Aziz Ansari Doesn't Pick Up On "Non-Verbal Cues" and Gets Treated Like A Rapist

[Thumpalumpacus]

I suppose it is, if the truth does doesn't matter to you.

No, please don't lay that on me. What you're proposing is exactly what I've warned against throughout; trial by journalism.

Who gets to decide what the truth is? The journo? The editor? The person who sold the story instead of reporting it to the authorities? What about the accused? What if that was you? Wouldn't you want your hour in court to put your side of the events?

This stuff isn't merely a drama, for salacious public entertainment or outrage. People, actual real people, can get hurt by it. And it's too late to make amends in the event that a mistake is shown to have happened, because the damage is done.

Actually, this kind of thing might even prevent the case going to trial at all, if the public is so whipped up into a froth that finding an unbiased jury becomes impossible. And let's say this guy managed to overturn the accusations. I can see the comments here: "he only got off - so to speak - because of who is / because he's a man / because he's got money" etc etc.

Bottom line is, I'm all for the truth, it matters a great deal. But the truth is not the province of one person, nor whomever shouts the loudest.

This is why I don't do gossip.

How does everyone shutting up about it fix anything? The guy is a public figure putting out a public image of being friendly to the #metoo cause, yet he behaves in a way that everyone here seemingly agrees is creepy if not rapey.

There's a fine line between famous and infamous, and I suspect it lies in the region where one's behavior is scrutinized precisely because you're a public figure.

I don't think anyone here thinks any sort of trial is likely, but I do think that everyone here has a right to their opinion -- and that includes the woman who was harangued.

We're having a discussion. No one here seems to be saying "I've got the truth." All of us seem to agree on the basics.

---

Your comment was just fine. The irony with it is, if you were an atheist saying that same thing, you wouldn't have been judged for it. It would have been totally accepted and you would have even gotten a few extra kudos for it. But, because you are a theist, more specifically a catholic, some people here will always have issues with what you say, regardless. Those are the people who should not be talking about acceptance of others when they can't even see past their own indifferences. 

Many people seem to have issues with theists here, on all fronts - not just on subjects revolving around religion. This is sad because people are so much more than being religious or non-religious. A Theist makes some wonderful hats and when he posts pictures of them, he gets a lot of kudos. So why is it that some individuals here can't get away from their own hate towards religion when it comes to the non-religious things you say? Probably because they would instantly cut off their nose to spite their face rather than admit that you might have a valid point about something that had nothing to do with religion. 

What's sad about all of that is that those who seem to take issue with every word you say and want to judge you harshly for you being you, seem to have forgotten that they left their own closet door open and a bunch of skeletons fell out in the process.

This pabulum about "if she followed my own beliefs she wouldn't have been in that position" is essentially using this woman's grief to advance her faith. That's exactly why I called agenda.

If you're cool with that, okay. But you should be careful about what, and who, you support.