George Takei accused of sexual assault.
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
- Status
I'm not talking about speculation though. I'm talking about the words that came out of his own mouth. When someone says they did something, it's not speculation or an accusation, it's an admission. Whether he assaulted the one specific person who is accusing him is actually irrelevant to what he already admitted to.
If there isn't enough evidence to a legal case then nothing happens legally. I'm just glad the Stern interview is out there so people can at least make up their own minds based on his own words even if he never has any legal consequences.
Addressed in the previous 2 points.
But he was speculating on Weinstein and so forth. His own words can't be assumed to be an admission of anything because of the nature of the show. If he goes on to confirm them, or if someone can produce better evidence, that, of course, will change the nature of the discussion.
Accusation is accusation. Without proof -- which can include a bona fide admission -- it is still just speculative.
Accusation is accusation. Without proof -- which can include a bona fide admission -- it is still just speculative.
The issue though is what if Takei is innocent or the accuser is right and the proof or lack of proof doesn't support either case, then what happens? What is societies role in a situation like this when we debate specific cases and form opinions based on our feelings even if our feelings aren't backed up by the evidence or the evidence is kind of suspect. I mean it seems like the entire issue revolves around how much faith you put into a Howard Stern interview being honest and not just Stern and Takei trying to be edgy or whatever it is people do on that show.
One thing for certain is at some point the audience will loose interest and move onto the next internet story yet Takei and the accuser still have to deal with the outcome for better or worst. We the people of the internet never really face any consequences for when we do the wrong thing and that usually means having a knee-jerk reaction to any story before we even fully understand what is going on. Makes you kind of wish for the old days when this stuff would come out in Newspapers were you know that they would look up sources and take a responsible approach before releasing any news to the public.
Jason
Just to make sure we're on the same page:
I am *NOT* saying George is guilty of the specific alleged assault currently in the news.
I *AM* saying George is guilty of the assaults he admitted to himself.
If you want to believe he was switching between telling the truth in his opinions about Weinstein/Trump to suddenly joking about himself assaulting people, that's fine.
But honestly, if he was joking about sexually assaulting people HE is the one that should be telling us it was a joke and not real. Unfortunately he isn't saying that.
I am *NOT* saying George is guilty of the specific alleged assault currently in the news.
I *AM* saying George is guilty of the assaults he admitted to himself.
If you want to believe he was switching between telling the truth in his opinions about Weinstein/Trump to suddenly joking about himself assaulting people, that's fine.
But honestly, if he was joking about sexually assaulting people HE is the one that should be telling us it was a joke and not real. Unfortunately he isn't saying that.
There are 2 ways your statement can be taken. One is that you think non consensual groping is not a big deal, because that is what he described doing. The other is that you think what he described was just a joke. I'm hoping the later, but feel free to clarify.
The problem though is this: IF he was in fact joking when he described non consensual groping, HE should be telling us it was a joke. But he ISN'T saying that, which is why your position blows my mind. He SAID he did something. It's obviously been taken by many to support recent allegations, which he denies. But he ISN'T addressing what he said he did on Stern. Why would you assume someone is joking when they aren't even saying so themselves?
and it's also possible that his interpretation of consent is different than yours or the legal interpretation of consent. The more serious allegation is that he drugged the accuser and took advantage of him. That sounds more serious but there's no prior history of him saying he's ever done that before.
But in the event that Takei did commit the acts, why was he being so judgemental of the other people doing it? Others like Donald Trump have been known to be overly judgemental too. Does being overly judgemental about someone else's conduct a signal that they are harboring guilt of their own?
He most likely has a lawyer telling him what to say and not say at this point. It could just be a matter of time. I mean the story has just broken so it could be just a matter of time before he makes a comment on it. At some point I guess Howard Stern will be asked as well. We also know that if he makes a statement that he was just joking, you will then have people come out and say that it is wrong to make those kinds of jokes, which is why I am sure they are trying to figure out the best way to comment on it because we know that everyone has already formed a opinion. Even though we know we shouldn't at this point it's impossible not to because that is just human nature. Basically even if he is proven right it still won't matter on some level because his repuation is forever ruined by now because people will still believe what they want to believe or they will always have some doubt in the back of their minds that he might be guility.
Jason
Fortunately his interpretation doesn't matter. If I walk into a store and steal something, my interpretation of stealing won't save me. Plus, he himself said if someone was afraid he would grope them to try to persuade them. He damned himself with his own statements implying he knew how the person felt and still acted anyway.
Yeah, I don't know anything about that, so I'm sticking to what I heard him say for myself.
It's an interesting question to be sure, but I have no idea how someone else's psychology works.
