Go ahead. Remind me to shit all over you when you die and to make sure your family hears all about it before your corpse is cold.
He didn’t. The jury said so.
The terms of the settlement were not in any way public and the “$2.5M” is an “estimate” by “legal experts.” Yeah, the same imbecile bobbleheaded pundit types like Dershowitz.
None of this changes that the rush to kick a dead body for personal gratification is disgusting. The first thought shouldn’t always be “oh, here’s a convenient chance for me to shit all over someone to advance my grievance politics.” She made ZERO point and only served to damage the cause, no matter how loudly the choir she was preaching to sings her canonization for it.
There will be when he died. People look back on a person’s whole life when they died. You wouldn’t find the rape case in every piece of Bryant when he was alive.
That’s not even the point I’m making. There’s a time and place for things. “Oh, he’s freshly dead so me shitting on him will get news and attention” is a fucking abysmal approach to furthering ANY cause. It has nothing to do with not wanting to see the bad. It was there. IT WASN’T GOING ANYWHERE. It could’ve waited…unless the goal was rushing in order to make it as bombastic and offensive and attention-grabbing as possible, which it appears it was.
What would be an appropriate time to bring that up? One week? Two? Wouldn’t people say at that time “Why bring that up just when we’re about to forget the pain?” Condolences to his family but I think we could discuss him the person. I don’t think the two things are inseparable.
Fine. My mistake. And yeah, we can talk all about how victims often don’t want to testify…
…AFTER THE FUNERAL.
Unless perhaps vicarious vengeance was really the goal? Make sure he’s buried next to his daughter with an asterisk, right? Can’t let 'em go to the grave without some feces in the box with him? What the fuck point did it serve other than self-gratifying lashing out? NONE. LITERALLY NONE. It doesn’t in any way advance the discussion of the issue of sexual assault and instead turns people off and shuts down discussion.
But hey, I suppose this is a virtue signalling high-fiver moment, right? She and you all certainly showed him, right? Take that, dead man and your family…
Also, what taxpayer payouts to victims are you talking about?
Forgive me, I should have done a better job of referencing a story that is just developing in MA.
The principal objective outlined in the proposed legislation is to limit sexual misconduct by reining in abuse of NDAs by State Employees that have been used to suppress exposure of sexual misdeeds.
Is MA trying to stop victims compensation funds from providing financial assistance to victims of sexual assault? If so, what would be the point of that?
No. The legislation is an attempt to kneecap an abused tactic; get a victim to sign an NDA with publicly funded payoffs.
Given that this thread was about Bryant, I opted to make a brief reference.
Frankly, I think a whole thread might be worthwhile.
Here’s a link: here Former Fox News anchor fronts fight against nondisclosure agreements in Massachusetts
First of all, the threshhold question is whether it serves any purpose to bring it up at all. What purpose does it serve? If you think “well, it sends a message that you won’t escape your dirty deeds even in death”, then guess what? Corpses don’t give a shit about ANYTHING. Their surviving family does though. Was it even necessary? How does it advance anything about the discussion or the cause? No and it doesn’t. It literally doesn’t. What point was scored here? What point was made? None and none. Ask yourself why bothering to point fingers at the dead is even necessary or useful. There are plenty living people she wasn’t bothering to criticize. But hey, corpses can’t talk back…and their families and loved ones certainly need to pay a price for loving them as if they weren’t pariahs.
I think the point she was making is just that too many people are overlooking his mistake. It’s human tendency to make a saint out of a person and I personally find that cringeworthy. I don’t think she’s saying he deserved the death.
What’s funny is that you’d have to google all the wonderful things he did, because you don’t know shit about him other than the one data point that you find conveniently useful. But I get it, everyone has to be defined and caricatured by one and only one thing if we’re going to win our pet causes through the strategy of demonization.
You are deliberately missing a point made over and over.
Whitewashing sexual assault.
What precipitated the adverse reaction by some was the hagiography blazoned across virtually all media outlets.
I read fairly widely, catch clips of coverage, but I hadn’t seen any reference to his sexual assault. Others upthread pointed out that there were references.
You seem to think news reportage needs filtering, editing…
and you make no accounting for the abysmal history of reporting on sexual abuse…often marked by such elisions.
How is it not? Are you saying he did this kind of thing regularly? Your attempt to bring in Trump is ridiculous. A lifelong pattern of abuse and bad deeds is not an apt analogy or comparison. And again, I’m in no way defending Kobe Bryant from criticism. I’m saying there’s a time and place and, if your goal is actually to do anything to advance the cause, not just lash out and smear for the gratification of vengeful feelings, there’s a better way to do it than instantaneously shitting on a freshly dead person who died in a tragic accident and whose denigration is going to cause nothing but backlash. It’s ineffective, self-defeating, distasteful and shows no compassion whatsoever for the people grieving that person’s death, no matter your card-carrying righteous indignation.
I in no way implied that was what he was saying. What she WAS saying was that not even his loved ones and family deserve a moment to grieve without this shoved in their faces. It’s the same thing the DAily Beast author she retweeted was saying…quite literally.
I mean, you don’t know what else people have said. Many people expressed their pity about the accident but also wanted to recognize his misstep. It’s possible to do both at the same time.
He made a statement acknowledging her feelings. He was clear that he disagreed but did not question her motives. In other words, he did not malign the victim and was willing to recognize her right to her point of view. I gather some think that is a conviction. I disagree. It seems to be a statement to settle a civil lawsuit with neither side acknowledging wrongdoing, something that is done every day.
Unquestionable veneration of flawed beings (which we all are) is the root of most of our problems. I’d rather error on the tearing down rather than canonization side of things.
