Home / General / “She meets me back stage. I give her Quaaludes. We then have sex.”

“She meets me back stage. I give her Quaaludes. We then have sex.”

Comments
/
/
/
646 Views

The payoffs, backscratching, and cover-ups that allow a famous serial rapist to get away with it.

I’ve mentioned this before, but the fact that a major, extensively promoted biography of Cosby could be published in 2014 that ignored the history of women accusing him of sexual assault and reviewers would barely mention or outright ignore this is highly instructive. It’s amazing what you can fail to find out if you really don’t want to know.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • postmodulator

    I wonder if he admitted to it because in his mind, he’s not drugging her and raping her; they’re partying together and then having sex.

    • brad

      He admitted it because it was a consensual act that either was going to be or had been testified to by the women involved (in what he admitted). It was a very carefully crafted legal strategy which the intention was to never allow to be made public.

      I’m trying to think of snark to add about the kind of denial TJ and others are trying to hard to maintain here, but using race to defend a serial rapist just isn’t funny.

      • GoDeep

        So by your admission its not rape then? And yet Moskovitz tries to pretend it is? Cosby’s just another black man to lynch. Prolly has a Confederate flag pin.

        • Aimai

          Wow. Just Wow.

        • KmCO

          Hi, GoDeep. I’m irony. Have we met?

        • brad

          Ummmmm. The acts testified to in the released transcripts were not rape, no, the women involved also testified as to their giving consent. No one is pretending anything. It’s about elements of a pattern. What are you even trying to say?

          • brad

            Do you not understand the context of the case, maybe? I feel condescending, but goddamn was your response more or less stupid.
            Cosby admitted to having had drugged sex with two women who also testified to the veracity of that claim. The case was about whether he raped a different woman. The lawyer for that woman is trying to “pretend” that establishing elements of a pattern is somehow legally relevant, shocking a concept as that may be.

            • GoDeep

              A pattern of consensual sex does not establish a pattern of non consensual sex. Of course he has a pattern of consensual sex. That proves that he’s human, not that he’s a rapist.

              Let’s try your logic on for size. Have you ever had sex with a woman who had been drinking? If you had would that establish anything whatsoever about your proclivity toward raping women?

              They didn’t call the ’60s & ’70s the era of “Sex, Coffee, & Rock & Roll”. Everyone was doing drugs & having sex back then. Was everyone a rapist?

              • brad

                If you weren’t so busy building strawmen to man the barricades you might have time to look behind you at what you’re trying to guard.

                • Aimai

                  This is just getting sad, GD. Just sad and kind of disgusting.

                • GoDeep

                  Innuendo is a cheap tactic used against black ppl all the time & I’m sick of it. “Obama pals around w/ terrorists.” “Michelle Obama h8s honkeys.” Innuendo attacks from the left are no different than innuendo attacks from the right. Amerikkka’s orig’nl sin infected e-one.

                • Aimai

                  Its not innuendo. Innuendo is generally anonymous and vague. 40 women have come forward, some have gotten so far as to sue him, others came forward to support those women with personal testimony and put their names and their livlihoods on the line. This is the opposite of innuendo.

                • witlesschum

                  Really, with this shit? Aren’t some of women Cosby obviously raped black? Where’s their racial solidarity?

                • SgtGymBunny

                  Innuendo is suggesting that 40-some different women over 30-some years are being vindictive and spiteful because they had “regret sex” and just want to ruin this wonderful man’s stellar reputation because they’re just so jellous and are a bunch of money-grubbing d-list has-been celebrities or groupies. That is innuendo.

                • The Dark Avenger

                  Here’s a timeline with names and details from E! online.

              • joe from Lowell

                A pattern of having sex with women he sedated with pills demonstrates that he likes to have sex with women he sedated with pills.

                Enjoying sex with women who have been rendered incapable of withdrawing consent surely demonstrates some kind of proclivity.

                No, it doesn’t get us all the way to “He’s a rapist.” For that, we’d need some credible accusations of him using sedatives to rape women.

                Let’s say there’s a guy in your neighborhood who just really, likes to smash panes of glass. He spends Saturday back and forth to the hardware store. Smash smash.

                And then a bunch of your neighbors report that guy threw a rock through their windows.

                Do you say, “I don’t see what his weekend hobby has to do with anything?”

                • GoDeep

                  Who said anything abt sedated? I said drugged. Just like Oxycontin taken 1 way will sedate you & taken another way will make you euphoric, you have ‘ludes.

                  More than 30 years after its production and distribution were banned in the United States, the drug still enjoys cult status in this country. A hypnotic sedative said to induce euphoria and boost sex drive, the drug became synonymous with the disco era of the 1970s.

                  “As with all fashionable drugs, quaaludes make countless appearances in the diaries of Andy Warhol, who, for the sake of verisimilitude and sheer meanness, took great pleasure in documenting the quantities ingested by those on the dance floor at Studio 54,” she continued.

                  And in her book, “Bunny Tales: Behind Closed Doors at the Playboy Mansion,” former Playmate Izabella St. James describes Hugh Hefner having access to the banned pills between 2002 and 2004. “In the limo, Hef would also hand out Quaaludes to whichever Girlfriends wanted them,” she wrote. “He always broke them in half so that the girls didn’t get too rowdy.”

                  Kids today do Molly, kids back then did ‘ludes. Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll. Tho in Cosby’s case the last one was prolly R&B.

                • SgtGymBunny

                  Who said anything abt sedated? I said drugged.

                  I don’t think there’s a substantial difference between being “sedated” and “drugged”; unless you think that one can only be sedated in a clinical setting… Cosby is being accused of drugging women with sedatives without their consent.

                • joe from Lowell

                  Who said anything abt sedated?

                  Your quote – did you not notice the word “sedative?” – and the story we’re talking about.

                  I thought you were on some narrow ground before. Now you’re splitting the hair between “sedated” and “drugged with a sedative?”

                • GoDeep

                  Have you used party drugs or taken sedatives? You do know there’s a difference b/tn being sedated vs using a sedative yes? If taken improperly certain sedatives can make you euphoric–which is the opposite of sedated. You’re using the word “sedated” to imply Cosby had sex w/ passed out women. That’s not how ‘ludes were used.

                  Euphoric, [yoo-fawr-ik, -for-], adjective
                  1. intensely happy or confident: She was euphoric when she received the Oscar.
                  2. Psychology. in a state of happy and confident well-being sometimes exaggerated in pathological states as mania.

                  Sedate, [si-deyt], adjective
                  1. calm, quiet, or composed; undisturbed by passion or excitement: a sedate party; a sedate horse.
                  2. the calming of mental excitement or abatement of physiological function, especially by the administration of a drug.

                  This is why I say this is an attack on Cosby by innuendo. Ppl are saying Cosby drugged women to make them pass out & then had sex w/ them. GymBunny tlks abt that scenario explicitly. But taking ‘ludes–as the Hugh Hefner story indicates–was more widely associated as a party drug, not GHB or Roofies.

                • Rob in CT

                  The people who are saying Cosby sedated women and raped them include, what, 40 women who say he did it to them.

                • GoDeep

                  I don’t think that count is at all correct. IIRC most complainants have been anonymous & the source that 40 was dug up from double or triple counted.

                • joe from Lowell

                  Yep, you’re really clinging to this ledge.

                  smh

                • I don’t think that count is at all correct. IIRC most complainants have been anonymous & the source that 40 was dug up from double or triple counted.

                  Well, most people on these lists are not anonymous:

                  This list is alphabetical. It will be updated regularly. As of July 8th, 2015, the total number of women is 45.

                • Aimai

                  Here’s a chip off the links provided, in alphabetical order, in case we forget what we are talking about:

                  This list is alphabetical. It will be updated regularly. As of July 8th, 2015, the total number of women is 45.

                  Jewel Allison, former model, says Cosby drugged her glass of wine when the two had dinner together at his home in the 1980s. Allison claims Cosby led her to a mirror, placed her hand on his genitals, gave her a hard kiss, and then called her a cab.

                  Lili Bernard was an actress preparing for a role on the final season of The Cosby Show when Cosby drugged and raped her in 1992. After, Bernard claims Cosby shouted that she was “dead” and “didn’t exist” and that he never wanted to see her again, and that she feared for her life.

                  Barbara Bowman claims that Cosby pursued a relationship as her mentor while Bowman was a teenager, and that, as an aspiring model at the age of 17, Cosby drugged and assaulted her several times. Bowman’s essay in the Washington Post encouraged more women to come forward.

                  Linda Brown says Cosby invited her to his hotel room after a show in 1969. When Brown arrived, Cosby gave Brown a soft drink; she blacked out after drinking it. When she came to, the two were naked in bed together; Cosby flipped Brown over and sexually assaulted her.

                  Shawn Brown claimed that in 1973 (when her name was Shawn Upshaw) Cosby drugged and raped her. She further claimed that her daughter, Autumn Jackson, was Cosby’s child. Cosby has admitted to sleeping with Brown, but denies that the child is his.

                  Autumn Burns worked at a Las Vegas casino in 1970 when she met Cosby. Burns claims Cosby invited her to his room, fed her alcohol that made her feel “not in control,” and forced her into sexual acts.

                  Sarita Butterfield accused Cosby of cornering her, kissing her, and trying to fondle her breasts during a dinner party with family present on Christmas Eve, 1974

                  .Chelan says that Cosby promised to introduce her to modeling agents when the two met in 1986. Cosby then gave her a blue pill which made her very groggy, and sexually assaulted her before she passed out. (Chelan has not given her last name.)

                  Andrea Constand worked for Temple University, Cosby’s alma mater, in 2004. Constand says that when she visited Cosby’s home to talk about career advice, he gave her herbal pills for anxiety, and then “touched her breasts and genital area, rubbed his penis against her hand,” and penetrated her “digitally.” Constand was 31 at the time.

                  Lachele Covington, then 20, accused Cosby of pulling her hand toward his penis during a conversation about career advice on January 25, 2000

                  .Janice Dickinson accused Cosby of drugging her with pain pills and raping her in 1982.

                  Joyce Emmons, former comedy club owner, says she took a pill from Cosby for a headache, blacked out, and came to naked in bed with a friend of Cosby’s. When she confronted him, he laughed and told her he had given her a Quaalude.

                  Beth Ferrier alleges that she had been in a consensual relationship with Cosby for a time in the 1980s, but that he drugged her coffee when she visited him in his dressing room before a performance in Denver in 1984.

                • SgtGymBunny

                  Okay, GoDeep, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the “sedatives” only slowed down their cognitive functions, slurred their speech a little bit, and skewed their judgment but didn’t necessarily knock them out. However, the fine line between being high and knocked out isn’t that broad.

                  But you’re talking about differences in degree. Even if they weren’t “unconscious”, they were significantly incapacitated and not able to give any meaningful consent.

                  By the way, nobody is merely implying that Cosby had sex with passed out women, that’s exactly what some of the accusers are saying: They passed out during the incident.

                  Seriously, whatever Cosby was giving the, it’s not as though he was in his knowledgeable Dr. Huxtable role and properly administering the stuff in a clinical setting. Even if he was only expecting some of the women to simply be more compliant, it is possible that some of victims had lower tolerance to the junk and did pass out. As someone who’s five feet tall and 110 lbs., I can say from experience that it doesn’t take much in the way drugs or alcohol to have me in lights-out mode.

                • brad

                  And now, silence. No answer to why only Cosby’s race is important, no response to being shown to be completely wrong about claiming the 40+ number is false and inflated.
                  But hey, them pharmacists should be allowed to slut shame, dammit.

                • Hogan

                  You do know there’s a difference b/tn being sedated vs using a sedative yes?

                  Ooh! Ooh! I know this one!

                  When I take a sedative, I make a choice, control the dose, control the circumstances, etc.

                  When I’m sedated, I don’t.

                  Consent: learn it, know it, live it.

                • Brad wrote:

                  And now, silence. No answer to why only Cosby’s race is important, no response to being shown to be completely wrong about claiming the 40+ number is false and inflated.

                  But hey, them pharmacists should be allowed to slut shame, dammit.

                  Don’t forget the condescending “look up word X in a dictionary! and ‘powerful’ doesn’t mean ‘having a power’ but only ‘having power analogous to a multimillionaire’!”

        • Malaclypse

          You do realize that Cosby calling it consensual, and it actually being consensual, are two entirely different things, right?

          • KmCO

            No, GoDeep does not realize.

          • GoDeep

            The women said that they consented. Are you saying that they don’t know what they did, or that they’re incapable of consenting?

            • The Temporary Name

              Which of the women?

            • And other women said that they did not consent. I can easily believe them all.

        • KmCO

          Right, we’re “lynching” Cosby, just like anti-choice pharmacists being expected to do their jobs is “slavery.” Christ, you unironically pick the worst possible metaphors imaginable.

