged, and served time (albeit a very little), also his main offense occurred in 1988. Spacey and Weinstein were continuing to offend, and along with Cosby were serial offenders.
So you have a Wahlberg who was a piece of shit as a youth and then (as far as we know) corrected himself and remained hate-crime/assault free for going on nearly 40 years now vs rapists who were active until they were publicly outed.
Halle Berry, Caitlyn Jenner, Laura Bush… eventually Tiger Woods…
There’s an appreciable difference between beating up a guy and sexually assaulting many multiple people for decades.
Both are bad, but one is badderer.
When Wahlberg assaulted people when he as 15 and 16 years old. That doesn’t excuse the behavior, but 15/16 year olds aren’t adults with fully formed brains. Wahlberg also went to the police and claimed responsibility for the attack. He then plead guilty in court and served time. It still bothers me how racially motivated it was and for that I would personally always have disdain for Wahlberg.
Cosby was 28 years old for his first time of rape allegations. There would be more than a dozen other women that came forward with reports. The most recent was Feb of 2000 when Cosby was then 63 years old. Cosby was a fully formed adult doing these horrible acts to women he had power over, and he used that power to abuse them.
Spacy and Weinstein also did their horrible acts as fully formed adults and had a repeated pattern of doing them again and again to people they had power over.
Certainly can excuse once, maybe twice, but a continued patten suggests this is more than just poor impulse control due to an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex.
Certainly can excuse once, maybe twice
Sorry, what is it you can excuse?
Yes, certainly not excuse. Thank you. Perhaps explain or ameliorate would be better word choice. Most go through teen years without perpetuating acts of racial violence, no excuse.
The fact that you have no scale on how to rank those things is very concerning. Like, wow. You actually do not see the difference between an accident, violence, and rape? Just wow.
So your saying all DWI’s are an accident? Almost killing a person gets a pass? But rape is were we draw the line?
I didn’t draw any line. But if you think that physical violence, or an accident (even if caused by stupidity or whatever else) is as bad as an act that is designed to destroy someone completely, then you are part of the problem.
Are you one of those people that defend rapists by saying “innocent until proven guilty”?
It would be a terrifying world to live in if it was guilty into proven innocent
It would be terrifying to be in a world where opinions need to be backed up by a court of law, and yet here we are.
If you don’t believe victims of rape, you’re on the side of the rapists, and I’ll tell you fuck you for that.
And the fact that you had to intervene to say “no but it’s good to defend rapists” says a lot about what your opinion on the matter is.
You continue to say some of the craziest things I’ve heard in a long time.
Please continue! What else you got locked up in that dome of yours you’ve been wanting to let loose??
Considering people innocent until proven guilty matters for the justice system. An individual’s opinion are not bound to this.
Rape in particular sees an extreme minority of perpetrators being condemned. If you decide to then believe the legal conclusion, rather than the words of the victims, you are siding with an unfair system that protects rapists.
But sure, with your logic you shouldn’t call a guy like Trump a rapist because you know, he hasn’t been proven guilty. Way to go.
You’re a strange dude… You seem too want to craft an entire legal system around one perceived problem and are completely ignorant to the huge number of problems that would create… This is hurting my head reading this nonsense so I won’t be continuing this conversation. Good riddance
Are you one of those people that defend rapists by saying “innocent until proven guilty”?
I was with you until this line popped up out of nowhere. Like, wtf. Yes, that’s the basis of our fucking justice system.
But you are not the justice system, you are an individual.
Are you defending Trump every time someone says he’s a rapist? If a cop kills a black guy out of racism, but is found innocent by the court, do you defend him? What about DSK in Europe, that raped a maid for no reason, but wasn’t found guilty because he had a lot of money and influence, yet bribed her after the trial with a huge amount of money so that she doesn’t appeal? What about Matzneff in France, who gets rewards for books where he explains in details how he raped a lot of kids and loved it, do you defend him? All these people are innocent, in the view of the justice system.
If you say no to those, then where do you draw the line? Where is the point where suddenly, the justice system becomes your guide?
Innocent until proven guilty is a huge basis of the justice system, yes. But you supporting victims that declare they have been raped, whether or not the perpetrator has been judged and condemned, is not going to change the justice system.
There’s a big stretch between claiming on a case by case basis that justice has been miscarried, and making a flat out statement that all accused rapists are guilty, which is what your statement would mean.
Justice is generally not carried at all for rape accusations, cases are not even recorded and cops tell victims “I would have done the same, shut up slut”.
