I think itâs fair to assume that people who are defending someone who apparently* slipped drugs to women to rape them are people whom one should avoid. Or at least never let them near your food or drink or ever be alone with themâŚ
*ok, âallegedlyâ, but heâs been accused by like 50 women, so, uh, yeah.
Many are basing their belief in Cosbyâs innocence on âblack men are frequently railroaded by the justice system.â While this is absolutely true it ignores the fact that most wrongful convictions are based on flimsy evidence and unreliable witnesses, not massive coordinated conspiracies that would require getting dozens of ordinary people to perjure themselves over a period of decades.
A flip side of the race issue is that women of color (who make up a large percentage of Cosbyâs accusers) are disproportionately likely to be victims of sexual assault, and their attackers are even less likely to face prison time than someone who rapes a white woman. Defending Cosby isnât âtaking a stand for black people,â itâs âtaking a stand against women (including women of color).â
So what if his fans still support him: Innocent or guilty, Bill Cosbyâs reputation is now the same as (if not worst than) O.J. Simpsonâs.
There are a lot of people that donât want to believe Cosby is guilty because he HAS been a public positive influence in the world. He had a legitimate (not honorary) doctorate in education and took time away from an incredibly lucrative career to do so â and gave a good portion of his income to education.
Why do people that want to do things like this and be a positive force in the world often have dark sides like this? It is confusing and hard to reconcile. This in itself makes it seem as if he were targeted by folks that didnât like him acting bigger than a community and needing to knock him down. It is probably why it was also hard for women to come forward.
Honestly? I WISH he were innocent and this was all a shakedown. It would make the world a little less confusing.
I remember when another celebrity was on trial for sex acts with a minor, and NOBODY could believe it. People were outraged that he was being taken advantage of in his innocence, etc., etc., etc. I was a teenager when Michael Jackson was on trial, but having grown up with the Huxtables, with his work with children and families, I can understand more why people are having a hard time believing that these are things that Bill Cosby of all people would do. For a lot of people, to accept that he did these horrible things, is to wonder how much of the good things can be trusted. Itâs a betrayal.
There was always a lot more credible evidence of Cosbyâs guilt than Jacksonâs, though. Testimony from kids is easier to manipulate (see the Kern county child abuse ring witch hunts) and the potential motive to do so was clearer (potential cash settlements or civil suits). I donât know if Jackson was innocent of sexually abusing children, but it at least seems plausible.
Of course, the apologists are out in force in the comments of the article. Donât read the comments!
Sourcing quotes to random social networking accounts is a hallmark of bad reporting, because you can search-ânâ-quote your way to supporting almost any position in the quest for a balanced, dramatic story.
Troof.
Being a philanthropist and rapist arenât mutually exclusive.
Being a rapist isnât mutually exclusive to anything!
Anyone can be a rapist; all it takes is the confident that you can get away with it.
I would certainly hope it takes a bit more than that.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
