what's up with all these sex scandals?

[soon]

11 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

 

He's really well spoken here once again.  He makes great points and is polite but wont be sidelined.  Looks like its all wearing on him but looks like he's taking care of himself. 

The point about the statute of limitation in California being tailored for impunity for abusers is interesting and something Id never thought about.  Because for so many it takes years to come to terms with the abuse, and then begin the long process towards healing, then get life in order, then think about naming names  - takes most until well into adulthood.   If he's in anyway right about laws, thats just one more reason to understand how careful he has to be - that child abuse is so ingrained in the power structures that its written into legislation.

This is heroic shit!!!

[action]

maybe rocks stars are next, maybe not. maybe, all our heroes are sex offenders. so fucking what?

yes, it will be weird wearing t shirts in public when the artist is a convicted sexual offender. yes, it will be hard listening to these songs like we did before.

but deep down, we all know the score already. it's all just a matter of time people. No one is safe. not even our beloved Axl and Slash. It's known, but it's somewhere in the back of our minds. Maybe this post will anger some people as it opens up a stinking trench in their subconscious. 

and when it will be all blown out in public, then what? you're going to lament the loss of your rock idol? perhaps. we're all selfish creatures after all. but what will matter at the end of the day, is the victims will get justice.

what is more important? the legacy of your favorite artist, or the victims of sexual offenders?

i dont know about you guys, but for me, i say it can't be cleared soon enough. more people should come forward, until every single fucking one of them is exposed. EVEN if it's our favorite artists.

[Len Cnut]

6 minutes ago, action said:

maybe rocks stars are next, maybe not. maybe, all our heroes are sex offenders. so fucking what?

yes, it will be weird wearing t shirts in public when the artist is a convicted sexual offender. yes, it will be hard listening to these songs like we did before.

but deep down, we all know the score already. it's all just a matter of time people. No one is safe. not even our beloved Axl and Slash. It's known, but it's somewhere in the back of our minds. Maybe this post will anger some people as it opens up a stinking trench in their subconscious. 

and when it will be all blown out in public, then what? you're going to lament the loss of your rock idol? perhaps. we're all selfish creatures after all. but what will matter at the end of the day, is the victims will get justice.

what is more important? the legacy of your favorite artist, or the victims of sexual offenders?

i dont know about you guys, but for me, i say it can't be cleared soon enough. more people should come forward, until every single fucking one of them is exposed. EVEN if it's our favorite artists.

Has it not previously occured to you, whilst wearing a T shirt of a band, or watching a film or reading an actors bio...or even looking up to your grandparents...or ancestors even maybe...that they might've slapped a woman or something?   I mean all these drug addicts, alcoholics, sex addicts, or hardbut type characters...and what, this whole time the thought hasn't occured to anyone that they might be thoroughly unpleasant people?

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

If you’re gonna start doing people from the 1950s for everytime they slapped a bird theres gonna be a lot of time wasted in posthumous convictions.

I am not saying legally but Depp and Rose were rightly pilloried by the public for 'lassy bashing' - and still carry around that reputation as a burden - while Lennon's own admittance is usually forgotten about simply because he wrote 'Help' and 'Imagine'.

[action]

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Has it not previously occured to you, whilst wearing a T shirt of a band, or watching a film or reading an actors bio...or even looking up to your grandparents...or ancestors even maybe...that they might've slapped a woman or something?   I mean all these drug addicts, alcoholics, sex addicts, or hardbut type characters...and what, this whole time the thought hasn't occured to anyone that they might be thoroughly unpleasant people?

at the end of the day, it's just music and movies.

rule number one in all of this: "don't touch our kids"

I have a son myself. i'm telling you: once you have kids, you see it all in a different light

Edited November 3, 2017 by action

[Len Cnut]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am not saying legally but Depp and Rose were rightly pilloried by the public for 'lassy bashing' - and still carry around that reputation as a burden - while Lennon's own admittance is usually forgotten about simply because he wrote 'Help' and 'Imagine'.

