Neil deGrasse Tyson will keep his job at the American Museum of Natural History

[shintoki]

I really don't see the comparison between the Screen Junkies guy and this. The SJ guy came with a shitload of receipts, still admit he was a harasser, but not a rapist where the accuser's motive for lying and following actions haven't spark confidence in her. It is an exception.

This report is the typical, there is no evidence to say otherwise so there will be no punishment! While his accuser has been saying it for years, well before Metoo and all where she seems like she just wants justice. She just seems to be trying every single outlet possible, but like normal, people don't really want to believe. This is the norm when women come forward.

You can't just take one exception and dismiss the hundreds of others like it.

 

[BringBackSonics]

She did (file a police report)

I think the statute of limitations expired.

I'd imagine something like this didn't happen to Cosby because so many women came forward and I'm guessing that would void said limitations.

Don't think the stuff in OP would do the same in Tyson's case as far as criminal claims go. That would be just a workplace violation. Not a lawyer so I'm not sure how much of what I said is accurate lol. But in a world where the president is a rapists it's not hard to believe.

Click to shrink...

Oh man, that's tragic. I don't think there should be limitations on that

 

[NaughtyCalibur]

Absolutely disgusting thread



Agreed completely, and it's not slick at all how fast they are to jump to the abuser's defense, especially when it's someone they like

Click to shrink...

I can't speak for others in this thread, but this isn't about popularity to me. I'm not even a very big NDT fan. I've only watched Cosmos and what I believe was a snippet of his appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast.

Conversely, I was a huge fan of Kevin Spacey. Prior to finding out he's a sick fuck and doesn't just occasionally play them in front of a camera, I must have watched the majority of his filmography dozens of times over, with Baby Driver being my hands down favorite film of 2017. I invoke his name because, like NDT, his charges were recently dropped, but guess what? I'll never defend that piece of shit. Why? Because, unlike NDT who was met with shock and support from men and women alike, Spacey's shit stank so bad that even his co-stars were bad mouthing him almost immediately (Jon Bernthal in particular called him out on a press junket or radio show before Baby Driver even hit BluRay iirc).

If Kevin Spacey, an American cinematic icon, can go down as hard as he did, you best believe a black, quadi-celebrity astrophysicist would have been barred from everywhere but Earth itself, with Fox paying Bill Nye to take his place for Cosmos without hardly a second thought, or just canceling the show altogether as I doubt it made that much bank for the network.

But yeah, I could be wrong and he really is a rapist, and when I see enough to wholeheartedly form that belief I'll "#cancel" him like Spacey, Louis CK and anyone else I was a fan of.

 

[Laughing Banana]

How independent is these independent investigations are, really?

 

[Keldroc]

How independent is these independent investigations are, really?

Click to shrink...

Hardwick's was done by a legal firm owned by his in-laws. So yeah.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Hardwick's was done by a legal firm owned by his in-laws. So yeah.

Click to shrink...

Hah...... and people in here seriously think that with such a conflict of interest, we should all put 100% of our trust to these 'independent' investigations? Give me a break....

 

[Keldroc]

Hah...... and people in here seriously think that with such a conflict of interest, we should all put 100% of our trust to these 'independent' investigations? Give me a break....

Click to shrink...

And of course they're not investigating whether the accused employee did anything or not. They're investigating whether or not what happened could legally impact the company in a negative way if they don't fire the accused employee. Usually this means making sure what happened wasn't on company grounds, during work hours, at a work function, etc. It has very little to do with exonerating the accused and everything to do with covering corporate ass.

 

[Cipherr]

And of course they're not investigating whether the accused employee did anything or not. They're investigating whether or not what happened could legally impact the company in a negative way if they don't fire the accused employee. Usually this means making sure what happened wasn't on company grounds, during work hours, at a work function, etc. It has very little to do with exonerating the accused and everything to do with covering corporate ass.

Click to shrink...

You have a citation for the specifics of what they are looking for in these two specific investigations we are talking about in this thread? I mean this seriously. I'm wondering if the bolded is actually data that has been given or if its one of those: "Yeah well, you know, its safe to assume that this and that and this and that". A lot of times in these threads people pass that off as actual citable fact. I searched earlier and couldnt find anything that detailed specifics on their investigation. Only stuff that leaked from people that were contacted; and there wasn't much.

 

[Fugu]

Would you apply this logic if someone was accused of any other crime?

Click to shrink...