          • GoDeep

            They’re not picked by accident. Its a virtual lynching. You’re playing a cheap game of innuendo like so many white ppl have b4 when it comes 2 blacks. Look over here, “Cosby had sex with women on drugs”, don’t look over there at the fact that they consented.

            • DrS

              By any chance, are you a member of the Supreme Court?

            • Aimai

              GoDeep I really, sincerely, feel for you–this seems to be a devastating blow to you personally. But I think you are misunderstanding the role the revelation of these transcripts plays in changing people’s minds about Cosby. It is a little unclear from the linked article. No one is arguing that these women, mentioned in the transcript, did not consent to be drugged and have sex with Cosby. Its that his apparent fetish for the kink of having sex with drugged women is now something that he has admitted. It would be very far fetched to argue that some 40 women, respectable, adult, women from his own community, would independently come up with this fetish if they all somehow decided to spontaneously and without cause charge him with rape.

              Maybe this is so painful that you haven’t been willing to look at the actual testimony of the women who have come forward. But the preponderance of the evidence is very clear at this point. I can’t speak for anyone but myself but I don’t take any pleasure in Cosby’s downfall–I adored him as a young child, followed his career, admired him for his work (and his wife’s work) in education, and admired him for his politics and cultural work in uplift. Its a tragedy that someone who had so much, and gave so much, also turns out to be a monster. Its not really unusual. We just can’t bear to face up to the facts. But I do share your grief over it.

              • GoDeep

                Another alternative is that women who had consensual sex while under the influence of drugs are using his embarrasment over the fact to legally blackmale him. Knowing someone’s kink says nothing abt that whether or not you had consensual sex with them. I’ve had consensual sex under the influence. I regretted it but wasn’t rape. What happened to these women I can’t say.

                • ColBatGuano

                  are using his embarrasment over the fact to legally blackmale him.

                  Congratulations. You’ve won today’s
                  “Stupidest thing on the internet” award.

                • Aimai

                  Sure–I’ve had consensual sex while “under the influence” because being “under the influence” of a couple of glasses of wine didn’t mean I wasn’t capable of giving consent to my boyfriend or my husband. The proof was in the pudding, as it were, because afterwards we were still in the same relationship.

                  But that is not what anyone is talking about here. The various women who have come forward–you seem to just brush off the fact that its upwards of 40 at this point–are not saying they had consensual sex but were drugged. They are saying they were drugged into unconsciousness and then forced to have sex.

                  I don’t understand why you are so determined to muddy the waters and to ignore the direct testimony of so many women, over such a long span of time. What are you arguing about these women: that they did have sex with Cosby willingly, for gain, and then they decided to “get even” with him later? Or that they never had sex with him at all and made the whole thing up? Because there’s just too much data, interviews, depositions, and money out there for that to be true at this point.

                • brad

                  This really is getting embarrassing. You’re literate, that makes you more intelligent than what you’re currently arguing.
                  I’ll ask you the same question TJ refuses to answer; why is it only Cosby’s race which is significant here, why do the accusers not matter?

                • SgtGymBunny

                  While knowing his “kink” for having sex with drugged women does not necessarily prove that he did rape his accusers, it does a good job of defining his tastes. If they were saying he beat them up and sodomized them, we really would have reason to question these women because that would be uncharacteristic of Cosby, because he clearly prefers to knock them out with sedatives.

                  True story: I dated a guy who really got his rocks off after I got really drunk and appeared to be passed out. This was more just entertainingly weird for me, so I would let him have at it. We could have normal wide-awake sex, but I could tell from his “performances” when he thought I was passed out that that’s where his real get-off was.

                  If some other woman were to come out and say that after she got piss drunk, he violated her, I would consider that a reasonable accusation. Why? Because that’s his style. While I personally wasn’t offended by what he did (I just thought it weird), I could understand if another woman felt seriously violated by what he did.

                  And I think that’s what Go Deep is getting backward: That other women consented to being drugged does not mean that all other women consented as well. Go Deep seems to be suggesting that some women consenting to being drugged precludes other women from not consenting to be drugged. I was fine with what my weird boyfriend was into. Great. But that doesn’t mean that all of his partners will be or should be fine with it. That was ME making MY own choices about what I was willing to let happen to MY body. What I was willing to do has no bearing on what they are willing to let happen to their bodies.

                • GoDeep

                  I’m like Whoopi Goldberg: I haven’t seen anything persuasive yet. Some ppl are jumping to the conclusion that he drugged these women to incapacitate & then rape them. But Quaaludes were a party drug in the ’60s & ’70s. Ppl consensually mix drugs & sex all the time. I wouldn’t draw a conclusion from the consensual use of drugs anymore than I would the consensual use of alcohol. Ppl like to party.

                • brad

                  Sometimes handcuffs are used consensually in sex, too. That doesn’t make all use consensual or loving.

                  You’re being willfully obtuse.

                • ColBatGuano

                  You haven’t seen anything persuasive because you refuse to look. But keep denying rape, it’s making you look good.

                • The Dark Avenger

                  Not to mention that quaaludes were unobtainable in this country in the time-frame we’re talking about in the deposition, so mentioning the 60s and 70s in this connection must mean either you think the commentators here are stupid enough to believe you, or you’re stupid enough to think following Ms. Goldberg is enough of a defense for Cosby in this case.

                • GoDeep

                  How do you mean “unobtainable”? Did you not read above about Hefner giving them out as recently as a few years ago? Did you not see “Wolf of Wall Street”? Anything’s obtainable for a price.

                • GoDeep

                  Thanks, GymBunny. Of all the ppl here, you’re the only one to make me think. I’ve never come across anyone with that particular kink. You’re a very giving woman!

                • The Dark Avenger

                  They aren’t legally for sale in this country, GoDerp.

                  As for the Wolf of Wall Street:

                  What any Googler of Quaaludes would discover is that it’s hard to find ludes IRL. The last legal manufacturer of ‘ludes halted production in 1983. Finding them these days is a lot more difficult. “Quaaludes are pretty much impossible to get — according to reports, all the back supply has been used up, leaving the market mostly to dodgy internet chemists,” Gizmodo UK reported, explaining there’s a substitute drug called Mandrax, a methaqualone-containing sedative, still available in South Africa.

                  Thanks for letting me explain that to you.

                • GoDeep

                  No shit, Sherlock? I’m the one who posted the effin article. I knew that. Maybe you didn’t see the part abt Hefner handing them out recently?

                • The Dark Avenger

                  And your point is that rich, wealthy men have no trouble getting them, and they can get them, and that they only use them when having consensual sex with women?

                  Using Hefner as a counter-example does your case no good.

                • Thanks, GymBunny. Of all the ppl here, you’re the only one to make me think.

                  I, on the other hand, fully respect your choice not to think! :)

              • sharculese

                I’m like Whoopi Goldberg:

                An idiot who doesn’t take rape seriously? We know.

                • GoDeep

                  You don’t think Whoopi takes rape seriously? Maybe you didn’t the Color Purple then. I think the sista gets rape. I think she really gets it.

                • sharculese

                  No, I don’t think the woman who joked about ‘rape rape’ takes rape seriously.

                  I think the sista gets rape. I think she really gets it.

                  I don’t really care what you think because you’ve proven you’re hostile to thinking seriously about rape

                • Aimai

                  He is referring to her casual dismissal of the rape of a 13 year old girl by Roman Polanski as not “rape rape.” Look–Whoopi and plenty of women, among whom I think you might count yourself–are not always as supportive of other women and children when it comes to sexual abuse. Especially not when the men involved are important to them. Women have been turning other women (and children) over to men as tokens,gifts, or victims since time immemorial. “Getting” rape because you recognize it when it happens to someone you identify with, but refusing to recognize it and claiming that 40 women are lying because bitches are like that–is not any kind of female solidarity.

                • ColBatGuano

                  Maybe you didn’t the Color Purple then. I think the sista gets rape. I think she really gets it.

                  Wait, you think an actress taking a role in a film is definitive proof of her stance on rape? Man, it just keeps getting worse with you.

        • Timurid

          Well you sure picked the right thread to troll in.
          Is your middle name “Balls” by any chance?

        • SamInMpls

          “Prolly has a Confederate flag pin.”

          HA!

          Your paraprosdokian was perhaps unintentional but that is how it reads to me.

          Sorry not sorry and all of that.

          • Aimai

            Thanks for teaching me a new word! Much appreciated.

          • Lee Rudolph

            Pair of brass what?

    • KmCO

      “We then have sex” is quite a euphemism for I then rape a semi-conscious and physically incapacitated woman.

      • postmodulator

        Yeah, just in case it isn’t clear, I understood that.

        A lot of people will defend a celebrity rapist by saying that he could get any woman he wanted. Well, here’s a guy who really could get any woman he wanted. Hell, it’s not out of the question that some of these actual women would have consented to sex with him, if he had not drugged and incapacitated them rather than asking. He clearly finds rape preferable to consensual sex.

        • SatanicPanic

          I’ve never bought into the idea that celebrity is a guarantee of success with women. if you meet enough women from LA you’ll hear plenty of stories of celebrities who turn out to be creepers, and have trouble getting women despite their fame.

          • petesh

            Maybe their trouble is that they are creeps?

            • SatanicPanic

              That’s probably it

              • postmodulator

                Given the things that make a person want to be a celebrity and the way one is treated after one becomes a celebrity, I’d be rather astonished if there weren’t a higher percentage of creepy men amongst celebrities than in the general populace.

                That said, there are women who are attracted to fame. And why not? Good for them. As long as everyone involved is into it, sleep with a famous person. It’s not as though I’d hold out long if Debra Messing bought me a drink. Even wanting to sleep with a specific famous person doesn’t mean that famous person gets to rape you, is my stance, though. (Controversial to the end.)

                • DrS

                  I think I’d generalize that even further out than just entertainment celebrities. I think about what goes into gaining and maintaining lots of types of power, and how one is treated after attaining such. It’s not surprising in that light to find creepy rich people, creepy politicians, creepy etc.

          • LeeEsq

            I think the idea that celebrities have guaranteed success from a women comes from the sexist and misogynist idea that all women are only interested in high status alpha men and male celebrities are high status alpha men and should therefore be successful with women. This sexist idea should be demonstratively false by anybody with an average ability to observe the world but a lot of people seem to think before observing.

            • postmodulator

              Yeah, fair shot. I phrased that abominably. Being rich and famous aids in meeting women who like rich and famous people, but it’s not the case that a rich and famous man can have any woman he wants.

              I do think it’s true that Cosby could have found consensual sexual partners, if he wanted, and that he apparently prefers raping incapacitated women to having consensual sex.

          • KmCO

            I’ve never bought into the idea that celebrity is a guarantee of success with women.

            Nor have I. It presupposes that all women are heterosexual, shallow, easily cowed by power or prestige, and have uniform tastes in men.

            ETA: Not directed at you, postmod.

            • postmodulator

              See above. I was artless and thoughtless in phrasing.

              ETA: No, I’m unhappy with what I wrote.

              • SatanicPanic

                me too, not directing it at you, I was agreeing

        • LeeEsq

          This line of thought always gets my blood boiling. It is cruel, unsympathetic, and dumb at the same time.

      • twbb

        Mutually getting high and having consensual sex isn’t rape. It’s actually kind of common. It was especially common in the 70’s and 80’s.

        That said, I have no doubt the women that came forward to say he drugged and raped them are telling the truth. The fact that this case wasn’t rape doesn’t mean the others weren’t. But it’s also not a smoking gun that he did (see first sentence).

        But we don’t need a smoking gun at this point. Enough women have come forward with the same story and nothing to gain from coming forward that it’s perfectly clear that he raped a lot of women. I don’t understand what this story adds to this. I don’t see why this needs to be added to.

    • LeeEsq

      The ability of people to engage in these sorts of deceptions never disappoints.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      that seems the most likely way he justifies looking at himself in the mirror, let alone going on moral crusades. It seems awfully appropriate that the judge released this precisely *because* of Cosby’s professional scold act. If only this happened to more self proclaimed moralizers

      • postmodulator

        If only this happened to more self proclaimed moralizers

        It seems to happen to around a hundred percent of them, if you wait long enough.

      • Speaking of Cosby’s pretense of moral rectitude, apparently he offered the plaintiff in this case money to keep quiet, but only if she used it for college and maintained a 3.0 GPA.

        • The Temporary Name

          That’s also at the Deadspin link.

          • Aimai

            That was a very interesting part of the story–because the victim and the mother weren’t asking for anything other than an apology and information about what he’d used to drug her. They weren’t even threatening to go to the police. Cosby’s actions in trying to persuade them to take a payoff was a way of appealing to the GoDeep’s and others in his world who are eager to see women as choosing to profitteer off their own bodies. If they had accepted the money Cosby would now be accusing them of having pimped out the daughter for the money.

            • muddy

              Plus he gets to retain a hold over her, and make him obey him like a good little girl for years to come. It’s like extending the rape and control. Sickening.