Is it forgotten?  I mean its pretty routinely bought up.  And again, it was just a different time.  Slapping a bird, as disgusting as it might seem to people these days, went on pretty often.  I mean have we all REALLY lived such sheltered lives?  Where does the line get drawn here?  There are a lot of things that are unacceptable today that were acceptable in the past.  Thats the way the world is.  Now if some dirty bastard has been kiddie fiddling in the 40s 30s 50s 60s, whenever, fuck em, take em all the way, or like...really knocking the fuck out of some bird, fuck em, take em all the way. 

But like stuff like a slap?  Where are we gonna draw the line here?  John Lennon slapped Cynthia one, lets take for granted thats abuse of a grave and serious kind.  What about all the kids that were getting slapped around by their parents in the 50s, are they all victims of abuse too, should every parent that ever belted their kids one be lumped in with like...I dunno, all these others dodgy fuckers we're mentioning?  Fuckin' hell, my old man knocked the fuck out of me in the 90s, am I an abuse victim too?  

5 minutes ago, action said:

at the end of the day, it's just music and movies.

rule number one in all of this: "don't touch our kids"

I have a son myself. i'm telling you: once you have kids, you see it all in a different light

But this isn't all about kids is it?  Harvey Weinstein didn't touch anyones kids as far as i know, a ton of the people mentioned here didn't touch anyones kids.

[action]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

 

But this isn't all about kids is it?  Harvey Weinstein didn't touch anyones kids as far as i know, a ton of the people mentioned here didn't touch anyones kids.

yeah i know, but i was addressing the issue of rock stars with minors, of which a few examples were mentioned earlier

[soon]

7 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

There are a lot of things that are unacceptable today that were acceptable in the past.  Thats the way the world is.  

Things didnt just randomly become unacceptable.  Its because people resisted, spoke up, united and figured out how to make abuse clearly unacceptable.  So, thats whats continuing to happen now - in general and in this thread.  So if speaking out and resisting is how the world works, why drag your feet about it?  Why try and slow peoples roll when they speak up for justice?

Not that things shouldnt have nuance and be teased out - dont just want to swing form the herd blindly accepting abusers to the herd blindly calling everyone an abuser.  You have been clear in condemning abuse, but at some point when you're primarily only being the counter point it comes across as discouraging change and justice.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

  Not that things shouldnt have nuance and be teased out - dont just want to swing form the herd blindly accepting abusers to the herd blindly calling everyone an abuser.

That is basically what I'm getting at with what I'm saying.

Quote

You have been clear in condemning abuse, but at some point when you're primarily only being the counter point it comes across as discouraging change and justice.

See the problem I have with this sentence is that it is dangerously close to discouraging counterpoint...and there should always be counterpoint, in any discourse.  You look at shit rationally, otherwise you're closer to the abuser than you are the victim.  Change, in and of itself, is not necessarily good.  Its gotta be the right change.  Moreover I find it a bit weird that one has to, in these situations, first condemn abuse, like that isn't a granted thing.  

Furthermore, call me a cynic but i don't immediately fall behind someone just because they claim to be an anti-abuse crusader.  Its worth noting that the same media that made heroes of certain fuckers that were abusers is the same media that is constructing the current narrative.  I judge shit by my own instincts and bullshit detector which, though not infalliable, has done be alright so far.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Len Cnut

[action]

20 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

  Moreover I find it a bit weird that one has to, in these situations, first condemn abuse, like that isn't a granted thing.  

 

it's ok to be rational and to look at it from all sides, it's even ok to be cynical and light hearted about this.

i go further: everyone should be like that.

it's also ok to be confused. should i still listen to music if the artist is a sexual offender? that's a big fucking dilemma, man. some of these bands, i listen to my whole life. i was positively devastated when all the shit surrounding MJ came out.

we have all been consistently lied to; by the artists, by the industry, by the institutions, by the media. it is one big filthy network and basically, we have all been living in a lie.

to be confused now, is more than natural.

and i dont pretend to know what to do. i dont want to start a crusade in any form. i'm just one of many, who have been fooled for far too long now. I say: expose them all, and make them pay. as for what i do with my favorite music; will i still listen? it's difficult. time will tell. there are far more important issues.