Yes, actually. This logic is applied for other crimes already. Indeed, that's kind of the problem: If I say I was robbed, I am instantly believed. Why? Because I am unlikely to have falsified this accusation. Yes, it's possible, and if the evidence starts to turn that way then it's something to look at, but it would be very dangerous and very bad for victims to start from the assumption that they might be lying.

Sexual assault is not treated like other crimes. Women routinely receive skepticism as a response to an accusation that they have been sexually assaulted. Really, what #MeToo advocates are looking for is for sexual assault to be treated like literally every other crime in this regard. The cherry on top here is that false accusations of sexual assault are not more common than false accusations of other crimes as a whole, so there is zero principled reason to treat accusations of sexual assault differently.

 

[balgajo]

Of course sexism and cult of personality plays a role on dismissing the victim accusation. But I don't believe it's the only factors. The thing is that's preferable to make a mistake and clear a guilty person than incriminating an innocent one. The burden that someone who is wrongly sentenced as guilty of rape faces is totally different from the one of being wrongly sentenced for lying.

Yes, actually. This logic is applied for other crimes already. Indeed, that's kind of the problem: If I say I was robbed, I am instantly believed. Why? Because I am unlikely to have falsified this accusation. Yes, it's possible, and if the evidence starts to turn that way then it's something to look at, but it would be very dangerous and very bad for victims to start from the assumption that they might be lying.

Click to shrink...

I think the problem here is who. The difference between telling that I was robbed by a random person on the street or being robbed by, for example, by Tom Cruise. The first thing people would think is, why would Tom Cruise need to steal from you?
Not that if thinks that's right.

 

[Keldroc]

You have a citation for the specifics of what they are looking for in these two specific investigations we are talking about in this thread? I mean this seriously. I'm wondering if the bolded is actually data that has been given or if its one of those: "Yeah well, you know, its safe to assume that this and that and this and that". A lot of times in these threads people pass that off as actual citable fact. I searched earlier and couldnt find anything that detailed specifics on their investigation. Only stuff that leaked from people that were contacted; and there wasn't much.

Click to shrink...

Because that's exactly what they are, I've been at companies where similar investigations happened, but the accused person simply wasn't famous. You think AMC or the Hayden Planetarium conducted fucking police investigations? That's not their job. It's not your employer's job to figure out if you're guilty or not, it's their job to figure out if keeping you on staff is going to be harmful to the company. It not being harmful doesn't mean you didn't do anything terrible, it just means that whatever you did isn't going to entangle the company if they don't fire you. That's all that's happening here.

The fact that people think anything other than that is happening is fucking ludicrous. Do you have a citation that shows evidence that the investigations in either of these specific situations were thorough evidence sifting police-quality fact-finding exonerations of unimpeachable moral character? Because usually that's the domain of one organization, the police department, but they can't do that if no charges are pressed. Why anyone is substituting a corporate legal inquiry for a trial by jury here is completely inexplicable.

 

[Feep]

You have a citation for the specifics of what they are looking for in these two specific investigations we are talking about in this thread? I mean this seriously. I'm wondering if the bolded is actually data that has been given or if its one of those: "Yeah well, you know, its safe to assume that this and that and this and that". A lot of times in these threads people pass that off as actual citable fact. I searched earlier and couldnt find anything that detailed specifics on their investigation. Only stuff that leaked from people that were contacted; and there wasn't much.

Click to shrink...

Chloe laid out an insane series of incredibly awful behavior from Chris, but during none of it does she actually accuse him of sexual assault. (It was gaslighting, emotional abuse, and overall terrifying behavior.) Chris's official response was "I did not sexually abuse her", which is technically true. He didn't actually deny any of the behavior she laid out.

 

[mAcOdIn]

Because that's exactly what they are, I've been at companies where similar investigations happened, but the accused person simply wasn't famous. You think AMC or the Hayden Planetarium conducted fucking police investigations? That's not their job. It's not your employer's job to figure out if you're guilty or not, it's their job to figure out if keeping you on staff is going to be harmful to the company. It not being harmful doesn't mean you didn't do anything terrible, it just means that whatever you did isn't going to entangle the company if they don't fire you. That's all that's happening here.

The fact that people think anything other than that is happening is fucking ludicrous. Do you have a citation that shows evidence that the investigations in either of these specific situations were thorough evidence sifting police-quality fact-finding exonerations of unimpeachable moral character? Because usually that's the domain of one organization, the police department, but they can't do that if no charges are pressed. Why anyone is substituting a corporate legal inquiry for a trial by jury here is completely inexplicable.