              I can’t find a link to it, but Cosby’s last performance on Colbert was extremely creepy. It wasn’t very long ago (2013-14). Cosby was behaving in a way where it was unclear as to whether he was senile or doing a bit – you can see Colbert trying to play along with it, but he didn’t seem like he was in on it.

              And Cosby had that creepy gloating fucking look in his eye. He was really getting into putting Colbert off balance – I was sitting there saying , Eww, he just raped Stephen with his own show, and then Stephen had to thank him and act like he loved it.

              • LosGatosCA

                Plus he gets to retain a hold over her, and make him obey him like a good little girl for years to come. It’s like extending the rape and control. Sickening.

                Nail. Head.

                Clearly gets off on controlling people for his own pleasure – physical and/or mental.

                • Henry Holland

                  While I like some of the music David Crosby has been involved in, from what I’ve read about him he seems like he’s been a total creep since his Byrds days. He liked to “spike” people with LSD, i.e. slip very powerful Owsley acid in to unsuspecting people’s drinks. In one case, he spiked Davy O’List of the English band The Nice (aka the band Keith Emerson lead before ELP) in late 1967/early 1968 and it totally did a number on O’List. There’s others that I’ve read about but Google has failed to name them for me.

        • Eewwww.

          Seriously, gross.

    • GoDeep

      From the testimony he & these women like to do drugs & then have sex. Never heard of that b4. Esp in the ’70s. Wasn’t the saying, “Sex, Coffee, and Rock & Roll”?

      • KmCO

        OH FOR FUCK’S SAKE

        • petesh

          That’s actually more articulate than my first response, if less than this one: MANY women have reported that they did NOT consent to take drugs, let alone have sex.

        • Aimai

          I just re-read the entire of the older thread. I’d forgotten how awful it was. Also forgotten that I routinely get it backward and think that TJ is female and GoDeep is male. I apologize to both of them, and to both sexes, for the wrongful ascription. But nevertheless I think you could have made book on neither TJ nor GoDeep changing their minds about Cosby.

          • KmCO

            If there’s anything that’s clear at this point from countless threads, it’s that regardless of which sex they are, neither of them really gives much of a damn about women as a category or considers them truly important.

          • jim, some guy in iowa

            it says a lot for your sense of basic decency that you believe there are two separate people using those names

            (this *is* a compliment, in case it isn’t clear)

            • Malaclypse

              I believe they are different as well. They have very different views on economics. GD, if memory serves, is a “business consultant.”

              • jim, some guy in iowa

                I’m probably wrong. I often am about that kind of thing. It’s kind of a violation of good faith to say it out loud, but sometimes you (I) just get enough…(shrugs)

              • DrS

                I recall how proud she was about the work she had done for the fast food industry, so she’s quite familiar with advancing disgusting things.

              • GD, if memory serves, is a “business consultant.”

                Huh. I was guessing “systems analyst.”

            • Aimai

              Actually I’ve always wondered about that.

              • wjts

                A lot of people have.

                • sibusisodan

                  I’d caution about the acceptability of doing this.

                  I probably won’t write this properly – for which I’ll apologise now, just so it’s clear that I’m also happy to apologise more later, in case I raise hackles…

                  …I think it will narrow the potential LGM comment crowd (what’s our collective noun? A descipableness?) if we speculate like this about other people and no-one says ‘hey, really? is that welcoming?’

                  We can speculate about JenBob all we want. He’s a troll. It goes with the territory.

                  But the people you’re thinking about aren’t trolls. They’re wrong on the merits a lot of the time, and infuriating and sail perilously close to the concern-troll wind…but that doesn’t make them un-people.

                  I’ll hopefully now return you to some snark from N_B and Hogan.

                • Aimai

                  I have mixed feelings about the seeming requirement to accept people at face value on the internet, especially when they make claims based on authority derived from supposed positioning. I mean–everyone speaks from their own position and acknowledging it is no more than courtesy and humility. But both GoDeep and TJ make claims to speak for an entire people, and oppose their speech specifically to other commenters on the basis of their presumed different experience. I did originally think that one of them was just the other returning under a different name. No harm in that. People change nyms. But over time they have continued to maintain that they are distinct people and so I deal with them seperately even though I often get confused about whose life story is whose. I’m sure people routinely assume Origami Isopod and I are sock puppets for each other because we often agree with each other. Or even can’t keep us separate. Its not a crime. Its just a natural aspect of the ambiguity of the internet.

                • Aimai

                  I would edit that, if I could, it was ungenerous. Sibusiodan is correct that if it serves to make LGM seem like a hostile place it should not be done. I’ve been made to feel like an outsider at plenty of blogs where one or two regular posters police things into a death spiral. I argue with both godeep and tj but I’m interested in their perspectives, even if I disagree wholeheartedly, and I value their contribution.

                • wjts

                  Fair enough, but I will say I meant my comment as a statement of fact: many people here have wondered if GoDeep and ThrottleJockey are the same person (see comments for details).

                  (what’s our collective noun? A descipableness?)

                  I vote for “objective despicability”.

                • I’m sure people routinely assume Origami Isopod and I are sock puppets for each other because we often agree with each other.

                  People mistake me for team because we’re both so other-wordly handsome.

                • I’ll hopefully now return you to some snark from N_B and Hogan.

                  Your wish is granted. WHERE’S MY GODDAMNED PAYMENT IN FIRST-BORN?

                • Malaclypse

                  (what’s our collective noun? A descipableness?)

                  We are, collectively, an Internet Tradition.

                • Malaclypse

                  People mistake me for team because we’re both so other-wordly handsome.

                  It doesn’t help that you are, very clearly, presenting.

                • sibusisodan

                  WHERE’S MY GODDAMNED PAYMENT IN FIRST-BORN?

                  One day, I will learn to think this stuff through before I type it. Alas, that day is not today.

                • It doesn’t help that you are, very clearly, presenting.

                  I’m a married bear. Cool your jets.

                • Manju

                  I’m sure people routinely assume Origami Isopod and I are sock puppets for each other because we often agree with each other.

                  But if you were a sock puppet, isn’t this what you’d say?

                • My rule is to take nyms which present as distinct pretty much at face value. This is just mine. I’m not convinced I can tell whether people are the same just from comments and really don’t want to put effort into it. Mistakes are too easy (cf djw thinking my name was a nym even though I link to my page in every comment; note I was not at all offended by djw’s thinking there; indeed, I four it hilarious :)).

                • I thought it was a nym for a long time myself.

                • Ronan

                  “My rule is to take nyms which present as distinct pretty much at face value. This is just mine. I’m not convinced I can tell whether people are the same just from comments and really don’t want to put effort into it. ”

                  Yeah. Im pretty much the same. I dont really mind so much about sincerity of argument or (in these kinds of contexts) persona.

                  eta: i dont know if ‘sincerity of persona’ makes sense. Im having trouble with my words and sentences today.

                • SgtGymBunny

                  My rule is to take nyms which present as distinct pretty much at face value.

                  Except for our visiting asshat down thread. He/She It isn’t smart enough to vary its syntax. And it made three posts that weren’t terribly original in subject matter.

                • Aimai

                  I think its important to a good conversation for people to stick with a single persona on line and to try to keep their story about that persona straight–like not randomly vary the gender or the history. And to honestly represent previous arguments or assertions. But I do miss the LGM tradition, now long gone seemingly, of people posting obvious fake names and comments from famous people where relevant.

                • Erik Loomis says:
                  July 7, 2015 at 3:53 pm
                  I thought it was a nym for a long time myself.

                  Really?! But…I link to my home page in my very name! I’m super googleable.

                  Wacky! It never occurred to me that people would think that…er…my name was anything but my name!

                  Aimai says:
                  July 7, 2015 at 5:07 pm
                  I think its important to a good conversation for people to stick with a single persona on line and to try to keep their story about that persona straight–like not randomly vary the gender or the history.

                  That’s not my feeling. Done well or done irrelevantly (i.e., so it doesn’t distract), I don’t have any problem with it. Done poorly, it’s no different than any other conversational fail, most at about the level of typos for me. Some is really bad.

                  And to honestly represent previous arguments or assertions.

                  Sure, but I don’t find personal experience as premise for or articulation of argument to have special weight. It’s harder to check, obviously, so unless it works like a hypothetical, then it’s a real pain if false.

                  But I do miss the LGM tradition, now long gone seemingly, of people posting obvious fake names and comments from famous people where relevant.

                  That still happens occasionally! In this comment I’m posing as that Notable Gallant and Drinker of Lemonade: Bijan “Of the Golden Apples” Parisa the Only.

                • djw

                  Your name just sounds like the name of a particularly memorable character in some important novel I’m probably embarrassed and ashamed to admit I’ve never actually read.

                • Aimai

                  I think we aren’t agreeing on what I meant by “honestly represent.” I prefer my interlocutors, however pseudonymous, to at least stand by their previous arguments and not lie about them. People change their mind, or argue captiously all the time, that’s fine. But lying about previous statements or randomly asserting and then changing arguments is pretty much troll behavior. I said nothing about personal experience as a guide to argument and I think its pretty clear that I don’t think anecdote or personal experience is a good basis for a form of government argument.

                • Hogan

                  FYI, I’m on a jury for the next ten days or so. Snark service will be limited. Please explore alternate sources.

                • FYI, I’m on a jury for the next ten days or so.

                  Lady Justice weeps, but fortunately the blindfold will catch her tears.

                • Hogan

                  Right? Something needs to be done about this city’s drug problem.

                • ʾAbū l-Walīd Muḥammad Ibn ʾAḥmad Ibn Rušd

                  But I do miss the LGM tradition, now long gone seemingly, of people posting obvious fake names and comments from famous people where relevant.

                  Your troll has forgotten how scared he is of my people, so I have not needed to comment as often. But I do still lurk, and I still comment every now and again. You Frankish heathens have a spot in my heart.

                • Frankish heathens are best served on a bun with ketchup.

                • AstroBio

                  if it serves to make LGM seem like a hostile place it should not be done Aimai July 7, 2015 at 2:26 pm

                  I wholeheartedly disagree. LGM is my favorite blog, ever, precisely because it is a hostile place. I’m usually not up to (afraid of?) commenting. The commentariat here will pick apart any unworthy argument on the merits. So, if I ever have any free time I want to waste in front of the screen, the first thing I do is catch up on reading LGM posts and comments.
                  Thanks, all of you.

                • djw wrote:

                  Your name just sounds like the name of a particularly memorable character in some important novel I’m probably embarrassed and ashamed to admit I’ve never actually read.

                  So you *have* been reading my diary!

                  AstroBio says:

                  if it serves to make LGM seem like a hostile place it

                  should not be done Aimai July 7, 2015 at 2:26 pm

                  I wholeheartedly disagree. LGM is my favorite blog, ever, precisely because it is a hostile place. I’m usually not up to (afraid of?) commenting. The commentariat here will pick apart any unworthy argument on the merits. So, if I ever have any free time I want to waste in front of the screen, the first thing I do is catch up on reading LGM posts and comments.

                  I’ve explored the notion of “appropriate hostility” with my students (the phrase is not ideal as some people just hear “hostility” and get nervous). I want people to challenge my work (and me!) in ways that help it and me improve. This is surprisingly difficult!

                  I think we aren’t agreeing on what I meant by “honestly represent.” I prefer my interlocutors, however pseudonymous, to at least stand by their previous arguments and not lie about them.

                  Sure. But then what does it have to do with their representation of their personal details unless those are pertinent to the argument?

                  People change their mind, or argue captiously all the time, that’s fine. But lying about previous statements or randomly asserting and then changing arguments is pretty much troll behavior.

                  Ok.

                  I said nothing about personal experience as a guide to argument and I think its pretty clear that I don’t think anecdote or personal experience is a good basis for a form of government argument.

                  Well,

                  I have mixed feelings about the seeming requirement to accept people at face value on the internet, especially when they make claims based on authority derived from supposed positioning. I mean–everyone speaks from their own position and acknowledging it is no more than courtesy and humility. But both GoDeep and TJ make claims to speak for an entire people, and oppose their speech specifically to other commenters on the basis of their presumed different experience.

                  does seem to be about the role in argument. I agree that if you argue (or make claims) based on personal details (whether from anecdote, expertise, experience, or authority), then the stability of such details is critical to their utility in discussion absent some external verification (which pseudonymity precludes).

                  However, if we are already discounting such, then I’m not particularly bothered by the instability. In general, when ThrottleJockey makes such generalisations from their experience (which is mostly what they do in these contexts), I can find survey data that moves the discussion to the intersubjective.

                • Aimai

                  This may end up inthe wrong place but its a response to Bijaan.