[soon]

22 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

That is basically what I'm getting at with what I'm saying.

See the problem I have with this sentence is that it is dangerously close to discouraging counterpoint...and there should always be counterpoint, in any discourse.  You look at shit rationally, otherwise you're closer to the abuser than you are the victim.  Change, in and of itself, is not necessarily good.  Its gotta be the right change.  Moreover I find it a bit weird that one has to, in these situations, first condemn abuse, like that isn't a granted thing.  

Furthermore, call me a cynic but i don't immediately fall behind someone just because they claim to be an anti-abuse crusader.  Its worth noting that the same media that made heroes of certain fuckers that were abusers is the same media that is constructing the current narrative.  I judge shit by my own instincts and bullshit detector which, though not infalliable, has done be alright so far.

I honestly dont see how this changes anything I wrote.  You said things used to be acceptable that are now unacceptable - until weeks ago the casting couch was acceptable; thats what condemning things is relevant.  However the only reason I said that you had is so that I didnt come across as saying you've only been discouraging condemnation.  For clarity.

But why are you primarily focused on counter point?  And how does me noting it mean I dont value counterpoint?  

And respectfully; challenging that someone who holds different position might not be media literate just aint gonna fly with me, btw. 

[Len Cnut]

8 minutes ago, action said:

it's ok to be rational and to look at it from all sides, it's even ok to be cynical and light hearted about this.

i go further: everyone should be like that.

it's also ok to be confused. should i still listen to music if the artist is a sexual offender? that's a big fucking dilemma, man. some of these bands, i listen to my whole life. i was positively devastated when all the shit surrounding MJ came out.

we have all been consistently lied to; by the artists, by the industry, by the institutions, by the media. it is one big filthy network and basically, we have all been living in a lie.

to be confused now, is more than natural.

and i dont pretend to know what to do. i dont want to start a crusade in any form. i'm just one of many, who have been fooled for far too long now. I say: expose them all, and make them pay. as for what i do with my favorite music; will i still listen? it's difficult. time will tell. there are far more important issues.

I'll listen to a sex offender, why not?   It's not like I've fuckin' done anything, I've read Gates of Janus by Ian Brady, I've listened to Charles Mansons songs...how do I know what Shakespeare got up to in his spare time, all them young boys playing the ladies roles down at The Globe, there weren't no Daily Mirror exposes in them days, I can seperate the work from the person that made it, no bother, like I said before I am under no illusions that people who write songs like Its So Easy aren't potentially wrong uns.   

[action]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

I'll listen to a sex offender, why not?   It's not like I've fuckin' done anything, I've read Gates of Janus by Ian Brady, I've listened to Charles Mansons songs...how do I know what Shakespeare got up to in his spare time, all them young boys playing the ladies roles down at The Globe, there weren't no Daily Mirror exposes in them days, I can seperate the work from the person that made it, no bother, like I said before I am under no illusions that people who write songs like Its So Easy aren't potentially wrong uns.   

fair enough

[Len Cnut]

Quote

I honestly dont see how this changes anything I wrote.

I wasn't trying to, iI was expanding on it.

Quote

You said things used to be acceptable that are now unacceptable - until weeks ago the casting couch was acceptable;

Uh...no it wasn't.

Quote

But why are you primarily focused on counter point?  And how does me noting it mean I dont value counterpoint?  

Again, I think you think that, by replying to your post I was necessarily arguing against it, which I wasn't.

Quote

And respectfully; challenging that someone who holds different position might not be media literate just aint gonna fly with me, btw. 