Click to shrink...

A lot of jurisdictions don't actually need the victim to actually press charges, though in a case like this actually going to trial without the victim when no actual evidence exists is a useless endeavor.

Which is the real issue, even when police investigate it's not like they can always find actual evidence, and even if someone's found guilty or innocent in a court of law it's not always based on facts but who a jury believed. So police investigation, independent investigation, it's usually irrelevant and comes down to believably anyways.

 

[ckareset]

Yes, actually. This logic is applied for other crimes already. Indeed, that's kind of the problem: If I say I was robbed, I am instantly believed. Why? Because I am unlikely to have falsified this accusation. Yes, it's possible, and if the evidence starts to turn that way then it's something to look at, but it would be very dangerous and very bad for victims to start from the assumption that they might be lying.

Sexual assault is not treated like other crimes. Women routinely receive skepticism as a response to an accusation that they have been sexually assaulted. Really, what #MeToo advocates are looking for is for sexual assault to be treated like literally every other crime in this regard. The cherry on top here is that false accusations of sexual assault are not more common than false accusations of other crimes as a whole, so there is zero principled reason to treat accusations of sexual assault differently.

Click to shrink...

Nice try lol, notice I didn't say crime, I said crime that involves another participant. If you say that x person robbed me, you are not gonna statistics and say that person is guilty. You believe in the potential for them to commit a crime and react accordingly.

 

[Bufbaf]

If Kevin Spacey, an American cinematic icon, can go down as hard as he did, you best believe a black, quasi-celebrity astrophysicist would have been barred from everywhere but Earth itself, with Fox paying Bill Nye to take his place for Cosmos without hardly a second thought, or just canceling the show altogether as I doubt it made that much bank for the network.

But yeah, I could be wrong and he really is a rapist, and when I see enough to wholeheartedly form that belief I'll "#cancel" him like Spacey, Louis CK and anyone else I was a fan of.

Click to shrink...

I'm agreeing with both of these points, I think.
Except maybe for the "bank" part.

 

[ckareset]

NDT reminds me of the ScreenJunkies guy, but in the opposite. Where that guy was guilty of harassment and not rape and everything blurred together.

The rape though needs more investigation. She says she was drugged and that seems to be the crutch of the encounter. And she also alleges she told other people and that he raped other people ( she was guessing) Police need to get on it.

 

[Lexad]

No, like the NDT investigation, they found that they would not face legal action or blowback for keeping him employed. The AMC investigation was entirely about whether it was safe for them to keep him on their show, not whether or not he did anything. He absolutely did it.

These aren't legal exonerations or detailed police investigations. They're purely "can we get caught up in this should the case escalate" ass-covering by the companies employing the harassers in question. If the answer is no and the harasser is high enough profile, chances are they keep their job.

Click to shrink...

You can't say that he absolutely did it, especially when former partners of his came to his defense. Could it have happened, sure, but it also could not have happened. Nothing is certain

 

[Deleted member 8861]

I think both (individuals) believing women by default and being neutral (not 'is she falsely accusing someone' but being fully neutral) are valid stances to take.

Falsely labeling someone a rapist is a drastic/severe enough act that people have the right to not want to falsely pass such judgment on anyone. However, that doesn't mean allegations shouldn't be taken seriously or treated cynically. I think (at least law enforcement, etc.) taking accusers at their word until court proceedings is a reasonable compromise because maintaining the status quo where rape victims (of any gender) are afraid to speak up comes at a colossal human cost.

Neutrally speaking, a rape allegation comes down to believing someone is a rapist or someone else can falsely accuse someone else of being a rapist. Both are terrible things (not on the same scale, however).

With regard to the robbery point, falsely suspecting someone of being a thief is nowhere close to being the same thing as falsely suspecting someone of rape. Claims of robbery have more leeway in that regard, especially because they're not innately directed at a person the same way sexual assault allegations generally are.

 

[Cipherr]

Because that's exactly what they are, I've been at companies where similar investigations happened, but the accused person simply wasn't famous. You think AMC or the Hayden Planetarium conducted fucking police investigations? That's not their job. It's not your employer's job to figure out if you're guilty or not, it's their job to etc etc

Click to shrink...

Alright. Just wondering. I did search for official word but didnt find anything. Didn't want to assume that since I couldnt find anything official it wasn't out there. Seems there isn't though.