                  TJ and GoDeep frequently use their identity as a form of arguing from authority –they say “I am black and that is an underrepresented point of view on LGM” (true) and I am black and my form of liberalism is distinct from white liberalism” (also true). TJ also frequently discusses the role that his identity as a black man, in a largely black community, plays in informing his attitudes towards the welfare state, towards personal responsibility, towards birth control, and towards rape accusations lodged against black sports stars.

                  Those aren’t all arguments from authority, of course, and its the second set that I’m talking about. While some discussions can take place in a raceless, ageless, genderless sphere (details of tax law, accounting, or some philosophy and math) a lot of what we talk about here at LGM has a race, class, and gender component. Where you sit has an effect on where you stand or the “corner” of the social world from which you look affects your viewpoint, to draw on the sanskrit.

                  I try to cop to the ways in which being a white female, parent to basically healthy kids, upper class, jewish, atheist, of a certain kind of history affects my viewpoint. Because it enables me to recognize that my beliefs don’t arise from pure sweet reason but are embedded in my experience of the world which is not shared with everyone else.

                  Thanks to David Brooks dredging it up I just read this great essay by a young woman who survived the Rwandan holocaust and 8 years asa refugee bouncing around Africa with another child sibling. To read her description of fitting in, going to school, and going to Yale is to be reminded that abstract discussions of principles and theories take place against the reality that people’s lives make some things not hypothetical at all and that we don’t engage in all discussions on an equal footing or from the same place. We can pretend that our social identities don’t matter on line,but many times they will still shape our discussions.

                • Those aren’t all arguments from authority, of course, and its the second set that I’m talking about. While some discussions can take place in a raceless, ageless, genderless sphere (details of tax law, accounting, or some philosophy and math) a lot of what we talk about here at LGM has a race, class, and gender component. Where you sit has an effect on where you stand or the “corner” of the social world from which you look affects your viewpoint, to draw on the sanskrit.

                  Absolutely. And there are forms of politico-epistemic organising, solidarity, and illumination that come from fitting one’s personal experience and situation into larger patterns and into related experiences. I certainly do not hesitate to use my experiences as the child of an Iranian immigrant for example to try to shed some light on various issues.

                  I think I’ve lost the thread. My main point was a variant of sibusisodan’s: they proposed that public speculation on whether some commentors (who are truly commenting, not just obviously jenbobbing) are sock puppets or making up stories or really dogs (on the internet, no one knows!) is sub ideal because it can put some folks off (and the value thereof is limited). My version is that I just go with face based all the time, partly because I think the times when that sort of speculation (or investigation) is useful are vanishingly rare. If people generalise from inadequate or faked personal data, we can always look to other sources for verification. If people are making things up that are reasonable, albeit not true of them, then it can still be useful to encounter that made up story (to the degree that it is close enough to an authentic story that it produces the same perspective widening).

                  That being said, I don’t think it’s that big a deal to wonder or even to ask. But it can go rather wrong (cf your experience with jfl or the fact that apparently everyone thinks my name is a nym :)) and I’m not sure what the upside is. (And given my terrible skills at such identification, it’s definitely too high risk and low benefit *for me*.)

                • Ronan

                  “Thanks to David Brooks dredging it up I just read this great essay by a young woman who survived the Rwandan holocaust and 8 years asa refugee bouncing around Africa with another child sibling.”

                  Thanks for pointing that out. It really is a great essay.

            • Manju

              It’s amusing how many LGMers are gobsmacked over the idea that TJ and GoDeep are different people. Two socially conservative Black Americans…Nooooo Waaaaay!

              IMO, this is a product of your often wildly counter-factual views on race. But no worries, I am here to save you all from yourselves. ;-)

              TJ and GoDeep’s presence here once gave me an opportunity to look into the question of how many Black Americans share Cosby’s most controversial views (other than of course; “I am not a rapist”).

              See here for the answer.

              • DrS

                I don’t think that either TJ or GoDerp identify as conservatives, do they? I’m pretty sure they’ve both used the “I’m more liberal than…” construction as an argument against various liberal positions.

                • Manju

                  Even if they do, its a different brand of conservatism…one thats more aligned with (white) liberalism.

                  So, for example, Cosby’s extreme “individual responsibility” ideology is still mated to a strong welfare state. I recall him saying that he was a Bernie Sanders supporter in ’08 (before he became an Obama one).

                • Manju

                  Oops. I read your comment as “I think that TJ and GoDerp identify as conservatives”

                • Manju

                  Nonetheless, I may have still provided an answer. They are socially conservative but more or less economically liberal.

                • Ronan

                  “Nonetheless, I may have still provided an answer. They are socially conservative but more or less economically liberal.”

                  That was always my impression. I think it’s understandable that someone might identify as liberal (even if others dont see them as all that liberal) if they came from a relatively conservative background where they were always seen/identified as liberal.

                • DrS

                  Heh, refresh before commentinh

                • GoDeep

                  I’m not soc’lly conservative nor esp religious. I’m a CME Christian–Christmas, Mother’s Day, Easter…but I haven’t even done that in a while. I prolly have more reverence for religion that most of you here, but many of you are atheists or agnostics, so that’s not surprising.

                • DrS

                  Yeah, see, that’s it. You claim to be not socially conservative…except there’s all these conservative/authoritarian viewpoints you espouse.

                • KmCO

                  GoDeep, you also claim to be pro-choice but also expressly believe that society should weigh anti-choicers’ “religious” concerns more heavily than reproductive freedom, so yeah, I’m not buying your claim that you’re not socially conservative.

                • GoDeep

                  Do you even know what the word “authoritarian” means? It means forcing someone to do something they don’t want to do. The reason I support a right of conscience for pharmacists is b/cs I’m NOT an authoritarian. The provision of a right to you does not create an obligation for me. Just like Freedom of Speech doesn’t mean LGM has to let me speak, Reproductive Freedom doesn’t mean that pharmacists have to provision what they perceive as an abortifacient or contraception.

                  I’m strongly pro-choice, but I think everyone is entitled to their own choices, including pharmacists. I tend to support the individual’s rights over the collective’s. Most socialists & communists do not. You’re the one who’s the authoritarian.

                • KmCO

                  Do you even know what the word “authoritarian” means? It means forcing someone to do something they don’t want to do

                  Nope.

                  ETA: Aimai explained it pretty competently here. I don’t expect GoDeep to adjust her definition of the term, since she seems pretty deliberately intent on obfuscating it, but it is extremely pertinent to know the correct meaning of the term.

                • Aimai

                  GoDeep you are just pretending that you have a principle that “favors the rights of the individual” over the collective because you don’t advocate 1) doing away with all restrictions on all people, not just pharmacists and 2) you don’t advocate for permitting gay pharmacists to serve only gay people, white pharmacists to serve only white people, and atheist pharmacists in favor of eugenics or euthanasia to dispense whatever they want in service of their conscience. You explicitly favor only the religious beliefs of a religion you happen to belong to. That’s authoritarian, as that religion is largely authoritarian. It is, in any event, a kind of special pleading for special rights for your co-religionists. You don’t seriously think you, or your belief system, are in any danger of being refused service by pharmacists whose “conscience” doesn’t permit them to dispense high blood pressure medication to black people, or diet pills to fat people, or who believe that people over a certain age should be euthanized. There is no principle involved in your support for these imaginary pharmacists other than “I agree with these people that women’s health care is something that offends my religion and therefore should be turned into a matter of public negotiation with recalcitrant religious bigots.” If you don’t agree that everything else should similarly be up for grabs–with you on the losing end–then there is no principle involved.

                • GoDeep

                  You should invest in a good dictionary, KmCO! Authoritarian is your game not mine. Here’s the real definition: uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uh], favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom.

                  Aimai just switches who gets to do the deciding. She privileges a different group–women & minorities–over old white men: Its the Russian Revolution all over again. Lenin wasn’t anti-authoritarian, he just favored a different authoritarian. Same w/ Aimai.

                • Aimai

                  Lenin was not a democrat and Russia was not a democracy. Really it wasn’t. But of course, as I’ve pointed out to you, there can be left authoritarians and right authoritarians. You might want to take an online test to find out whether the scientific/philosophical description fits you. Its a quadrant system, not a straight line, you might be surprised where you fall on it. I’m not at all close to Lenin.

                • GymBunny–I cringe too, but I think the individual retains a right conscience. In the case where an individual pharmacist is unwilling to dispense I think the pharmacy must provide a different person to dispense.

                  Why? They can’t fire someone who refuses to do their contracted for, bog standard duties? If my religion tells me that it’s wrong to teach complexity theory to women, I can be excused from teaching it at all even though I have expertise in complexity theory and was hired in part to teach that area?

                  In this way the woman still gets her contraception while no individual pharmacist is required to provide it.

                  If the woman gets served without any hiccups, then I have nothing else to say. I doubt anyone does.

                  But are you saying that all pharmacists must hire enough pharamacists who are willing to dispense certain medications that some pharamacists refuse to dispense to cover those people’s refusal? What if they all refuse? Are there any conditions on their refusal?

                  Usually, medical professions specify standards of care. There are areas where medical professionals have discretion (indeed, lots of it), but they are supposed to guide their decisions by patient interests only. They cannot insert e.g., their own financial interests. Why do they get to insert their religious convictions?

                  (Again, if it’s no burden or they choose to specialize in something where it doesn’t come up, e.g., oncology, that’s obviously fine. But if they want to be a general dispensing pharamacist, I don’t see why they should get required special support to opt out of the bits they don’t like.)

                  We can preserve both rights in that way.

                • KmCO

                  GoDeep, another manifestation of your authoritarianism is your insistence here that everyone shares your basic mindset, just in different ways, i.e. both I and Aimai are also authoritarians, just of a different variety. That’s a common belief that authoritarian followers share. They believe that everyone buys into the same basic framework that they do, but that there are “good guys” (those on the “right” side of the framework) and “bad guys” (those on the “wrong” side). You aren’t fooling anyone here, either with this or with your making excuses for Cosby.

                • djw

                  Do you even know what the word “authoritarian” means? It means forcing someone to do something they don’t want to do.

                  This could hardly be more wrong. Letting people do what they want is a recipe for all manner of authoritarian power and control. (Some people evidently enjoy raping other people. Is a prohibition restricting them authoritarian? Obviously not.)

                • You should invest in a good dictionary, KmCO! Authoritarian is your game not mine. Here’s the real definition: uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uh], favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom.

                  This new dictionary schitck is pretty sad.

                  I don’t particularly care whether you are labeled authoritarian or not, but I do think you are missing the fact that so called conscience clauses or actions are currently functioning as a way for a social movement (i.e., certain religious groups) to infringe on others (primarily women) by restricting (ultimately depriving them of) access to certain forms of health care.

                  That movement is clearly rights attacking* in its goals (it wants to deprive women of those forms of health care; they’d prefer that that health care was illegal but they will restrict them any which way; consider an analogy with voting rights; for some conservatives the best would be legal prohibition on black or democratic right to vote, but they’ll do with various sneaky moves such as voter id). There is nominal grassroots action (i.e., individual pharamacists have to refuse), but that’s pretty nominal.

                  In addition to the direct material effects (which can be combated by the scenario you outline above), I have concerns about weakening professional responsibilities of health care providers. There are very good reasons for centering health care decision making on the patient and I think formalising injection of granular provider interests into that decision making is worrisome.

                  (And you can’t carve out contraception from the rest of the pharmasuitical care of a patient. Other drugs interact with contraception. Some drugs are bad for pregnancy so women are recommended to use contraception to avoid certain complications, etc. This isn’t some peripheral concern! I don’t see how you can care for a non-geriatric or non-young-pediatric client base well without dealing with contraception.)

                  * Since you have a persnicky view of the word “authoritarian”, I’ll just use this instead.

                • (Again, if it’s no burden or they choose to specialize in something where it doesn’t come up, e.g., oncology, that’s obviously fine. But if they want to be a general dispensing pharamacist, I don’t see why they should get required special support to opt out of the bits they don’t like.)

                  We can preserve both rights in that way.

                  That last bit is a quote from GoDeep that I didn’t manage to delete.

                • DrS

                  wrong spot

              • Aimai

                I’m not, actually, surprised by GoDeep and TJ’s politics at all. They are both extremely typical of a well understood strain in AA thought about sex, independence, autonomy, gender etc… One of the things that makes them both interesting is that they advocate vociferously for pretty culturally conservative and authoritarian beliefs that are not well represented here because they are anti-liberal and anti-progressive. But one of the things that make them draw fire is that they are both extremely predictable and formulaic so that people often jump ahead of their arguments or tire of the arguments because you can see the end game when you start. That’s not why people thought they were the same person.

                • GoDeep

                  I’m not authoritarian. I tend to support individual rights over those of the collective. Everyone’s entitled to choices, incl both women & pharmacists. Your idea of authoritarianism is oddly constrained. In your odd definition forcing ppl to do what you want them to do on the issues you favor isn’t authoritarian. So pharmacists aren’t entitled to a right of conscience, aren’t entitled to choices. I’m the opposite. Its not abt conservative vs liberal, its abt the individual vs the collective. I think you elevate group politics over individual rights. Whatever group you favor or feel sorry for should “win” whatever policy debate is on the table. Hence you favor women’s right of choice in contraception or abortion over pharmacists’ right of choice. I think that’s wrong.