What I meant by that was not that you were not media literate but rather that if Hollywood is full of fuckin' scumbags (as I believe it is) then its important also to question some of the people coming out of it on the right side of the argument too.  For example, as I mentioned before, Corey Feldman.  Now you can say whatever the fuck you like about that shit (the universal you, not you personally) but y'know what doesn't fly with me?  Crusaders for justice that need 10 mil before they can get the crusade into first gear. 

Edited November 3, 2017 by Len Cnut

[soon]

6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I wasn't trying to, iI was expanding on it.

Uh...no it wasn't.

Again, I think you think that, by replying to your post I was necessarily arguing against it, which I wasn't.

What I meant by that was not that you were not media literate but rather that if Hollywood is full of fuckin' scumbags (as I believe it is) then its important also to question some of the people coming out of it on the right side of the argument too.  For example, as I mentioned before, Corey Feldman.  Now you can say whatever the fuck you like to be about that shit (the universal you, not you personally) but y'know what doesn't fly with me?  Crusaders for justice that need 10 mil before they can get the crusade into first gear. 

I see.  Yes, I didnt assume just merely because you responded that you were disagreeing, but by how I read it/ how it came across.  Thanks for clarifying.

There was no uproar about casting couch until weeks ago is what I meant.

We clearly feel very differently about Feldman.  Which we could address here had we not already previously in this thread.  But I will say that Feldman has been speaking on this since at least 2011, so its wrong to assume that people supporting him are new to the issue or quickly jumped to a conclusion.

Edited November 3, 2017 by soon

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Is it forgotten?  I mean its pretty routinely bought up.  And again, it was just a different time.  Slapping a bird, as disgusting as it might seem to people these days, went on pretty often.  I mean have we all REALLY lived such sheltered lives?  Where does the line get drawn here?  There are a lot of things that are unacceptable today that were acceptable in the past.  Thats the way the world is.  Now if some dirty bastard has been kiddie fiddling in the 40s 30s 50s 60s, whenever, fuck em, take em all the way, or like...really knocking the fuck out of some bird, fuck em, take em all the way. 

But like stuff like a slap?  Where are we gonna draw the line here?  John Lennon slapped Cynthia one, lets take for granted thats abuse of a grave and serious kind.  What about all the kids that were getting slapped around by their parents in the 50s, are they all victims of abuse too, should every parent that ever belted their kids one be lumped in with like...I dunno, all these others dodgy fuckers we're mentioning?  Fuckin' hell, my old man knocked the fuck out of me in the 90s, am I an abuse victim too?  

But this isn't all about kids is it?  Harvey Weinstein didn't touch anyones kids as far as i know, a ton of the people mentioned here didn't touch anyones kids.

Lassy bashing has always been sort of frowned on, even if only in the sense that it is cowardly and un-masculine (although the women round where I live could beat the men in arm wrestling competitions). 

[Len Cnut]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Lassy bashing has always been sort of frowned on, even if only in the sense that it is cowardly and un-masculine (although the women round where I live could beat the men in arm wrestling competitions). 

I guess with these things prevailing mentalities sometimes conflict with the actual reality of what goes on, contradictory nature of the human condition.  Yeah, its always been frowned upon but its was really quite prevalent in the past century.  Nice that we're evolving beyond that shit.  Same with slapping kids about, weren't considered a big thing a while back, still ain't in some parts of the world but again, nice to see us evolving beyond it. 

[Len Cnut]

Quote

But I will say that Feldman has been speaking on this since at least 2011, so its wrong to assume that people supporting him are new to the issue or quickly jumped to a conclusion.

I wasn't suggesting that, not sure how you got that from what I was saying, perhaps I wasn't being clear, I just don't trust him, wholesale, the nature of his approach makes me at least sceptical, in the same way I'm sceptical of preachers that spread the gospel of Christ for £69.95. 

[soon]

35 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I wasn't suggesting that, not sure how you got that from what I was saying, perhaps I wasn't being clear, I just don't trust him, wholesale, the nature of his approach makes me at least sceptical, in the same way I'm sceptical of preachers that spread the gospel of Christ for £69.95. 

