That's fantastic. Since George actually admitted to behavior that is sexual assault, he rightly deserves to be exposed for it. If it took this one specific person to bring George's behavior to light, then good for him speaking up.
George Takei accused of sexual assault.
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
- Status
That's fantastic. Since George actually admitted to behavior that is sexual assault, he rightly deserves to be exposed for it. If it took this one specific person to bring George's behavior to light, then good for him speaking up.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/11/1714699/-Why-the-George-Takei-allegation-is-a-weak-case that's the article they link to. They would say you're reading too much into the Howard Stern thing. It's odd he would admit to wrongdoing on air. I see no reason to assume the worst.
I agree it's odd, but he still did it. Maybe he admitted it because it wasn't "wrong" to him. Either way he described non consensual groping, which is assault. Whether he thinks that's wrong or not is irrelevant to the fact that it is.
I would prefer proper legal channels if there is enough evidence. The court of public opinion is too fickle.This gives me no pleasure. Sulu was one of my favorite Trek characters
He is a sick individual and needs to be punished before the court of public opinion
Like I said before: if any man did an interview and said he groped WOMEN who were skittish or afraid to try to persuade them, that man RIGHTLY be labeled a predator. Just because Takei groped gay men who were skittish or afraid does not make him any less of a predator than if he had groped women.
The lucky thing about this is that we have him admitting his behavior. His own words. That means he can't deny it now. And since he admitted the people he groped were skittish/afraid, that means he acknowledges they were not consenting at that moment, which is why he groped to "persuade". If every predator would admit to this kind of behavior it would make these situations so much easier.
The lucky thing about this is that we have him admitting his behavior. His own words. That means he can't deny it now. And since he admitted the people he groped were skittish/afraid, that means he acknowledges they were not consenting at that moment, which is why he groped to "persuade". If every predator would admit to this kind of behavior it would make these situations so much easier.
You must go around carrying alot of stones and rocks to throw
Except Howard Stern's entire show is built upon the premise of being shocking. There's no guarantee that Takei was being literal in what he said as opposed to joking or exaggerating for effect -- playing a character. You might have noticed that while Takei is talking, they're also playing vocal clips of him saying outrageous things.
If Takei had said the same thing on a literal news program rather than a comedy show, I don't think there would be any doubt. But he didn't. He said it on Stern's show, where's he said many outrageous things that weren't true.
And, no, this isn't victim shaming. The point is to use critical thinking and look at the entire situation and not just mine it for what one wants to find. Takei may well be guilty, but the Stern show discussion may have been a lark.
If Takei had said the same thing on a literal news program rather than a comedy show, I don't think there would be any doubt. But he didn't. He said it on Stern's show, where's he said many outrageous things that weren't true.
And, no, this isn't victim shaming. The point is to use critical thinking and look at the entire situation and not just mine it for what one wants to find. Takei may well be guilty, but the Stern show discussion may have been a lark.
Yea I wouldn't rely too much on a few statements on that show without any specifics. If anyone else comes out with similar stories and proof that would help.
There's an old quote, I think from the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing era, that went something like this: "It's not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge."
Methinks that particular attitude is coming back to bite some that embraced it back then.
Methinks that particular attitude is coming back to bite some that embraced it back then.
So there are at least 2 possibilities:
A) he was joking about himself sexually assaulting people in the same conversation that he also condemned Weinstien and Trump for real assault.
B) he was telling the truth about himself sexually assaulting people in the same conversation that he also condemned Weinstien and Trump, but he didn't realize the behavior he was describing is actually sexual assault.
No, none of us know for sure. Personally, the way he answered the questions sounded, to me, like he was remembering and describing real situations from his life. And it's very possible he didn't realize he was admitting to sexual assault.
Either way, when you make those kinds of statements and then get accused, you have really screwed yourself out of presumption of innocence.
If the statements weren't from Takei himself, I would definitely require specifics to believe them. But when someone actually admits to behavior that is sexual assault (whether they understand it or not), why am I not supposed to believe them? Like I said, if any man said he groped women who were scared to try to persuade them, no one would be defending that comment or saying he was joking. Correction: no good person would. Sadly, some are trying to defend George saying the same thing about what he did to men.
If George were a rich white male after such an admission he would be the next President of the USA.
Yes, I get it. Trump shouldn't be president. But this thread isn't about Trump, and bringing up other bad people won't excuse what Takei admitted doing.
I do think it's a pro
It's a form of McCarthyism, though the irony is instead of the extreme right wing doing it, it's now led by people who espouse progressive, social justice values. I think a discussion is healthy, and I don't think it's a problem per se to make an accusation if a person truly believes it. But to treat such as a determination of guilt and then to act on it is frightening. People's lives were ruined during the blacklisting days. All it took was accusation. People were just as vehement about their assumption of guilt then as they are now. If Takei and others are guilty, they deserve their punishment. If they are innocent, then they are facing not only unfair wrath but a threat to their personal and professional existence. That makes the mob either the heroes or the villains.
