George Takei (original Star Trek Sulu) Accused of Sexual Assault

[Rev. Rye]

The expectation that everyone weigh in on believing or disbelieving people is weird.  It's just low information guessing on a very serious issue.

Yeah; the problem is, in this case, it more or less amounts to Takei's words against his accusers. For a long time, people seem to have worked under the assumption that when it's like this, we should assume that the accuser is lying. It seems like we've figured out this is wrong (especially since the evidence suggests it's usually a safe bet that they're telling the truth), but we've decided the best thing to do is to go to the opposite extreme and assume they must be telling the truth (even though such accusations, as rare as they are, especially when compared to cases with merit, still do happen). This is, in its own way, really bloody dangerous because well, there's this:





In 1933, Brooke Hart, the beloved son of a wealthy San Jose family, was kidnapped. Eventually, a man named Thomas Thurmond was arrested when he was caught using the payphone where a tap on the Hart family's phones revealed the ransom demands and around the same time. Thurmond fingered another man named John Holmes as his accomplice. They confessed to the crime, and apparently planned to plead insanity. Were they guilty? Were they innocent? I have no fucking idea, because a mere ten days after being arrested, a crowd of thousands of people (including former Child Star and future Uncle Fester Jackie Coogan, who allegedly held the rope) decided to beat up the California justice system for its milk money by pulling the wall from the cells where Thurmond and Holmes were being held and had them hanged. One LA radio station apparently broadcast the events of the lynching live, and California's governor openly announced he planned to pardon anyone prosecuted for taking part in the lynching.

I doubt it's likely that we'll see strange fruit on the trees of Hollywood, but I can recognise the mentality that led to Thurmond and Holmes getting lynched in this sex abuse scandals, and it's fucking terrifying to see it coming to the forefront and being wholeheartedly embraced as the best solution to a major problem that needs to be solved (rape culture and how it seems many in Hollywood exploit it for their own purposes) when literally anything else would be better.  


What's the best way to handle this? It's simple: wait and see if there's anything that could potentially corroborate the accusations, even other accusations. Multiple accusations may not be concrete proof, but they do make it more likely the original accusation is true. We have the NYPD and LAPD looking at Harvey Weinstein, and Kevin Spacey is being investigated by none other than motherfucking Scotland Yard, and if he is, in fact, a predator, he should be investigated. But, until we can get more evidence, we should refrain from assuming one way or the other. It's certainly a distinct possibility, especially with quotes like this:





But we need to wait until the evidence either way is in before latching onto one verdict or another. And preferably until a conviction or confession before assuming he must be guilty. Because to convict someone while there's still room for reasonable doubt (even if it's merely in the court of public opinion), well, I refer you back to my paragraph on the Thurmond-Holmes lynching.

In a thread on Kevin Spacey, Aurora said: " IDK how to make sure we avoid falsely ruining people while at the same time not ignoring accusers.  It's a tricky tight rope to walk." Yes, it is a tricky tightrope, but we've already got both feet on the wire, and if we fall, things will not end well for anyone.