Okay, but he says he gave the names to the cops in 1993.  Is he lying?

[Len Cnut]

3 minutes ago, soon said:

Okay, but he says he gave the names to the cops in 1993.  Is he lying?

And now he's needs 10 mil to make those same names public?  Also, his lifes in INCREDIBLE danger, as of right now things are happening to him, attempts on his life are being made, two trucks came racing at him at the same time, he has ALL this info that he needs to get out, for the sake of justice, for the sake of the victims, for the sake of others potential victims...but oh wait, he needs 10 mil first.  Even though his lifes at risk as we speak and he get offed and then no info comes out that'll help anyone. 

Hows all this coming together for ya? 

[soon]

12 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

And now he's needs 10 mil to make those same names public?  Also, his lifes in INCREDIBLE danger, as of right now things are happening to him, attempts on his life are being made, two trucks came racing at him at the same time, he has ALL this info that he needs to get out, for the sake of justice, for the sake of the victims, for the sake of others potential victims...but oh wait, he needs 10 mil first.  Even though his lifes at risk as we speak and he get offed and then no info comes out that'll help anyone. 

Hows all this coming together for ya? 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/corefy-feldman-jon-grissom-child-abuse-claim-dr-oz-show-paedophiles-hollywood-sex-scandal-a8034946.html

He's named one - a less powerful one which makes sense.  He says he's contacted police again and wants them to investigate.

Dr Oz also states that Feldman shared more names off air.

That do it for ya?

Edited November 3, 2017 by soon

[Len Cnut]

3 minutes ago, soon said:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/corefy-feldman-jon-grissom-child-abuse-claim-dr-oz-show-paedophiles-hollywood-sex-scandal-a8034946.html

He's named one - a less powerful one which makes sense.  He says he's contacted police again and wants them to investigate.

That do it for ya?

And the price for the rest is 10 mil?

[soon]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

And the price for the rest is 10 mil?

*Name names!*

*He names names*

*Name names!*  

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, soon said:

*Name names!*

*He names names*

*Name names!*  

And then needs 10 million to name the rest.  Do you not get the crux of what I'm saying or are you being deliberately obtuse?  He named those two right?  Did that take 10 mil?  It didn't, did it?  Did it result in his untimely death due to this highly connected ring putting out a hit on him?  It didn't, did it?  But these other names he won't name, cuz he needs 10 mil for security for his family and to set up a fund and to produce and distribute this movie (i'd be really interested to see who does this guys numbers)....so he's got the time to wait, without security, for all this money to be raised, in which his life is in danger from moment to moment, whilst this 10 mil is raised?  Come on man, I didn't fuckin' fall off a Christmas tree y'know, it's ridiculous.  These so called big shot pedophile ring members are gonna sit on their hands and wait for him to produce and distribute a documentary naming their names before they put out a hit right? 

Honestly, I wonder how some people survive out there in the real world and be so naive.  I wonder how long we all gotta wait after he's had the 10 mil and makes this documentary for it to come out and expose the pedo kingpins out there.  And how long before they can call him a thieving bastard?

Edited November 3, 2017 by Len Cnut

[soon]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

And then needs 10 million to name the rest.  Do you not get the crux of what I'm saying or are you being deliberately obtuse?  He named those two right?  Did that take 10 mil?  It didn't, did it?  Did it result in his untimely death due to this highly connected ring putting out a hit on him?  It didn't, did it?  But these other names he won't name, cuz he needs 10 mil for security for his family and to set up a fund and to produce and distribute this movie (i'd be really interested to see who does this guys numbers)....so he's got the time to wait, without security, for all this money to be raised, in which his life is in danger from moment to moment, whilst this 10 mil is raised?  Come on man, I didn't fuckin' fall off a Christmas tree y'know, it's ridiculous.  These so called big shot pedophile ring members are gonna sit on their hands and wait for him to name their names before they put out a hit right? 

Honestly, I wonder how some people survive out there in the real world and be so naive. 

uh huh.  Dude, you gave up the ghost.