                  What you’re calling “anti-progressive” is plain vanilla progressivism. What you & others normally advocate is prolly radical leftism: Many if not most ppl at LGM are in the leftmost 3-5% of the country. I’m closer to the leftmost 20-30%. That’s comfortably progressive.

                • I’m not authoritarian. I tend to support individual rights over those of the collective.

                  So you believe that people in positions of power should be constrained in their imposition of personal choices on other people?

                  Everyone’s entitled to choices, incl both women & pharmacists. Your idea of authoritarianism is oddly constrained. In your odd definition forcing ppl to do what you want them to do on the issues you favor isn’t authoritarian. So pharmacists aren’t entitled to a right of conscience, aren’t entitled to choices.

                  I guess not.

                  Pharmacist is a profession. Professions can have obligations that override individual choices. Pharmacists are constrained in all sorts of ways! People in general are constrained with respect to drugs (e.g., I can’t procure any prescribed drug without mediation by a licensed pharmacist).

                  I’m the opposite. Its not abt conservative vs liberal, its abt the individual vs the collective.

                  Clearly not. You support people in specific positions of power and responsibility being able to enforce their idiosyncratic personal views on other citizens.

                  I think you elevate group politics over individual rights.

                  That’s clearly not what’s going on.

                  Whatever group you favor or feel sorry for should “win” whatever policy debate is on the table.

                  This is an nasty way to put it even if it were apropos. At worst, we have a rights conflict. When rights conflict, we need to resolve the conflict. In this case, you favour the empowered against the relatively unempowered and a professional failing their professional duty.

                  Hence you favor women’s right of choice in contraception or abortion over pharmacists’ right of choice.

                  You favor the pharamcists right to impose their choices on women. How is that anything but symmetric?

                  I think that’s wrong.

                  But not because you care about individual rights, as you favor the pharamacist’s. Note that the value at risk is the women’s health vs. the pharamcist’s personal moral satisfaction.

                  By every objective metric, we should prefer the women’s. My health shouldn’t be subject to your religious views. We have more people’s rights violated (each pharmacist serves many women). etc.

                  What you’re calling “anti-progressive” is plain vanilla progressivism.

                  Clearly not! Favoring powerful actors imposing their choices on other people is not progressive in any sense.

                • Malaclypse

                  I tend to support individual rights over those of the collective. Everyone’s entitled to choices, incl both women & pharmacists. Your idea of authoritarianism is oddly constrained. In your odd definition forcing ppl to do what you want them to do on the issues you favor isn’t authoritarian. So pharmacists aren’t entitled to a right of conscience, aren’t entitled to choices. I’m the opposite.

                  Should a Christian Identity pharmacist have the right to refuse to serve black people? A simple Yes or No will suffice.

                • SgtGymBunny

                  So pharmacists aren’t entitled to a right of conscience, aren’t entitled to choices.

                  Hence you favor women’s right of choice in contraception or abortion over pharmacists’ right of choice.

                  The pharmacist doesn’t have a “choice” in the matter. When a pharmacist declines to dispense a bought-and-paid for, legally prescribed (if necessary) pharmaceutical drug, he is abridging someone else’s choice in how they wish to treat their medical problem, which makes a very big material difference in their life. That pharmacist is making a choice about somebody else’s life, and he is not entitled to that privilege. Yes, the pharmacist is entitled to his moral opinion, but he is not entitled to deprive someone else from executing their choices in maintaining their own well-being. That pharmacist is using his position of authority (he’s got the “goods”) to negate women’s reproductive choices.

                • Can a Jehovah’s Witness phebotimist discard all blood that was gathered for transfusion?

                • SgtGymBunny

                  This goes much further than rights of conscience versus reproductive rights. As a civil society that has a history of state-sanctioned segregation of medical services, we should all cringe when a medical services provider declares he should be absolved from fulfilling requested services on account of his or her moral scruples. I don’t simply imagine some holier-than-thou type not giving me Plan B after a night of sexy time. I imagine the scenario that I’m slowly bleeding or suffocating to death, or being ravaged by illness, as some doctor ponders his conscience while a perfectly acceptable medical intervention goes unused. We have a right to be wary about these kinds of claims of freedom of conscience.

                • Rob in CT

                  LGMers are pretty liberal, but your 3-5% estimate is straight out of your ass. As is your estimate of where your views fall on the political spectrum.

                  Bijan and the Sarge have done excellent work with your pharmacist argument, such that I have nothing to add but +1.

                • Aimai

                  In a Democracy, as opposed to an Aristocracy or a Tyranny, the rights of the people, collectively, are elevated. So the laws of the people are, almost definitionally, not tyrannical and are not opposed to the liberties of the individual. But when the individual serves the people, in a capacity such a political leader or pharmacist (licensed and authorized by the people to perform a function which would be illegal absent that licensing) then constraints on such a person aren’t properly understood as “authoritarian.” They are the result of a democratic, collective, process. Not arbitrary, not applied captiously, not merely traditional or resulting from religious faith.

                  A pharmacist’s right of conscience inheres in their rights as an individual, to actions which they take with respect to themselves and their private life. Not in their public acts which they need to take with respect to the rights and needs of their clients who are, in a sense, their patients. A Doctor does not have the right to stop giving a patient life saving medical treatment because he suddenly discovers that the patient is of another religion, or has committed a crime in the past, or might commit a crime in the future. Nor does a pharmacist whose knowledge of the patient and knowledge of the impact of the drug is much, much less than the doctor.

                  The pharmicist is really just a technician, lisenced to purchase and distribute drugs. Not to diagnose or treat conditions. If they can’t manage that they ought not to be liscenced anymore than they would if they said

                  “I am liscenced to dispense only lawfully prescribed drugs but if a family or co-religionist needed it and couldn’t get the prescription I’d dole them out anyway.”

                • Aimai

                  The root of the disagreement seems to be that GoDeep thinks that “authoritarian” means something it doesn’t mean. An authoritarian supports hierarchical power relations and tends to support the people at the top of the pile, as well as a punitive attitude towards people lower down the social scale. They fear disorder, anarchy, and free choice, which they see as leading to a disorderly society. They tend to favor religion over non religion, rules over no rules, they often favor patriarchy over the rights of women and children. They prefer consistency and harsh punishments to flexibility and negotiation. Authoritarians can exist on the left as well as the right. Authoritarian followers like to follow the rules and see other people punished for not following the rules. Authoritarian leaders (double high dominators) like to make the rules and punish people for deviation without necessarily submitting to the rules themselves.

                  Having a respect for the rights of the individual extends farther than making up a special right for supposed “conscience” of pharmacists to selectively enforce parts of their particular religious cult beliefs on (some) of their potential clients.

                • GoDeep

                  Bijan–GO look up the words “individual” and “collective” and then get back to me. Ppl don’t give up their rights b/cs they’re a “powerful” (your word) pharmacist. Being a “powerful” individual doesn’t mean you lose individual rights–which is what you’re arguing.

                  Assuming that the lady at my local CVS pharmacy is a “powerful” multi-millionaire and says “no” to dispensing my prescription for contraception, CVS employs any number of other pharmacists who are willing to do it. The right of conscience applies to the individual, not the corporation.

                  The reason Aimai and you are authoritarians–not me–is b/cs you would make individual rights subordinate to the collective, while I generally would not. But more to the point, you’re prolly (I’m inferring here based on your comments) more of a group politics guy (both left & right can play group politics) and seek to favor disempowered groups generally. That’s admirable in many respects but it can lead to the same abuses as when group politics are practiced by the right. To wit: Your argument that being a pharmacist means that you must renounce your right of choice. Pharmacists shouldn’t be slaves to the collective anymore than blacks should be.

                • GoDeep

                  Aimai–Three words: Tyranny of the Majority. What has it gotten us? Slavery. Three-Fifths Compromise. Dred Scott. Plessy v. Ferguson. Jim Crow. Neither tyranny nor authoritarianism is incongruent with democracy. In fact–just ask ppl in Hitler’s Germany–they can go hand-in-hand.

                  I’m using the standard definition of authoritarian ([uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uh], favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom). The definition you’ve constructed just transposes who’s the hierarchy. In your world disempowered groups are at the top. That’s still an authoritarian regime, its just that different groups comprise the Authoritarian. (See also: the Russian Revolution). In my world the collective is (generally) secondary to the individual.

                  Its because I value personal autonomy that I value a pharmacist’s right of conscience, notwithstanding the fact that the state licenses them. A state can’t, as a requirement of licensure, completely force you to violate your conscience.

                • GoDeep

                  GymBunny–I cringe too, but I think the individual retains a right conscience. In the case where an individual pharmacist is unwilling to dispense I think the pharmacy must provide a different person to dispense. In this way the woman still gets her contraception while no individual pharmacist is required to provide it. We can preserve both rights in that way.

                • So should the individual pharmacist have the right not to serve black people? Because I don’t see the difference.

                • sibusisodan

                  notwithstanding the fact that the state forced them to get a license.

                  That is the second-largest notwithstanding I’ve ever seen.

                  What, in your version of things, is the function of the licensing requirement?

                  Or, to recast your driving analogy. Should a taxi driver – who is also subject to licensing in order to run their business – be free to refuse to serve me purely for reasons of conscience?

                • Malaclypse

                  So should the individual pharmacist have the right not to serve black people? Because I don’t see the difference.

                  Why stop at pharmacists? What if, say, a lunch-counter waiter had a really sincere religious belief that the races should not mingle while eating?

                • GoDeep

                  They’re not symmetric. The difference is that one is a broad refusal to serve & the 2nd is a narrow refusal to serve. A pharmacist couldn’t cite religious requirement to not serve all women, or all blacks, or all Muslims, or all Jews, etc. It has to be a narrow case. In the same way they should, for instance, be able to refuse to dispense Viagra to men.

                • Bijan–GO look up the words “individual” and “collective” and then get back to me.

                  Ha ha ha ha.

                  Ppl don’t give up their rights b/cs they’re a “powerful” (your word)

                  I…know that it’s my word? I also know the meaning of “individual” and “collective”. I’m not sure why you would think I didn’t know anything of these things.

                  pharmacist.

                  Pharmacist have powers that non-pharmacists don’t have. This is undeniable.

                  Being a “powerful” individual doesn’t mean you lose individual rights

                  You missed the parts about rights conflict.

                  But sure, people trade rights for powers. When I sign an NDA, I sign away some of my free speech rights in return for access to information.

                  –which is what you’re arguing.

                  Clearly not.

                  Assuming that the lady at my local CVS pharmacy is a “powerful” multi-millionaire and says “no” to dispensing my prescription for contraception,

                  You do know I said nothing about multi-millionaireness? Before telling me to look up words I obviously know, how about not imputing claims to me I did not make.

                  The pharamicist has the power to dispense drugs.

                  CVS employs any number of other pharmacists who are willing to do it. The right of conscience applies to the individual, not the corporation.

                  If the corporation is willing to shuffle pharmacists in that way, that’s fine. But if they are the only pharmacist on call, then they should do it.

                  The reason Aimai and you are authoritarians

                  Look up the word “authoritarian” and get back to me.

                  –not me–is b/cs you would make individual rights subordinate to the collective,

                  No. I pointed out a rights conflict and said why I thought it should be resolved in the women’s favor. You just ignore the women’s rights altogether! You literally erase them.

                  while I generally would not. But more to the point, you’re prolly (I’m inferring here based on your comments)

                  You do lots of inference, but most doesn’t seem based on my actual comments!

                  more of a group politics guy (both left & right can play group politics) and seek to favor disempowered groups generally. That’s admirable in many respects but it can lead to the same abuses as when group politics are practiced by the right. To wit: Your argument that being a pharmacist means that you must renounce your right of choice.

                  My specific argument along this lines about the pharmacist isn’t a group over individual rights or even primarily a rights vs. rights argument (though I did articulate such an argument): There’s the simple point that various positions and professions involve renouncing certain right. Doctors *have* to act in the patient’s best interest, even if it conflicts with their own.

                  Pharmacists shouldn’t be slaves to the collective anymore than blacks should be.

                  You are very confused. Pharamacists don’t form an oppressed class. It’s easy to become a non-pharamacist. Pharamacist have to subordinate all sorts of choices as a matter of course.

                  And of course, the conflict is between two individuals (the pharamacist and the patient) not a pharamacist and a class.

