583
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
583 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19148 readers
3046 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean you are with a crowd that thinks "grabs them by the pussy" is A okay.
Interesting choice, using the image of kurtwood Smith, a guy who just got called out for sending a letter of support on behalf of a convicted rapist.
While I get your point, it didn't read as supportive to me. To me it read as a statement of "this is what I observed" not "this is my judgement of the kind of person he is."
Like if someone asked me what kind of person a coworker was. If my answer was "I saw them do their job" it can be a factual statement of my experience and really, isn't necessarily helpful. It just means I didn't witness them doing anything bad.
Edit - rereading as someone just posted a copy of the letter. While I can see some focus on positive interactions with his daughter, it still strikes me as a factual "this is what I observed" and far less the emotional supportive standpoint that bled through from some of the other letters that were submitted.
Then insulting part in the Ashton letter was his defense of Danny as an anti drug warrior, after Danny was convicted of drugging and raping people. Also his saying that Danny poses no threat to society. I believe those were the main complaints about it by one of the victims
Two in a row as I just saw AK in the WeWork documentary
Kurtwood Smith's letter to the judge:
Dear Judge Olmedo:
My name is Kurtwood Smith. I have been a professional actor for 57 years, the last 43 years working primarily in film and television. It is as an actor that I came to know Danny Masterson.
I should mention that I am aware that Danny has been convicted of two counts of forcible rape and is awaiting sentencing.
I have known Danny since the spring of 1998, when we began filming the television show That 70s Show. We worked on the show for eight years and I consider Danny to be a good friend. Our friendship revolved around work. Primarily because of our age difference we didn't socialize much outside of work but I saw hi every day on the job whether we had scenes together or not.
I believe Danny to be a wonderful actor. When working together I always found him to be prepared, inventive, and responsive to suggestions from the director, myself, and other actors. Danny was also very enjoyable to be around. He has a quick wit and a good sense of humor. I always looked forward to working on scenes with Danny. I should mention that he was extremely popular with the crew. He was usually the first actor to learn every crew member's name, what their job was, and how it related to his job. Danny was the leader among his contemporaries in the cast. He was a tad older and much more experienced and he took that position seriously.
During the eight years we did the show. we never had the problems some other shows had with their younger cast members. After the show ended in 2006 I didn't see much of Danny, except for occasional events, until almost 10 years later, when I began playing a recurring character on The Ranch. Danny was one of the stars of the show. I was happy to be working with him again. It was also great to see his family. If you know Danny, you know his family.
I have known his parents and younger brothers and sister since we started work on That 70s Show. They are a very close knit family; they seem to care very much for each other and work to help one another succeed.
Danny was now married and the father of a beautiful little girl. It was a treat to spend some time with him at work and to be around him and his family. I had met his wife while we were still shooting That 70s Show, although they were not married at the time.
I found that Danny treated all women on the show with respect, not only the women in the cast, but women on the crew as well. It was my observation that he treated the woman he married in a respectful and loving way. Later, when we were working on The Ranch. I was aware that, not only were they a happy couple, but he was a wonderful father to his daughter.
I had the opportunity to watch Danny with his daughter. At the time she was maybe two or three years old. It was so clear how much he loved her and how delighted he was with her. He was so patient and easygoing with her. At one point, when she became fussy, he joked with her and made faces and she calmed down and was laughing. She clearly loved her daddy.
I consider Danny a talented, hardworking, giving actor. I have viewed him being respectful and considerate to those he has worked with. He has been a leader and positive force among his peers. He has seemed loving and caring, not only towards his wife and daughter, but his family at large.
For all the reasons I have mentioned I consider myself fortunate to have had Danny Masterson in my life.
Sincerely yours,
Kurtwood Smith
I can totally believe the crazy conflict this must cause for someone. Read this letter, imagine someone you feel this way about was convicted of two rapes and accused of three. It would do your head in.
Piling on Mastersons friends and colleagues isn’t going to help the victims.
They could've, you know...not written the letters.
I do have to wonder if the scientologists made any threats to these people to persuade them to make statements.
This 1000%. They're fucking maniacs who threaten and intimidate people all the time, including Danny Masterson's victims!
Not condoning rape here but given that the courts have done their job and the rapist is seeing justice, can we leave it at that?
The need to cancel by further and and further levels of abstraction is toxic to society. Justice (such as it is) is served. We should move on. If you feel a call to activism then seek out help and care for survivors. Seeking to further punish is going to rot you up inside.
He point of giving letters to the court of character is to try to reduce the sentence. If people are able to give statements with no cost, irrespective of truth or repurcuasions, then they become pointless as all would be glowing and positive. Anyone giving such a letter should be able to stand by it. If they can't they shouldn't give one.
I haven't read his letter, but I assume it talks about his time with him filming when he was younger. It doesn't seem relevant of it's about his character, aside from rapes. So, what's the point of providing it? If it is relevant, then we should question the relevance and motive and veracity of the whole purpose is to reduce the sentence of a convicted rapist.
People will all move on. However, moving on does not mean ignore and forget.
In rape cases there can be a bit of she said he said and such testimony can be important. However, it's up to the jury to decide how much weight they attach to such a letter.
If one of my close friends was accused of rape and I never got any signals that she/he was capable of doing such a thing, I think I should be allowed to be heard. And if I was falsely accused I expect those that know my character to offer the same.
If I ever get the request from someone I have any doubt about they're getting the polite middle finger. But if I'm 99% sure they wouldn't do such a thing I guess I at least owe them to share my pov with the jury. Up to them to weigh everything.
In this case the actor who portrayed Mr. Red has shown he's a bad judge of character but it shouldn't stop us from using the character of the show to make cheff's kiss memes (not this one though)
It's up to the judge. The letters were just used for sentencing, NOT for the verdict, which is the responsibility of the judge, not the jury.
Ok then I stand corrected.
In that case I might be sending a letter how they betrayed my trust & to not go too light on the sentence
You're completely missing the point of these letters though. The jury had already found the accused guilty. These letters were for the judge, after conviction. In order to lighten the sentence of a convicted rapist.
These letters were after conviction, for sentencing.
Yes, there can be he said, she said. A jury convicts only if convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. They did so on multiple counts. One of the alleged victims, there was sufficient doubt. He was not convicted on that count. So it wasn’t just he said, she said.
I agree, red likely made an error of judgement. It’s not tantamount to rape, but he’s still advocating for a rapist with the intent of reducing the sentence.
What a horrible take.