I do think it's a problem in this day and age to make such assumptions because so many people are literal now. They don't seem to have to capacity to look at such issues as context nor to understand satire or sarcasm. The context for Stern's show, of course, is to be as outrageous as possible, so separating what is truth from what is fiction is challenging. Plus, people are so quick to condemn on social media what is merely an accusation.
It's a form of McCarthyism, though the irony is instead of the extreme right wing doing it, it's now led by people who espouse progressive, social justice values. I think a discussion is healthy, and I don't think it's a problem per se to make an accusation if a person truly believes it. But to treat such as a determination of guilt and then to act on it is frightening. People's lives were ruined during the blacklisting days. All it took was accusation. People were just as vehement about their assumption of guilt then as they are now. If Takei and others are guilty, they deserve their punishment. If they are innocent, then they are facing not only unfair wrath but a threat to their personal and professional existence. That makes the mob either the heroes or the villains.
That’s not how the legal system works. Admitting to one groping is not a carte blanche admittance of any other incident. Innocent until proven guilty.
You dismiss the argument, then admit you lack the necessary expertise to do so.
Last edited:
It sounds like the court of public opinion has ruled. Insufficient evidence for a guilty conviction.
I don't presume to be able to decide the guilt of innocence of anyone, especially at a 36-year and social-media remove from the purported events. People can be incredibly stupid. Even "nice" people can cross the line. I've been groped in that "grab 'em by" Trumpian manner by guys who think your showing the slightest interest in them means a tacit "yes" to anything.
We'll see how this plays out and if anyone else comes forward with similar stories related to Mr. Takei, especially if any more "Cosby" type allegations appear.
We'll see how this plays out and if anyone else comes forward with similar stories related to Mr. Takei, especially if any more "Cosby" type allegations appear.
Last edited:
I take the behavior he described as literally as I do his comments about Weinstein and Trump in the same conversation. Of course, if he wants to now claim he was joking, that's fine. But it will be a retroactive statement in light of his current allegation, so it will be more questionable than otherwise.
I wasn't referring to the legal system, just to my conversation. Once someone admits behavior that is sexual assault, why would I give them a presumption of innocence? The good news for George is that my personal opinion doesn't matter, I'm just voicing it for the sake of this discussion.
Yes, I would be equally skeptical IF he hadn't admitted to non consensual groping. Sadly with that admission this allegation seems much more believable.
The question I also think about is what happens in the cases were you don't have any hard evidence to prove or disaprove a accusation? With Takei i'm not sure if the Howard Stern thing is enough because of the nature of that show. I mean isn't he basically the world's first shock jock? I've never really listened to him but I did see the movie "Private Parts" so my knowledge about his show is very limited.
Anyways it seems like someone gets really screwed when something goes public and you don't have the proof to back it up. Actually both people and sometimes other people get kind of screwed. The accuser looses his job and a portion of the public will continue to think he is guilty no matter what so that is something they will continue to do that to a point where your career is ruined and if you make the accusation and the facts don't support it a portion of the audience will think your just in it for money or will hate you because you went after a hero and celebrity they like. The truth means that only one of the people involved actually deserve this but also if the person is guility and you still don't have proof and you don't say something it means that they can continue to get away with what they are doing because nobody spoke up against them. The hope, like someone else has already mentioned is the good that might come from all of this is it will inspire people to speak up and go to the authorities as soon as possible when you can really have hard evidence which makes everything so much easier on everyone, except for the guilty person of course. These cases that happened many years in the past though I think is going to be filled with tons of problems unless you got evidence or it is linked to someone who we already suspect of being guility of this stuff like a Harvey Weinstein.
Jason
Anyways it seems like someone gets really screwed when something goes public and you don't have the proof to back it up. Actually both people and sometimes other people get kind of screwed. The accuser looses his job and a portion of the public will continue to think he is guilty no matter what so that is something they will continue to do that to a point where your career is ruined and if you make the accusation and the facts don't support it a portion of the audience will think your just in it for money or will hate you because you went after a hero and celebrity they like. The truth means that only one of the people involved actually deserve this but also if the person is guility and you still don't have proof and you don't say something it means that they can continue to get away with what they are doing because nobody spoke up against them. The hope, like someone else has already mentioned is the good that might come from all of this is it will inspire people to speak up and go to the authorities as soon as possible when you can really have hard evidence which makes everything so much easier on everyone, except for the guilty person of course. These cases that happened many years in the past though I think is going to be filled with tons of problems unless you got evidence or it is linked to someone who we already suspect of being guility of this stuff like a Harvey Weinstein.
Jason
- Status
Similar threads