                • Aimai

                  Your “broad” and “narrow” distinctions are strictly made up. A religious belief could easily encompass an entire gender or race without distinction. And in some small towns and regions of this country there may be no other pharmacist or pharmacy available. So then what happens? You are making up rights and rules with tremendous abandon but you aren’t proving your case at all. Its like reading regurgitated right wing talking points at this point.**

                  By the way the argument that pharmacists are “enslaved” by “the collective” when they voluntarily take the lisencing board and agree to the rules of their profession is IDENTICAL to Rand Paul’s argument that any form of regulation or government payment for treatment that forces him to abide by standards is a form of slavery. That the civil rights act and the accomodation acts are also a form of “enslavement” of property owners because they are constrained in what they can do with their own property. That’s right: you are parrotting Rand Paul.

                • sharculese

                  A pharmacist couldn’t cite religious requirement to not serve all women,

                  “I don’t serve women because my religion forbids women from having personal possession of anything medicinal, as that is an art reserved for men. She can have her prescription if a man can pick it up for her.”

                  That’s totally consistent with the principle your advocating for. I’m sure you’ll huffily and without argument insist otherwise, because you’re bad at backing up your claims, but it is.

                • SgtGymBunny

                  A state can’t, as a requirement of licensure, completely force you to violate your conscience.

                  Yes, they can. And if someone felt that they were violating their conscience by meeting licensing requirements they should have made that grievance known during the licensing process. That way they could have had properly arrange for accommodation. Or the state could have simply declined to license them.

                  What these sanctioned practitioners cannot do is simply decide on whim that they shouldn’t be beholden to certain professional standards of performance after they have already been licensed. If they do want to make the claim afterwards, thay should appeal to the licensing board for approval, not just decline to do the job that they were licensed to do.

                  Pharmacists shouldn’t be slaves to the collective anymore than blacks should be.

                  Slaves generally don’t have a choice in their professions. But pharmacists do. Nobody dragged them kicking and screaming into pharmacy school and whipped them into meeting state licensing standards.

                • Rob in CT

                  A pharmacist who, despite believing that dispensing plan B is wrong, dispenses it anyway because otherwise she’d be fired is not a “slave to the collective.”

                  Words mean things, and you don’t get to just make up your own meanings (as you’ve been doing all over this thread).

                  By the way the argument that pharmacists are “enslaved” by “the collective” when they voluntarily take the lisencing board and agree to the rules of their profession is IDENTICAL to Rand Paul’s argument that any form of regulation or government payment for treatment that forces him to abide by standards is a form of slavery.

                  Yup. Which is why RAND! is our true progressive hero for 2016! ;)

                • GoDeep

                  Bijan–Your local pharmacist is not “powerful” in any sense of the word!

                  Aimai–When rights conflict we have to balance one against the other. I think a narrowly tailored right to conscience is the right balance in the reproductive debate. So, no, a pharmacist can’t refuse to serve Muslims, but a pharmacist should be able to refuse to serve contraception/Viagra/etc provided the pharmacy has another pharmacist dispense it.

                  Your refusal to try to even accommodate the pharmacist’s conscience is what makes you authoritarian. There’s no difference b/tn your position and that of white conservatives except that you privilege the choices of different groups than they do. Its like when Oklahoma votes to ban Sharia law but fights to keep the Ten Commandments. We believe in separation of Church & State except when it comes to Evangelical Christianity!

                • Malaclypse

                  Your refusal to try to even accommodate the pharmacist’s conscience is what makes you authoritarian.

                  Is telling a waiter that they need to serve black people authoritarian?

                • Aimai

                  Yeah, no. When we start talking about “balancing” rights you are giving the game away. I’m not an authoritarian because in this case I think the balancing of rights (pharmacist vs. patients) ends up favoring the patients. I just strike the balance in a place different from where you do. Actually my balancing act takes the Pharmacist’s rights into account: the pharmacist has the right not to take the lisence since they can’t perform their function as an intermediary between the pharmacology biz and the patient, doing what is instructed by the doctor. The patient has the right to the legal medication ordered for them by their doctor. Rights are balanced.

                  I went back and took one of those tests of political stance. As I remembered, I’m on the left side of the quadrant, close to Gandhi, oddly enough, and quite far from Stalin. Here is my position on the Political Compass:

                  Economic Left/Right: -8.25
                  Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56

                • Rob in CT

                  Bijan–Your local pharmacist is not “powerful” in any sense of the word!

                  In the context of this discussion, yes they are. WTF?

                • KmCO

                  Aimai,

                  They are both extremely typical of a well understood strain in AA thought about sex, independence, autonomy, gender etc…

                  Can you elaborate on this “well-understood” strain, or send/recommend some links my way? It’s not well-understood by me, as I had rarely if ever encountered it advocated so strenuously and explicitly before my interactions with TJ and GoDeep. It’d be much appreciated.

                • GoDeep

                  GymBunny–If a simple licensing requirement could require you to violate your conscience then the individual has no power at all. A marriage license could then require you to be monogamous, or have 5 kids, or not watch pornos, or use sex toys. No state should be all powerful. A just state must respect individual rights.

                  States have used licensure req’ts to discriminate, making it harder for disempowered groups to get licenses or to enter certain professions at all.

                • Aimai

                  And BOOM goes the dynamite:

                  GoDeep says:

                  July 8, 2015 at 12:44 pm
                  GymBunny–If a simple licensing requirement could require you to violate your conscience then the individual has no power at all. A marriage license could then require you to be monogamous, or have 5 kids, or not watch pornos, or use sex toys. No state should be all powerful. A just state must respect individual rights.

                  States have used licensure req’ts to discriminate, making it harder for disempowered groups to get licenses or to enter certain professions at all.

                  So–total agreement with Rand Paul, then? All regulation is slavery? Poor people will benefit if any untrained person can hang out a shingle, dispense drugs, maybe saw off a leg or perform liposuction in their basement? Maybe you think Cosby was just fighting the good fight for unregulated pharmacists?

                • sibusisodan

                  If a simple licensing requirement could require you to violate your conscience then the individual has no power at all.

                  What makes you say that?

                  It doesn’t appear obvious to me, yet you state it as if it doesn’t even need demonstrating. Could you unpack it?

                • Aimai

                  KMCO, I can’t send you any links because its just something I picked up from years of reading off and online. But you definitely encounter this group when you start reading up on Cosby and his place in this kind of debate. Ta Nehisi Coates talks about this strain of thought in his essay, a few years before the scandal broke, praising Cosby for his “pound cake speech” and his message of uplift and personal responsibility.

                • GoDeep

                  Aimai–You have the link to the test?

                  Here’s a real life example of what I mean by right of conscience. When Bree Newsome took down that Confederate flag, the state made a black man put it back up–a black man licensed by the state to be a security officer. And they had other black men arrest her. That’s 1 recent example of how outrageously a state can violate an individual’s right to conscience.

                • KmCO

                  Thanks, Aimai. The other day I was actually thinking about TNC and how he’s someone I haven’t read enough of. Now I’m eager to rectify that.

                • Aimai

                  Google “Political Compass” and the test should come up. I want to assure you that I don’t use words like “authoritarian” pejoratively, as a way of putting down your argument. I use it descriptively. Despite your dictionary definition the word “authoritarian” doesn’t mean, in politics or philosophy, what you think it means. A person can be very interested in (some) people’s rights and still be an authoritarian. Liberty for some always means some constraints on other people. In the cases we have been discussing you strongly favor a set of rights (the conservative religious pharmacist) over the rights of all women to a socially disfavored but legal procedure (birth control). That’s a conservative position and its is also, in its own way, a right-libertarian position. The combination of conservative, right, and libertarian turns out to be quite authoritarian.

                  As for the case of the woman who took down the flag–this is a classic case of Civil Disobedience in a grand tradition. It requires, for its power,that she have violated the law and that she accept her punishment and that this is used as a kind of “attentat” to bring society to an awareness of the wrong she is trying to right. The position of the AA guard or policeman is part of the drama. He has the same right as anyone else in authority: to do what the law tells him or to step aside in solidarity with her. That’s the whole point of her act: to heighten the contradictions and enable us all to see how unfair and unrighteous the flag is vis a vis South Carolina’s non-confederate citizens.

                  But why you think we can construct a conscience clause for the police that enables them to recuse themselves from following the law if “people like them” are involved I don’t know. How would that be workable? If the majority of police are old, white, racists wouldn’t that just be a lisence to them to forgive parking tickets for white people, and to continue abusing their authority by favoring their own kind?

                • Bijan–Your local pharmacist is not “powerful” in any sense of the word!

                  Well, I have a dictionary!

                  1. Having or capable of exerting power.

                  The pharamacist has the power to dispense prescribed drugs. I do not have this power. Most physicians do not have this power (other than samples).

                  In the UK, pharamacists have been granted some prescribing powers:

                  New powers allowing pharmacists and nurses to prescribe drugs from early next year have been finalised.
                  The move should allow patients with asthma, diabetes, coronary heart disease and high blood pressure quicker access to medicines.

                  Under the scheme, after diagnosis, patients will no longer need to re-visit their doctors for prescriptions.

                  This development means that pharmacists will make fuller use of their five years training and expert knowledge in medicines

                  Instead, patients would be able to get medicines prescribed by a pharmacist or nurse, with agreement from a doctor.

                  So…uhm…I’m using a word normally and correctly to describe pharmacists. Pharmacist indeed have a state granted and strongly enforced monopoly on the power to dispense medication. In exchange for this monopoly it’s perfectly reasonable to require them to do various things (including continuing education, etc.)

                  This is bog standard. The novelty is wanting people’s personal preferences to allow them to opt out of just part of the duties imposed on pharamacists. This could be reasonable for some preferences, but you haven’t argued that, but just for general “choice”. That can’t work. You like religious exceptions, but I don’t see why we should grant them here and you haven’t articulated a scheme much less a reasonable scheme.

                • GymBunny–If a simple licensing requirement could require you to violate your conscience

                  I’m not sure what’s “simple” about medical licensing.

                  then the individual has no power at all.

                  This certainly doesn’t follow.

                  A marriage license could then require you to be monogamous,

                  I…what? Marriage licenses have done this all the time! Adultery is still illegal in many states!

                  Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[140][141] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[142] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[143] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[144] to life sentence (Michigan).[145] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.

                  Now, I oppose those laws, but…it’s not like it doesn’t happen?!

                  States have used licensure req’ts to discriminate, making it harder for disempowered groups to get licenses or to enter certain professions at all.

                  And that is a bad use of licensure requirements. So? States have used laws to discriminate! That doesn’t mean we can’t have laws. The *content* is what matters.

                • Malaclypse

                  Here’s a real life example of what I mean by right of conscience.

                  Here’s another.

                • Rob in CT wrote:

                  Bijan–Your local pharmacist is not “powerful” in any sense of the word!

                  In the context of this discussion, yes they are. WTF?

                  TF in this case is GoDeep’s wilful misreading of my argument that only having power that very great in overall societal terms (e.g., as that of a multimillionaire) counts as “powerful”.

                  I would love to find this definition in any dictionary, anywhere! Alas, my feeble look up attempts failed to find it.

                • Aimai

                  The backing of the Pharmacist and, in effect, the corporation over the individual woman is where I think GoDeep’s basic libertarianism tilts over into right libertarianism which implicitly and explicitly favors propertied persons over non propertied persons.

                  Although I doubt GD would admit it, as GymBunny has pointed out, the lisence itself is a kind of property right, a right over an important commodity. Its interesting to me that GD sees that right as in some sense “owned” by the Pharmacist, almost a kind of part of their physical being. She sees the violation of that “right” as a literal enslavement, like the appropriation of the body and the labor of the slave.

                  What right does the woman in the story have? GD doesn’t ever discuss those rights because they aren’t property rights and their aren’t moral rights since GD thinks that getting a prescription for birth control is literally, actually, immoral. Different in kind from other rights that a person might have to, say, public accommodation or education.

                • SgtGymBunny

                  Re the bit about Power: Individuals assigned to certain positions hold more power than people often realize. Take me, a lowly desk jockey who is often tasked with providing students with transcripts so that they can be gainfully employed or get fellowship money.

                  Let’s say a student rolls up in my office at 4:57 PM Wednesday before Thanksgiving and demands an official transcript because an application deadline closes at 6PM. I tell him I’m not doing it, but he can ask someone else in the office to do it for him. But everybody in my office has left for the holiday. He could ask someone in a different office but they don’t have system access to generate transcripts. They could ask for user permission, but they won’t get it before 6PM because they have to make a formal request for system access through IT who then has to verify with Human Resources that their position entitles them to access such information(FERPA and shit). If it’s not in their job description, they won’t get the permission to run a transcript for this student. And, whadya know, I’ve made somebody miss out on a job or a scholarship opportunity. But I’m not Little Miss Money Bags, Inc., so no biggie.

                  Institutions don’t just magically function. Most institutions have clearly defined non-overlapping roles for the people who work there. Sometimes certain people are legally not allowed to fulfill two different roles, for purposes of oversight. Not to mention, the person may not even be licensed or trained. Therefore, it’s pretty irresponsible to assume that if one person doesn’t want to do a job, someone else can.