I am also not saying that all accused rapists are guilty, but that you should believe the victims unless you have strong evidence of the opposite. Just like you should believe victims of discriminations that explain it to you, instead of saying “I don’t see it so it doesn’t exist”. The concept is the same, you side with the side that is being treated unfairly, not the opposite.
How many cases of rape accusations do you know, that seem fake, compared to how many seem justified, and how many of those end up with the perpetrator condemned (or even judged)?
Believing victims doesn’t bring anything bad, it just gives you a mindset that allows you to see further than the rape culture that society is drowned in. And when someone is accused by 20 people of rape, instead of immediately thinking “these 20 people are greedy liars that are just preying on this poor, innocent celebrity”, you start wondering how you can get 20 people to go through the humiliation of declaring themselves victims of rape, which is seen as shameful (for some reason), without having done anything wrong.
And also, ask women (not only, but statistically it’s a sad fact) around you if they’ve ever been assaulted, raped, or whatnot. Even though most probably wouldn’t want to tell you, statistically I guarantee that a bunch of them went through something like that and never talked about it. Your reaction is typically why, they know that without hard proof (which generally doesn’t exist) people will immediately believe the assaulter instead. And according to your stance, if your mother tells you she’s been assaulted 30 years ago, your answer would be “Do you have proof? Why have you waited for so long? Is the perpetrator famous?”. But of course you wouldn’t react like that, because once it’s someone that you know and respect (I mean, I don’t know your relationship with your mother), you realize how hard it is for them to go through that, and that even talking about it is a big sacrifice.
So basically: if you don’t believe the victims by default, then you believe the rapists by default. And society already defends the rapists. So yeah, I’m not going to wait for a court to give their judgement to have an opinion, and without any strong evidence that the victim would be lying (which basically never happens), I’m going to side with them.
I am also not saying that all accused rapists are guilty, but that you should believe the victims unless you have strong evidence of the opposite.
You’re a rapist.
Onus is now on you to prove otherwise. Good thing negatives are so easy to prove.
Believing victims doesn’t bring anything bad
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgvjr78ndjo
Yeah, it’s not like false accusations can destroy lifes either.
And when someone is accused by 20 people of rape, instead of immediately thinking “these 20 people are greedy liars that are just preying on this poor, innocent celebrity”, you start wondering how you can get 20 people to go through the humiliation of declaring themselves victims of rape, which is seen as shameful (for some reason), without having done anything wrong.
20 accusers is a form of evidence in itself. For the sake of ‘evidenceless’ accusations, the discussion should be about single accusations with no context.
And according to your stance, if your mother tells you she’s been assaulted 30 years ago, your answer would be “Do you have proof? Why have you waited for so long? Is the perpetrator famous?”.
Now you’re setting up a strawman. Of course we believe family and those close to us. The discussion is about the system and how it works.
if you don’t believe the victims by default, then you believe the rapists by default
False analogy. It’s possible to have insufficient evidence for a decision. Especially in he-said-she-said situations
In the meantime, I’ll be waiting for you to prove you’re not a rapist.
i think beating someone up is less vile and disgusting than the other crimes listed
It’s a lot more than just beating someone up. Mark has committed numerous hate crimes.
His last incident was almost 25 years ago from the looks of it. And he’s since apologised for his actions, sincerely enough for the victim to forgive him. At what point does somebody get away from the mistakes of their past?
True. I’m not saying he should never be able to move on, these happened when he was a literal child. Just making sure everyone is on the same page because “he beat someone up” isn’t the full story.
edit: lol downvoted for verified fact, they mad. Forgiveness is your personal choice but forgetting or ignoring only begets repeated harm. Let others learn from his mistakes.
Besides all the other things people listed, in law we appreciate that sexual violence is kind of worse than just physical violence, and if there’s power dynamics at play and psychological dependency, it gets even more morally apprehensive.
What I’m saying even just the sexual nature makes it worse for me, but of course there’s more.
That said, I did not know about what Mark Wahlberg did, and obviously not great.
This culture looks down on sexual assault (rightfully so), but it glorifies violence in many cases.
I think sex crimes are much more character defining. Personally, I dont think there are many who push themselves toward violence and murder. Sure there are those okay with violence and psychos that kill for pleasure but nowhere near the level of sex crimes.
I also think that violent people can be rehabilitated whereas sexual deviants can only hide from themselves.
I dont think a single instance 40 years ago is enough to hold someone to account today but if it were sexual I would not believe it were a single instance.
I forgot. What charges did Spacey get?
