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

[AFTT47]

Here's the link.

It supposedly happened in the 1980s.

I've wondered about Takei for awhile over his seemingly irrational feud with William Shatner. There is plenty of corroboration with his fellow Star Trek actors that Shatner can be an asshole but it always seemed to me that Takei took it to an irrational and childish level. Now, the gay actor is being accused of sexual assault which allegedly happened a long time ago.

This kind of thing is becoming so common. What is anyone to think of an accusation which allegedly occurred decades ago and for which there is no corroborating evidence?

[henryp]

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

[AFTT47]

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

Yes, I agree that's it's low-information guessing.

I guess the point that I'm making is that if you have been sexually assaulted in any way, you need to come out about it immediately. What is anyone to think if you come out about it decades after the fact? Who are we to believe at that point when it's nothing more than one party's word against another's?

A person may have been wronged but if that person truly wants justice, he/she needs to pursue it right away. It's unrealistic to expect justice (or even credibility) if you wait decades.

[henryp]

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

Yes, I agree that's it's low-information guessing.

I guess the point that I'm making is that if you have been sexually assaulted in any way, you need to come out about it immediately. What is anyone to think if you come out about it decades after the fact? Who are we to believe at that point when it's nothing more than one party's word against another's?

A person may have been wronged but if that person truly wants justice, he/she needs to pursue it right away. It's unrealistic to expect justice (or even credibility) if you wait decades.

I think you are focusing on a narrow aspect of the practicality, while ignoring the larger practicality of it.  Yes, your best chance at getting an arrest is immediately pursuing it, you would think.   

But, in this case, if a guy in 1982 says "Hey Sulu groped me!"  most likely nobody would give a shit.  There would be no arrest.  Nothing would happen to Sulu.  On top of that, it would put the guy reporting the incident's career in jeopardy.  There would definitely be no justice, and very likely some reverse justice, as the people in power all circle their wagons and send a message to those that would try to get them in trouble.  

Now, however, we have social media justice.  Because the information zips around the internet, accusations decades old can end careers and ruin the person's name without the need to go through the actual justice system.  I would guess the hit to Takei's lovable gay social justice champion brand is far more damage than what reporting the events would have had in the '80s.  It's not legal justice, but there is a chunk of flesh being taken, which is probably as good as it could ever get for this guy.

On top of all this, back in the 80's groping like this probably wasn't even viewed as particularly wrong.  And all of this ignores any psychological issues involved with dealing with the trauma.

[AFTT47]

I see your point.

I guess I'm thankful that I'm not important enough to worry about some guy or gal I knew in the 1980s to suddenly come out and accuse me of groping them back then.

[Seraphina]

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

I'm on board with this.
Now, if a Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein-style avalanche of people come forward in the next few days to say "this happened to me too", I would have an opinion.

Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. As far as I'm concerned, the answer in this case is of little consequence to anyone except perhaps George Takei and his family. However if it were a case like Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas, I would be inclined to sit up and take notice of the accusations.

-Teresa

[Aegon]

. What is anyone to think of an accusation which allegedly occurred decades ago and for which there is no corroborating evidence?

Well...

[AFTT47]

Hmmm.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Somehow the allegations always seem to disappear after the elections, hearings, etc. Innocent until proven guilty, unless and until there's a conviction, I don't think it should taint someone.

[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.