Jump to content

Bill Cosby


Marco Dane

Recommended Posts

  • Members

This is something that strangely, didn't surprise me. I have already said that cancel culture doesn't exist. Society will diminish and defame even women who are supposed to be in power, so how do you think it will treat those who are regarded as being without power?

Cosby proves that money makes all the difference in the world, in how people are treated within the criminal justice system. There are non-violent offenders who got out due to COVID-19 running rampant in prisons, who have lived exemplary lives while under house arrest who must now face re-incarceration because the prison industrial complex now says that Covid-19 is over. They do not have money so they have to hope that someone with clout can amplify their cause, if they are lucky.

 

As for Rashad, she no doubt, backtracked out of fear for her new job as Dean of the Fine Arts school but this is not the first time she has vocalized her support for Cosby, at the expense of the victims and Howard University decided to make her dean anyway-- they knew what she was about.

This was a reason why I was concerned about Howard naming their Fine Arts school after Boseman because with his much talked about connection to Phylicia Rashad, I just knew she would be chosen for a critical position in that school, proving that in many cases, who one knows can trump any qualifications someone else might have.

 

But again, wasn't the least surprised.

 

Also, all of these prosecutors were very very sloppy. Knowing the sad reality that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, they needed to present a meticulous case, which includes doing homework to make sure there were no loopholes, and they didn't.

 

They let their ego get in the way of doing due diligence and now, look.

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

In reading more, I was reminded of the incredibly foolish bargain that the prosecutor in the civil case made with Cosby's legal team to get him deposed on the civil trial. It's the real reason why Cosby was ultimately released. My mind is blown how someone can demonstrate such hubris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is a true slap in the face for all women, most especially survivors of sexual assault. It is infuriating. Any bit of respect I may have had for Phylicia Rashad is gone forever. Of course, Cosby's Stepford Wife was at his side and she took him back. Disgusting.

 

Not one shred of remorse. Not one. He was gleefully rubbing salt in the wounds of his victims. He, along with OJ and the disgraced, one-term, twice impeached former president, belongs on the Mount Rushmore of Sociopathic Women Abusers.

 

Please register in order to view this content

Edited by amybrickwallace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's certainly further proof that this hasn't changed. Money, fame and power have gotten so many of these abusive men off.  Hell, just being a man is enough in many cases. No matter how many women come forward, it doesn't seem to be enough.

 

It's not just that he got off legally either. Someone like Phylicia Rashad feels completely comfortable coming out to support him against 50 women!! Then she gets a leadership position on a campus being a role model to young women. Rape culture in the U.S is an intractable problem. It really is infuriating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The money aspect also extends to the prosecution's decision to prioritize the civil case over the criminal case.

I cannot stress how critical the prosecutor's decision to make that initial "deal" to Cosby, figured in his eventual release. It is the reason why Cosby was eventually released. I don't know who gave that prosecutor permission to extend that offer to Cosby to get him deposed for the civil case, but clearly, they messed up.

As I said before, hubris!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think it's a little bit of a stretch to call Carroll Baker "film legend" (

Please register in order to view this content

), and this is just like Angela Lansbury's antiquated views which came to light during the initial MeToo furore. Ms Baker comes from a different era, and even though we might find her views appalling, why should we even bother about them? I would imagine that a majority is thinking: Carroll who? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The thing I can't believe is just the total discounting that these women were all in it for the fame. ???  How on Earth do they all have such similar stories of how it happened and it's not like they all KNEW each other.  I know, we're going back years at this point even with the case itself and this has all been said.  I don't know how Phylicia stands herself, and I wonder what Howard thinks about their decision now.  And in my head I know that none of these women were more important than another, but I cannot get out of my head Beverly Johnson.  OK, so say any one of the other women want attention (it's clear to me that they didn't), but how do you explain Johnson with the SAME story, and she doesn't NEED the attention...her career speaks for itself - there's NOTHING in it for her.

And above, you all pointed it out.  Men.  Hey, I'm a gay man but I say it all the time, when conservative women get on their high horse about (now I'm talking about the Karens out there) - about men should marry women, no Adam and Steve, etc. - you know the old school type.  I've more than once said on boards and to faces - hey, I might be gay, but guess what, I could say I'm a man and that makes me up the totem pole from ya sweets.  So you can go the biology route if you want and gripe about who is using whose bathroom, but I'm still a man and you can go fight that battle all day but it's true.  So have a seat.