                • Digital Compass Me:

                  Economic Left/Right: -5.75
                  Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.64

                  vs Aimai

                  Economic Left/Right: -8.25
                  Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56

                  Interesting! I wonder if some of my free market answers is what distinguish us on Left/Right.

                • Rob in CT

                  Me:

                  Economic Left/Right: -4.75
                  Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49

                  I pulled some punches, going with some agrees and disagrees instead of strongly agree/strongly disagree. I’ve scored further left/socially libertarian before. I may retake it and just change some of those to “strongly” and see if it matches better with my recollection of previous scores.

                  Some of the questions suck enough that I answered in a way that probably doesn’t capture my “real” position. I tend to get irritated whenever I take those quizzes.

                  They’re okish for getting a general sense of where you fall on the political spectrum, but they fail utterly at any sort of nuance.

                • Rob in CT

                  [because I know you’re all fascinated]

                  With minor changes to my answers:

                  Economic Left/Right: -5.38
                  Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77

                • SgtGymBunny

                  Just cuz everyone else was doing it:

                  My Political Compass:

                  Economic Left/Right: -8.25
                  Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.21

                  I don’t really know what it all means, I just wanted to compare myself to others.

                • brad

                  Mine:

                  Economic Left/Right: -5.63
                  Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79

                  Collectivist anarchists uni… wait, ummmm.

                • DrS

                  Cause I’m sure you’re all dying to know

                  Economic l/r -9.63
                  Social lib/auth -7.59

                  I share the quibble about some of the questions being a bit off. I think likely to fit them all into the same 4 level framework.

                • Bear Compass: Economic Left/Right: -7.88, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

                  I’m almost square…

              • jim, some guy in iowa

                ah, Manju, you should stick to the statistical analysis. Your mind reading skills, such as they are, are even less useful

          • Manju

            I apologize to both of them, and to both sexes, for the wrongful ascription

            Zing! Damn.

        • T. Paine

          This is consistent with GoDeep’s “I’m pro-choice, but oppose abortion” trolling.

      • brad

        Insofar as ‘ludes were long off the market before I reached drug taking age I can’t directly speak to them, but in my experience with drugs n sex neither I nor the women I’ve been with have wanted to be incapacitated for it such that we don’t remember it afterwards. Now, granted, it does seem like Cosby can be such a dick to the people around him that maybe someone wouldn’t want to remember being with him, but that’s not a good sign.
        And, of course, there’s obviously the admission of elements that closely track with the accusations, with the equally obvious difference of consent.

        • Aimai

          You did some yeoman service and heavy lifting on the earlier thread but GoDeep is displaying what can only be called motivated reasoning. There is no convincing someone when they are wedded to a certain outcome. Its why hero worship is such a dangerous drug. Cosby’s status, his persona, was very winning and very important. I certainly was as horrified as anyone else to discover that my idol had feet of clay–and he was one of my idols. I had a horrible little girl crush on him in I Spy and followed his career with a lot of affection my whole life. I get that it can feel like a horrible betrayal to admit that a person you have liked and admired, a person who is truly talented and who has been inspirational to thousands, can also turn out to be a monster. But being an adult ought to mean having the worldly experience to recognize that this is far from an isolated case. People are perfectly capapble of being talented and also being terrible, of being charitable and using their charity to cover up their monstrosity. People who are untalented and obviously monstrous don’t get very far in this world (unless they are born into power and wealth). Almost by definition a person like Jimmy Saville or Cosby has to be extra-ordinarily winning, at least w/r/t the public, to get into a position where they can do what they really want to do. And it takes a very grown up person to recognize that fact and let go of the gauzy romantic vision of the hero prince.

          • petesh

            I grew up in Britain during Savile’s rise to fame, and I’m still baffled: He was an obvious creep, a guy significantly older than us (37 when he first presented Top of the Pops in 1964, to an audience of teenagers; I was 14) who grew and dyed his hair and smoked huge cigars while pretending to relate to the kiddies. Cosby, in comparison, seemed suave and intelligent. They provoke similar reactions, but I think for subtly different reasons: Cosby, it’s “how could he?” and “how could he fool us?” Savile, it’s “how could we fool ourselves?” transmuted for reasons of psychological self-preservation into “how could he?”

            • Aimai

              No doubt Cosby was infinitely more talented and had a more likeable persona to market. I always thought Saville’s appeal was, on the one hand, that he was so lower class the upper class looked at him and said “perfect! just what those yobbos would go for. How disgusting they all are.” And on the other hand younger people were just easy prey and no one thought to protect them from a guy who was pretending to be just a funny guy in a slapstick/semi obscene british tradition.

              • petesh

                Lot of truth in that. Also, of course, the music was the appeal for us (also the cute kids who played it) and the DJs a classic case of celebrity by proximity. A couple did later become worth hearing (Kenny Everett for his wit, John Peel for his taste) but Savile and Alan Freeman and Pete Murray were just conduits, and Murray was the best because he didn’t even try to act anything but avuncular. As you suggest, Savile’s persona really belonged in pantomime. I may have thought he was a creep, by the way, but I had no idea he was such a predator. Ditto Rolf Harris, now in jail. Cliff Richard? Might be innocent.

                • Aimai

                  Right I was thinking of Pantomime, and Benny Hill, and the whole tradition of crappy, creepy, weird guys with goggly eyes hamming and sexing it up “innocently” that he seems to belong to.

              • LeeEsq

                Jimmy Saville’s raise to celebrity is more inexplicable. Dick Clark had a wholesome charisma going for him. Jimmy Saville at best was eccentric and not of the endearing kind.

                I think that class does explain some of Jimmy Saville’s appeal but not how you think. His life gave a lot of people something to project on. Conservatives could use his rags to riches story as evidence that the system works. Working class people saw one of their own, Saville’s first job was as a miner, made good.

                • Lee Rudolph

                  Saville’s first job was as a miner

                  and to the end of his days he liked minors!

            • Barry Freed

              This is a really good take on Savile. He was hiding in plain sight all along.

          • brad

            Yeah, I was the age to have had the Cosby Show and Fat Albert play significant roles in the tv I consumed as a kid. My parents had a couple of his standup routines on tape, which I didn’t memorize like George Carlin but certainly heard countless times, and I may even have seen him do one live (I’m really hazy about it).
            It’s like hearing that one of the parents of a friend who you really liked actually abused or molested them all through childhood. The idea that anyone wants this to be true is fucking stupid, and that TJ and GD have to insinuate racism into all of us reeling in horror at this so as to avoid facing the truth is genuinely offensive.
            I don’t like that someone here made me face the truth that Hunter Thompson treated women like shit, but I’m not mad at them for it.

            • Linnaeus

              I think “Bill Cosby: Himself” was a cultural landmark for a lot of people my age, due in large part to being widely available on cable TV at a time where it was becoming much more widespread.

              • MAJeff

                Yeah. Chocolate cake and Jesus Christ.

                For those of use of a certain generation, Fat Albert led to the Cosby Show and chocolate cake and Jesus Christ. He was a ubiquitous presence.

                • wjts

                  I jumped right to the stand-up, more or less. His “Noah” routines in particular were big favorites of mine as a kid.

            • Bruce B.

              This is my situation too, in a nutshell. Well said.

        • sharculese

          Some people seem to feel that having to say ‘hey I like you but how about we continue this when your eyes can stay open on their own again’ is such a difficult task that it’s unconscionable to demand it of anyone.

      • wjts

        Wasn’t the saying, “Sex, Coffee, and Rock & Roll”?

        In Cosby’s case? Yes, absolutely.

      • sibusisodan

        From the testimony he & these women like to do drugs

        Ahem:

        Q. You gave them to other people?

        A. Yes.

        Unless Cosby also took Quaaludes. But that’s not what the testimony says…

      • brewmn

        Look, I tend to be a little more sympathetic to your arguments along these lines than many here. But, no, giving a woman an extremely powerful sedative (while lying about what you are actually giving them and not taking any yourself) and then having sex withe her while she’s passed out is not “partying.”

        It’s rape. Your buddy Bill Cosby is an admitted rapist. Time to start dealing with that instead of calling the people stating this fact to be a high-tech lynch mob.

  • LeeEsq

    Its amazing what being a wealthy and popular entertainer allows you to get away with. The only consolation was that fewer institutions were actively involved in covering up Cosby’s crimes while the BBC and British police were actively covering up Jimmy Seville’s crimes.

    The conservative meme regarding Cosby is that it is conspiracy of liberals to dethrone Cosby for speaking the “truth” about African-American culture. I suspect that they will continue to be blind to the evidence.

    • Joshua

      A black man raped dozens of white women, and conservatives line up to defend him? What a country!

      • brad

        Actually, the vast majority of his victims seem to have been young black women. Which, sadly, proved to be a very successful tactic. I wish I were being unfair to TJ when I say he came very, very close to saying black women will just lie about rape for money in a previous thread on this. Or maybe he just meant women in general, I don’t know.
        Point being, if he is indeed the predator it sadly seems he is, he’s a cold, calculating one who chose his victims carefully so as to insulate himself as fully as possible from consequence, and part of that absolutely included mainly targeting black women.

        • Aimai

          You are not being unfair. TJ has argued vociferously that women, and specifically black women, will lie about rape for money.

        • Sly

          Actually, the vast majority of his victims seem to have been young black women.

          And if American history has taught us anything, it’s that nothing causes white people to form up into a lynch mob faster than when a black woman is victimized by a black man.

          Wait, what?

  • It’s very sad.

    So many people for so many years!

    I’m glad that, however haltingly, it is being unraveled.

  • Dindu Nuffin

    “He a good boy. He dindu nuffin. Da Poh-lease is racius ‘n shyt. He was turning his life around, goin to church, talked about becoming a rapper. We need more money for dem programz!

    The only time DWLs, SWPLS and other apologists for BAR believe a negro can be a rapist is when he happens to be a conservative.

    P.S. Happy Fourth of July https://countenance.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/whats-the-alternative/

    But I’m sure dey dindu nuffins, cuz da turrrible legacy o da slabery.

    • Malaclypse

      Dumbprints, sweetie.

    • wjts

      The only time DWLs, SWPLS and other apologists for BAR believe a negro can be a rapist is when he happens to be a conservative.

      I cc’d a PDF of your comment to CINCLANT, but – please keep this on the QT, btw – no one at JSTOR, NASL, or UTEP could make heads or tails of it.

      • Racist Fuck

        SWPL=Stuff White People Like

        DWL=Disingenuous White Liberal

        BRA=Black Run America, i.e. the America we now live in.

        • brad

          Nonono. You’re confusing yourself, dear. And misquoting yourself. Let me help.

          SWPLS=Single White Pedestrians Leaving Safeway

          DWL=Drivers With Licorice

          BAR=Baroque Augustinian Ringtones

          • LeeEsq

            Many deaths could have been prevented if people did not drive with licorice. Your supposed to drive with two hands. And licorice sucks, so good people of taste shouldn’t have it in their hands anyway.

            • DrS

              I was a wee lad when they started showing a lot of psas about drinking and driving. I couldn’t really see and have a drink at the same time.

              So, it’s understandable perhaps how freaked out I was when I saw my dad drink a can of coke on that family drive.

            • Malaclypse

              And licorice sucks

              This is undeniably true.

              • Isn’t there universal agreement on this issue? I am amazed that the licorice business still exists.

                • Nope, I know a number of people who love it!

                  Also, in the UK, we have coal black liquorice fudge which is actually quite good.

                • joe from Lowell

                  Licorice flavor is very good in a lot of things.

                  Just not licorice. It’s like they have an industry that makes many useful things while producing toxic waste, and they use the toxic waste as their brand.

                • wjts

                  Licorice the flavor or licorice the candy? The former is vile, the latter unobjectionable so long as it doesn’t taste like its namesake.

                • Both generally, although I will accept the former in small quantities in cocktails.

                • Malaclypse

                  Isn’t there universal agreement on this issue?

                  No. Mrs Mal has many good qualities, but the fact that she will attempt to kiss me after consuming licorice is not one of them.

                • DrS

                  White Lily

                  Equal parts gin, rum and Cointreau (or a high quality curaçao)
                  A few drops of Pernod, maybe 1/8 tsp
                  Shake with ice, strain into chilled martini glass

                • Malaclypse

                  Licorice flavor is very good in a lot of things.

                  Licorice the flavor or licorice the candy? The former is vile, the latter unobjectionable so long as it doesn’t taste like its namesake.

                  wjts, despite being oh-so-wrong about Belgian beer, is undeniably correct here, while JFL is shockingly wrong.

                • Sly

                  Also, in the UK, we have coal black liquorice fudge which is actually quite good.

                  The fact that you people once had a globe-spanning empire is the greatest historical testament to the easiness of failing upwards.