Most likely. Either way, let me use an illustration. We all remember Trump's infamous tape about "grabbing". And we all remember his excuses about locker room talk, meaning some sick combination of joking/boasting/exaggerating/whatever. Now, imagine for a moment that Trump didn't even offer an excuse or rebuttal to the tape at all. Would you honestly be trying to defend his comments as a joke, when he himself wasn't even saying so? Because that is exactly what some are doing for Takei. He admitted to behavior that is sexual assault on Stern. HE hasn't even said he was joking, yet for some reason some people are saying he was. Do you at least see my point?
Last edited:
Been over this already, I mean when he says he grabbed someone against their will he may mean explicit consent but was with an intimate partner in his home who he knew wouldn't mind and would probably approve of it. LIke I said before, you may be reading too much into his statements on the stern show. He didn't go into great detail and it sounds like you're filling in the blanks here and there
okay so you don't know how Takei's psychology works and are speculating a bit on what he meant on the stern show
I think the difference is we all knew before that video that Trump was a terrible person. I know that might be a double standard but it seems like a logical one to have when we don't have almost 40 years of kind of knowing someone is a scumbag like it is with Trump. Until this accusation people have always assumed that Takei is a great guy and thus people are not going to switch their views over so fast. I know it took me awhile to believe the Cosby stuff but I believed the Weinstein stuff right away. The individuals involved does impact people's initial reactions and people will come around eventually if more evidence comes forward that makes Takei look guilty or they don't like his explanations for the Stern interview. The other difference is Trump was running for President so that is a bigger spotlight and frankly I think it might have been seen as a good thing for Trump when it comes to some of his supporters. He really does seem to have some very seedy supporters on his side to a point were human decency might actually be seen as a negative for him.
Jason
Nope. I'm not speculating what he "meant", I'm discussing the words he actually said. He actually described groping people who were afraid. That in itself is sexual assault regardless of his own personal views on consent or assault.
Valid reasoning. But personally, I can't assume someone is joking when they describe groping people who are afraid. If Takei wants to speak up and make the argument it was all a joke, I'll consider that reasoning when he gives it. Until then I can only take him at his word.
Definitely milking his sentences in that clip aren't you?
Here's the conversation:
He mentioned fear or skittishness so we can think about what causes fear. Maybe he was with a dude that never been with another dude before and that dude was naturally afraid of the unknown so Takei took initiative. Something happened in his home sometime in his life that involved him grabbing someone's balls during foreplay. Maybe it ended good for them both, maybe not.
Or you can just assume the worst but it's all just speculation over what his words mean.milking his sentences in that clip aren't you?
Here's the conversation:
He mentioned fear or skittishness so we can think about what causes fear. Maybe he was with a dude that never been with another dude before and that dude was naturally afraid of the unknown so Takei took initiative. Something happened in his home sometime in his life that involved him grabbing someone's balls during foreplay. Maybe it ended good for them both, maybe not.
I still have to agree with JackSparrowJive that it is not a good thing to sexually touch someone if they are nervous or "skittish". George probably didn't mean anything by it but that does sound like sexual assault and really he should have known better even thirty six years ago. I hate to say it but the accusation is sounding more and more credible to me.
Someone can be nervous about something and still want to do that same something at the same time. People need more imagination rather than have me spell it out for them to conger up hypotheticals of non-criminal activity. Or just take my word for it that there exists non-criminal scenarios that can justify those sentences as non-criminal acts.I still have to agree with JackSparrowJive that it is not a good thing to sexually touch someone if they are nervous or "skittish". George probably didn't mean anything by it but that does sound like sexual assault and really he should have known better even thirty six years ago. I hate to say it but the accusation is sounding more and more credible to me.
I just can't get past how horrible what you are saying sounds applied to a man/woman situation. If any man said he groped women who were afraid to try to persuade them it would make him a predator. But because Takei is talking about other men you are trying to justify what he said. There is no way in the world you would be doing the same thing in the context of a man bragging about doing that to women. Your double standard is truly horrible.
There are ways to ease someone into something without physically forcing yourself on them. This type of situation is literally why we have the expression NO MEANS NO.
People having "more imagination" is why many rape victims are dismissed out of hand. She dressed provocatively, she let him drive her home, she made out with him beforehand... The victimizer has the imagination to justify what he/she wants, and the victim is left with the consequences.
That's because you're having trouble imagining scenarios where it's not criminal. The whole point was that he didn't go into specifics. So why assume the worst? There's not enough information within those few sentences to come to any conclusions unless you want to fill in the blanks with your own conceptions of what he meant.
I am going purely on what he said, while YOU are trying to guess what he meant. Between the 2 of us, YOU are the one assuming something you don't know, not me. Going purely by what he said, he groped people who were skittish or afraid to try to persuade them. On it's face, that is non consensual contact, which is sexual assault. I'm not the one filling in blanks with my own conceptions, YOU are with your justifications.
- Status
Similar threads