And lets not forget, these men not only get away with it, they become Supreme Court justices.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I never got that, either. Despite the fact that he's been married to Camille for decades, I'm sure that even at the beginning he wasn't into being faithful. Still, even the thought of a man being turned on by drugging and sexually abusing women when they are in no condition to say NO is absolutely disturbing. He is absolutely sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • When Anita read Barbara's letter, it started out with the viewers hearing it in Barbara's voice as Anita read silently. And then Anita saying the next portion aloud while Barbara's voice continued simultaneously. And then ending with Anita alone saying the last part aloud. Excerpt from interview  (link to full interview) The rest may be spoilerish -- Only the nonspoiler part here: I love the idea of reading that letter,” shares Tunie. “And at one point in the script, I think it said that my voice joined her, and [Anita] started reciting the letter from memory because [she] memorized this letter. I suggested to Steve Williford, our director, ‘What if it’s like that moment in Hamilton when Hamilton is writing the resignation letter to George Washington, and then he starts saying it too, and then Hamilton’s voice fades away, and then it’s all George. What if we do something like that?’ And he was like, ‘Oh, my God! I just got chills. Let’s do it!’ So, we did it.” I understood that it worked really well, so I’m really happy about that.”  
    • I think MVJ and Guza made a good team in the launching of the soap, and I'm hoping that the rotation of all stories and characters is maintained once he officially departs from the credits. And so far, Ron C's breakdowns have been decent... but they pop only when he's paired with a good script writer like Jazmin.   I hope once Guza leaves officially... that MVJ is able to reign in Ron C and the dread Jamey G.
    • I read that, but my interpretation was that she is uncredited because it is in a non-production capacity.  In others words, she's not secretly producing, or writing, as some had speculated prior to the confirmation. Her likeliest position would be in a post-production consultant capacity. I assume we agree on this?
    • Errol already confirmed she is back at Y&R and in a non-producing role; this alludes to she is not credited for the role she has.
    • I don't think Lisa served a purpose after the serial killer storyline. The writers never gave her anything to do but be Vicky's nemesis. Joanna Going deserved better. Another example of a character taking over the show and then the writers not having a longterm plan for the character.  Exhibit B: Sally Spencer. Such a missed opportunity. It really angers me how they misused her. She could sing and act and they just threw her away in that sexist nonsense storyline. Once the story was over, they wrote her off. The McKinnons should have lasted for years. I will give the show credit for how they introduced Sandra Ferguson as Amanda. I thought it was expertly done. She comes in and she immediately connected to RKK's Sam. She has chemistry with Matthew and she has realistic conversations with MAc and Rachel. That's how it is done. 
    • Great points, and it has not completely vanished. Leslie on Beyond the Gates fits the trope (she's still not over that Ted lovin' two decades later), though I will say there does seem to be an effort to make her more complex.
    • I understand why people speculate, but I have to say it doesn’t sound very plausible that Jill Farren Phelps would be working at Y&R in any uncredited role. CBS daytime shows are tightly bound by union contracts and corporate oversight, and that kind of informal arrangement would be a major liability in 2025. Before the mergers of SAG-AFTRA and the two WGA branches, it may have been easier to hire someone quietly or off the books. But those days are behind us. With digital payroll, tighter pension tracking, and increased scrutiny from legal and compliance departments, it’s just not the kind of thing anyone can get away with anymore. Most union members, especially producers nearing retirement, would not risk their eligibility or benefits to take an uncredited role. The Producers Guild of America is also very clear about crediting. To even receive the PGA mark, a producer has to be verified through a formal review process. According to their credit certification guidelines (source), "only individuals who performed a majority of the producing functions on a motion picture or television production" are eligible for credit, and those credits must be official and recorded. If someone is functioning in that capacity, they are not supposed to be uncredited. Studios that are union signatories, like CBS and Sony, know better than to skirt those rules. If anyone has a legitimate, primary source confirming that CBS is hiring someone like Phelps in an uncredited production role, I’d honestly be curious to read it. But without that, this just feels like rumor—not reality.
    • I keep thinking about the persistent trend of eroticizing mental illness on Guiding Light. Sonni and Annie were never more compelling, or more attractive to the show, than when they were manic. It played into a recurring theme: strong women undone by their unhinged reaction to sex. The writers were likely inspired by Basic Instinct and the broader wave of neo-noir films in the late '80s and early '90s, where female sexuality was often equated with instability. The result was a crude portrayal, not just of mental illness, but of womanhood itself. Both Sonni and Annie were introduced as sharp, capable women, brought in specifically as formidable antagonists to Reva. They were logical and composed, standing in contrast to Reva’s emotional volatility. That difference made them threatening, but not especially “sexy”—until desire became their undoing. In a very male fantasy, their strength unraveled the moment they slept with Joshua. As soon as they got a taste of Lewis lovin’, they spiraled into scheming lunatics, willing to torch everything to hold on to him. It was part of a larger trend in the culture. Fatal Attraction, Single White Female, and The Hand That Rocks the Cradle all traded on the idea that female desire was dangerous, barely held in check, and always teetering on the edge of madness. Looking back, it's a pretty grim trope. And while it's not completely vanished, I'm grateful we don't see it quite as often today.
    • Elements of it were silly, but it was a small price to pay to get Zas back. I should say there's a difference between in town and out of town returns. It's understandable for Roger to skulk around town in a bad wig and clown suit when he's in Springfield and running the risk of bumping in to people he knows.  Taking us out of town to find someone always has a short shelf life. Then it usually becomes about another character knowing X is alive but determined to keep them out of Springfield. Like Alan discovering Amish Reva. I don't know how long it went on, but it was probably twice as long as necessary.
    • Elizabeth Dennehy complained on the Locher Room about how ridiculous so much of the writing was for Roger's return. She laughed at so much of Roger's antics and how it was hard for her to take them seriously. Probably another reason she was fired as she didn't play the game.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy