When did the media start doing THAT?
I’m not judging him, that’s the difference.
I believe in the term ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
It used to stand for something in the days before social media.
I’m taking away the connection with comic books, or the fact it’s Stan Lee, I’m looking at it from the perspective that it’s a really old guy and this is going to end him.
I don’t know him, I neither like nor dislike him. I’ve actually hardly read any of his comics because i find a lot of that stuff difficult to enjoy due to the style it’s written. He’s a bit of a character and his contribution to comics is huge.
I responded before you edited your post, hence my feeling that you already had him down as guilty.
It shouldn’t be ‘news’. News should be fact, not rumours. I know it’s not widely the case any more that the news deals in fact, instead of hysteria.
I’m fucking sick of it.
I like how every glosses over the fact that innocent lives are ruined over this kind of stuff as if it’s just collateral damage because it’s the only way.
How are other crimes dealt with when there’s no proof?
I’m sorry, but this is patently untrue. People have been lambasted, rightly or wrongly for alleged crimes well before they went to trial for about as long as there’s been any way of disseminating information.
Ok, so it’s worse now than ever before.
I believe all of the women in the #metoo campaign.
I also feel like once someone is in their 90s then screw it, say whatever you want grampa.
Again, this is untrue. Less than 20 years ago people’s houses were being vandalised in the UK because they were erroneously listed in anti-paedophile “name and shame” campaigns in tabloids.
I think this is a story where journalistic discretion should have been applied. Wait for the full details to come in, because in this age that kind of allegation can be devastating. Stan is hopefully old enough to be sheltered from this story if he’s innocent. At 95 I can’t imagine he’s up to much these days. As it stands it scuttlebucket and clickbait and caught up in this wave of Metoo fury that’s killing careers left and right over even the slightest whiff of allegations of misconduct.
Rich Johnson though could probably barely get past his erection to link the story. And the Daily Mail are a shower of cunts as we all know.
Because statistically speaking, they’re telling the truth.
Sorry, but that’s not good enough
If any one of them are lying them then that is lives being ruined.
What about the lives of the women who were harrassed?
I’m going to assume you mean men and women, because I know that you agree that both men and women have been victims of sexual harassment, as I have been myself, although I didn’t really bother me on any of the umpteen occasions that it happened. But everyone is different and affected by these things in different ways.
Each case should be dealt with on an individual basis and dealt with outside the media without the eyes of the entire world glaring over it.
But again, sexual harassment is basically impossible to prove beyond someone saying ‘that person sexually harassed me’ and someone else backing them. Which seems to have happened in this case, since the company cut ties with Lee. Beyond that it’s aways been ‘he said, she said.’
False sexual harassment and assault claims happen at the about same rate as any other false claims of crimes, around 2%.
The facts are several nurses accused him of sexual harassment, the company they worked for stopped working with him and his lawyers claim he’s being blackmailed. Those are the current facts and that’s what the news reported. If new facts come to light they’ll be reported too. That’s how the news has pretty much always worked.
I feel like I must be missing something here. Why do you keep referencing Johnson and Bleeding Cool? The article posted above is from the Observer, and it’s not written by Johnson, and it doesn’t reference Johnson or Bleeding Cool at all. Where do they come into this?
SO we just automatically take the side of anyone who says they were harrassed whether they were or not?
It’s easy to judge before all the information is in. I remember the Duke lacrosse thing from back in the day. Those guys represented white rich kid entitled frat boy fucksticks in about the most accurate possible way, so it was incredibly easy to say to myself “I can totally see those assholes having raped that poor girl” and simply assuming their guilt. I felt like quite the idiot when it came out that no crime had actually occurred. Made me rethink my whole mindset when it came to stuff like this.
With guys like Cosby and Weinstein, where there’s mountains of evidence and legions of witnesses/victims, I feel pretty safe saying “Yeah, that almost definitely happened.” With instances like this, where it is essentially he-said-she-said, and the primary source of breaking information is the Daily Mail and Rich fucking Johnston, I don’t make snap judgements.
How can they know if they are true or false if it can’t be proven?
If that is the standard we would still know nothing of Cosby. I think it’s fair to report this stuff, just don’t rush to judgment. Maybe Stan did it, maybe he didn’t. And that should be the standard for all allegations, unless there is an admission of guilt.
A valid point, I said women because hashtag me too has been a women’s campaign. But definitely we should always remember that men are also targets of harassment and assault.
Less than 4% of rape cases in the US where a rape has actually occurred end with a conviction. The system doesn’t work for the vast majority of sexual assault and harassment, and often the only way to fix it is to scream until your lungs are sore.
That is an odd statistic. I’m not saying it isn’t true, but how does one establish that rape has occured if there is no conviction?