                • Australian-style chewy licorice is one of the finest confections known to man. American licorice (that is, Black Vines) is some kind of industrial effluent, and most European licorice seems to have been created as some kind of practical joke. (Mouth-cracking salty, hard as a rock, mit extra lye, etc.)

                  But give me a bag of that nice chewy molasses-y licorice any day. Right up there with candied ginger and chocolate truffles.

                • Also, in the UK, we have coal black liquorice fudge which is actually quite good.

                  The fact that you people once had a globe-spanning empire is the greatest historical testament to the easiness of failing upwards.

                  Hey! Native born American, so I people still have a globe-spanning empire founded on ketchup!

                  (Duel UK citizen, so for a few years I can pretend I can move to France.)

                • DrS

                  (Duel UK citizen, so for a few years I can pretend I can move to France.)

                  The internal battles are the toughest

        • wjts

          I passed on this info to JLo via IRC and the consensus from everyone at CCAC, UAW, and MGM (JPL is either AWOL or AFK) is that you still don’t make any goddamn sense whatsoever.

          • The Temporary Name

            Consult the Acronomicon.

        • Malaclypse

          It’s a sad thing when you make up all these acronyms but can’t spell them the same from one comment to the next. This is one of the many reasons you come off as a moron.

          I thought you would want to know.

          • rea

            Like a rolling stone
            Like the FBI and the CIA
            And the BBC, BB King
            And Doris Day, Matt Busby
            Dig it, dig it, dig it

        • LeeEsq

          What happened to ZOG?

        • djw

          SWPL=Stuff White People Like

          This makes considerably less sense than usual.

    • tsam

      SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU RACIST PIECE OF SHIT.

  • Racist Fuck

    We constantly hear about lynchings on this site that happened 100 years ago, but did you ever stop to thin about the numbers that actually occoured?

    http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2015/02/lynchings-in-usa-over-86-year-time-span.html

    About 3,500 over an 86 year time frame. Meanwhile, in just ten years in one city (st. Louis) about 1,200 blacks were killed by other blacks.

    But I’m sure that’s just da legacy oh da slabery. I’m sure Erik Loomis can explain.

    • wjts

      We constantly hear about lynchings on this site that happened 100 years ago…

      No lynchings occurred on this site 100 years ago. What on earth are you talking about?

      • Bill Murray

        maybe the site on which he/she is standing was what was meant.

    • Malaclypse

      We constantly hear about lynchings on this site that happened 100 years ago, but did you ever stop to thin [sic] about the numbers that actually occoured [sic]?

      I’m pretty sure that no lynchings ever occurred on this site, particularly not 100 years ago. Or is your grammar as bad as your spelling?

      Fucking English, how does it work?

      EDIT: Damn you, wjts! Damn your speedy typing!

    • LeeEsq

      So if you divide the number of lynchings over by a certain amount of years and get a low enough number of lynchings per year, than lynchings become fine?

      • Linnaeus

        That’s ironclad reasoning, there.

        • Bill Murray

          it’s statistical even

          • Malaclypse

            And you can certainly trust statistics provided by a link to a web site that points out that we have no reason not to consider the likelihood that all, or at least most, of the black people that were lynched were guilty of something, what with them being black and all.

      • janitor_of_lunacy

        To my mind there is a difference between lynching and ordinary murder because lynching is, essentially, a terrorist act, which, by its very nature, has outsize effects on society.

        • Aimai

          Absolutely. Not only that but Lynching, in US history, is a method of murder where the white populace takes the punitive, executioner role to itself. With the connivance of the local authorities, very often, the people who were killed were taken from local or federal control (which at least presumes some kind of responsibility for the welfare of a prisoner) and given an extrajudicial but public death. Both the government and the community are spited and made powerless and in their place the mob rules. That’s defintionally terroristic.

    • Brutusettu

      OMG! Most of the people that were murdered in St Louis were murdered by other people in St Louis that cross the same social paths.

      • Bill Murray

        hey if the troll goes back 100 years for lynchings, maybe we can include the E. St. Louis Massacres of 1917, that would be another 300 or so black people murdered in St. Louis by whites. that was 300 in two months, which is 150 a month, much greater than the 120 per year (10 per month) of the black-on-black killings

    • Owlbear1

      About 3,500 over an 86 year time frame.

      Don’t forget! Postcards are available at the concession stand!

      • Lee Rudolph

        Well, that explains why the beauty parlors are filled with sailors.

  • Masturbating to Poster of Scalia

    Here’s the breakdown 1999:
    90.2% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 1999 were black.
    Here’s the breakdown for 2000:
    91.67% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2000 were black.

    Here’s the breakdown for 2002:
    94.78% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2002 were black.

    Here’s the breakdown for 2003:
    96.77% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2003 were black.

    Here’s the breakdown for 2004:
    94.78% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2004 were black.
    Heres’ the breakdown for 2005:
    91.55% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2005were black.
    Here’s the breakdown for 2006:
    91.8% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2006 were black.
    Here’s the breakdown for 2007:
    92% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2007 were black.
    Anything different in 2008? No:
    97.7% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2008 were black.
    2009? Is it still almost all-black? Yes:
    97.1% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2009 were black.
    Please, tell me 2010 is different…:
    92.4% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2010 were black.
    2011? Same old song:
    92% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2011 were black.

    According to 2012 Metropolitan Police Department, City of St. Louis: Annual Report to the Community:
    97.6% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2012 were black.

    But hey, maybe you can post some more anti-white agitprop about a lynching that once happened in 1896. Maybe that’s why negro men are so violent. Cause of the terrible legacy, white supremacy, red lining HEY LOOK A CONFEDERATE FLAG!

    It’s always the fault of YT. Always.

    • SgtGymBunny

      Maybe that’s why negro men are so violent.

      Damn. You still use the word “negro”????? I feel like I should shuffle off to the “Coloreds Only” water fountain now.

      • Linnaeus

        But I totally heard a black person call another black person a negro just the other day! Why can they say it but I can’t????

    • Aimai

      Anti white agitprop? Lead me to it!

    • ChrisTS

      Does anyone know what ‘YT’ is supposed to stand for?

      • Malaclypse

        “Whitey”

        • ChrisTS

          Oh, jeebus. Sigh.

        • SgtGymBunny

          He/She/It can spell out “confederate” (in all caps), but he/she/it can’t spell out “whitey”??? Well, I guess one can pretend to be smart by copy and pasting meaningless statistics for so long…

          • Linnaeus

            Affectation of superfluous acronyms is something you’ll find a lot of in white supremacist speech.

            • Aimai

              What about the lousy graphics and typography? Is it envy of people who have completed third grade?

              • Linnaeus

                Heh, I think that’s just incidental.

                But the acronyms? It’s Thieves’ Cant for racists.

          • brewmn

            It’s “YT,” as in 1-900-YT-GUILT:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfozL1Ea_Co

  • tribble

    Can the legal types talk a little about the decision to unseal these records based on Cosby “voluntarily narrowing the zone of privacy he is entitled to claim,” by public moralizing?

    At first blush it seems fine to me, both because of the specifics and it’s kind of hard to imagine this having bad ripple effects. I guess I don’t really understand how he wasn’t enough of a public figure before to make them open, but then some public moralizing did make him one.

    Help, please?

    • My *guess* is that there’s a different between a celebrity/entertainer and someone participating in public politics. The closer you get to politics the stronger the free speech protections?

      • tribble

        It seems that having the records sealed in the first place was part of the negotiation (since the plaintiff’s lawyer argues against it at one point). That kind of makes sense, but then it also seems to make the unsealing a bit iffy. The lawyer argued against sealing the documents at the time, because Cosby was talking about the case publicly (to claim his innocence) and colluding with National Enquirer to suppress publishing another woman’s story (because it would make him look bad) in exchange for an exclusive interview. So, he was using his celebrity to suppress the story and yet he was still entitled to privacy. And then talking about kids these days undid that?

        Still, it’s kind of hard to see this getting twisted around to hurt someone that doesn’t deserve it. (Not a notably good legal principle, I think.)

        • Aimai

          Well of course it could be twisted around to hurt someone who doesn’t deserve it. Think of a person who is a victim of domestic violence, with an ugly and contentious divorce during which horrible things are said or disclosed about their mental health status. And then they go on to champion domestic violence victims and one of their enemies gets the records unsealed because they are now “public persons.” This can easily go bad.

          • tribble

            Thanks for that. I know I can always come here when I need a better sense of the worst case scenario.

        • As I understand it the request to unseal the transcripts was made by one of the entertainment papers on the grounds that there was a prevailing public interest in publishing the information. The judge agreed, saying that Cosby’s political activities made his actions a matter of interest to the public in a way that they wouldn’t if he was an ordinary entertainer. So it was a combination of Cosby’s political activity and the public interest angle.

          I don’t know if it’s solid law, but it’s hard to argue with the merits of this particular case.

      • Aimai

        That sounds right. Merely being someone other people want to know about doesn’t necessarily strip you of your right to privacy or to control over information about you. But as Cosby edged into politics and also made statements about the case perhaps that started to seem like it no longer applied.

        • tribble

          It’s hard to tell as a non-lawyer, but the memo combines the fact that the contents are pretty much already public knowledge due to all the other allegations, the fact that Cosby talked about the allegations a lot in public, and the contrast between his “elder statesman” image and the contents of the deposition, plus the diminished privacy of a public moralizer to justify the release. There’s also some stuff about how he can’t be all that much more embarrassed by this given all the other information out there.

          I think this means that the hypothetical domestic violence advocate could argue against having their divorce proceedings unsealed. And they might even win! Who knows!

    • Volokh has a good discussion of the legal principles in play here.

      • That is not at all what I imagined Eugene Volokh looked like.

        • wjts

          Based entirely on the shared first three letters of their last names, I always kind of assumed Volokh looked like William T. Vollmann.

  • Mike in DC

    40 accusers + 1 damning admission under oath + corroboration from several parties vis a vis delivering payouts etc. = clear and convincing evidence.
    Not beyond a reasonable doubt, but if the statute of limitations permitted any of these other women to sue now, very strong odds they would win.
    Translated to the court of public opinion, that’s a good enough standard of proof for the man to suffer socioeconomic consequences for his alleged actions.

  • Barry_D

    ” It’s amazing what you can fail to find out if you really don’t want to know. ”

    While discussing ‘conspiracy theories’, a friend pointed out that simple apathy and laziness could cover up a vast amount of sh*t.

  • DrS

    I think this piece by Corey Robin on Clarence Thomas is interesting as it relates to much of this discussion.

    • Aimai

      Bookmarked! Thanks for the link. I keep meaning to read the book–The Reactionary Mind or whatever it is. I really need to.

      • brad

        Just remember he’s absolutely wrong about Nietzsche and more or less consciously and deliberately dismisses modern scholarship to remain so.
        Great scholar otherwise, but we all have flaws.

        • Aimai

          REally? I don’t know enough about Nietzsche to know. Any links to critiques that I could read at the same time?

          • brad

            That’s a good question, I should search some out.
            The crux of the problem is Robin places Nietzsche at the beginning of the tradition of the titular reactionary mind, calling him an originator of the… meme of the conservative standing before history and saying “stop”, largely because of major elements of Genealogy of Morals and the not actually a Nietzsche text Will To Power, and how later proto and actual fascist scholars made use of N’s work, especially versions of it corrupted by his notoriously antisemitic sister, who was personally close to Hitler.
            The problem is that Nietzsche, while obviously not immune from it, saw that the reactionary position was fundamentally anti-life and directly rejected it in The Gay Science, along with, arguably, several other works. To call Nietzsche a reactionary is, to me, a high end version of the same mistake that some make when they call him a nihilist. He was describing a problem, which, yes, he shared in, but which he wanted to overcome as a limit.

            • Aimai

              Oh, thank you, I think (mirabile dictu!) I sort of knew that. But I guess I need to go ahead and actually read Nietzsche for myself.

              • The Dark Avenger

                I read the Gay Science when I was 14. It’s a very interesting work.

            • Joseph-Marie, comte de Maistre

              The crux of the problem is Robin places Nietzsche at the beginning of the tradition of the titular reactionary mind…

              You must be kidding me.

              • brad

                If I’m presenting his argument wrong, please do correct me, if you mean to be incredulous that he does so, yeah, I know.
                Robin seems to feel there has been no scholarship regarding Nietzsche since Heidegger’s lectures, insofar as I can tell.

                • Malaclypse

                  I’m pretty sure the Comte was expressing incredulity, yes.

                • brad

                  I figured, I’m just all over the place at the moment and erred on the side of ass covering.

      • DrS

        Youre very welcome, Aimai. I actually read this about a week ago, I’m curious if I’d glean something different in light of the comments in this thread.

        I enjoyed the reactionary mind. I’d be curious on your take when you get to it.

  • Pingback: Femininity and Rape | American Fathers()

It is main inner container footer text