"That 70s Show" star Danny Masterson sentenced to 30 Years to Life for Two Rapes

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
16,454
Reaction score
4,123
Awards
13
Location
USA

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Winner
LV
1
 
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
2,686
Awards
6
Member Since
June 2001
From what I understand, the statute of limitations was revoked because of California's one strike law.

Apparently, the statute doesn't apply if there is more than one accuser (there were 3) and the victims were drugged (which is what's been alleged.)

Considering these celebrity rape cases usually involve alleged encounters decades prior, I'm not sure how they can ever effectively prove their case. I certainly don't want to see a rapist get away with their crime, but how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is a rapist 20 years later? On the other hand, the church of Scientology is involved. That doesn't necessarily prove Masterson's guilt, but I do believe they are an awful cult that would go to any length to protect their own. The accusers are former Scientologists, and they claim the organization tried to stop them from coming forward. I'm sure this is something they would do regardless of Masterson's guilt or innocence.

Masterson's co-stars Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis are also being trashed on social media for submitting letters to the court in defense of their friend.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
16,454
Reaction score
4,123
Awards
13
Location
USA
From what I understand, the statute of limitations was revoked because of California's one strike law.

Apparently, the statute doesn't apply if there is more than one accuser (there were 3) and the victims were drugged (which is what's been alleged.)

Considering these celebrity rape cases usually involve alleged encounters decades prior, I'm not sure how they can ever effectively prove their case. I certainly don't want to see a rapist get away with their crime, but how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is a rapist 20 years later? On the other hand, the church of Scientology is involved. That doesn't necessarily prove Masterson's guilt, but I do believe they are an awful cult that would go to any length to protect their own. The accusers are former Scientologists, and they claim the organization tried to stop them from coming forward. I'm sure this is something they would do regardless of Masterson's guilt or innocence.

Masterson's co-stars Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis are also being trashed on social media for submitting letters to the court in defense of their friend.

It's hard to know. My instinct is that there's something wrong with the case.

This is a bad time to be a dude who may have been falsely accused of something.

But the gender stuff (not the current, exhausting transgender stuff) is so fascinating, and what it reflects about how the culture really works versus how we pretend it works -- and about who's really in control and perhaps always has been.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
16,454
Reaction score
4,123
Awards
13
Location
USA
Masterson's co-stars Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis are also being trashed on social media for submitting letters to the court in defense of their friend.

Yes, they've been forced to step down from their anti-child-sex-abuse organization, and Ashton offered a groveling apology for "all the people I hurt" by supporting Masterson.

Which must mean Masterson really was railroaded.

Heh. How interesting it is what they've done with the statute of limitations.
 

Rove

Telly Talk Champion
LV
0
 
Messages
4,854
Reaction score
8,157
Awards
5
Location
Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
Considering these celebrity rape cases usually involve alleged encounters decades prior, I'm not sure how they can ever effectively prove their case. I certainly don't want to see a rapist get away with their crime, but how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is a rapist 20 years later?
This is where I've always had an issue with cases like this. When there is no concrete evidence how can you convict on words? I've always argued in cases like this someone is telling fibs in court...after raising their right hand to tell the truth, the whole truth......
 

tommie

Telly Talk Hero
LV
3
 
Messages
6,364
Reaction score
9,251
Awards
9
Location
Sweden
Member Since
I dunno
Yes, they've been forced to step down from their anti-child-sex-abuse organization, and Ashton offered a groveling apology for "all the people I hurt" by supporting Masterson.

Which must mean Masterson really was railroaded.
LMAO, no. Kunis and Kutcher have both used the extensive Co$ network to get where they are today, so they more or less had to write letters because otherwise there would be far more consequences for them.

b6h0zsg4htnb1.jpg

This ain't about protecting their lil rapist friend. It's about protecting their own asses as the Masterson family are all deep into Co$.
 

tommie

Telly Talk Hero
LV
3
 
Messages
6,364
Reaction score
9,251
Awards
9
Location
Sweden
Member Since
I dunno
Considering these celebrity rape cases usually involve alleged encounters decades prior, I'm not sure how they can ever effectively prove their case. I certainly don't want to see a rapist get away with their crime, but how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is a rapist 20 years later? On the other hand, the church of Scientology is involved. That doesn't necessarily prove Masterson's guilt, but I do believe they are an awful cult that would go to any length to protect their own. The accusers are former Scientologists, and they claim the organization tried to stop them from coming forward. I'm sure this is something they would do regardless of Masterson's guilt or innocence.
To be fair, have any of us read the court documents or trial transcripts? I haven't seen them floating around anywhere, but I'd think that you could prove some things to support their stories - ie communications with the Danny & Co$, his access to certain drugs, other people they might've told soon after the incident(s) and so on. Circumstances do add up sometimes so I think it's a bit unfair to say this is just people claiming things until it's all out there in the open. I'd assume that if it was the case Co$ would be spreading this all over as the entire Masterson family (bar his step father, who left Co$) are deeply involved in the Church and we know they're fans of building websites for their causes.
 

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Winner
LV
1
 
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
2,686
Awards
6
Member Since
June 2001
To be fair, have any of us read the court documents or trial transcripts? I haven't seen them floating around anywhere, but I'd think that you could prove some things to support their stories - ie communications with the Danny & Co$, his access to certain drugs, other people they might've told soon after the incident(s) and so on. Circumstances do add up sometimes so I think it's a bit unfair to say this is just people claiming things until it's all out there in the open. I'd assume that if it was the case Co$ would be spreading this all over as the entire Masterson family (bar his step father, who left Co$) are deeply involved in the Church and we know they're fans of building websites for their causes.
I don't feel I was being unfair. It's not like I said the accusers were outright lying, and I pointed to the Church of Scientology's involvement as problematic.

However, while the public may not be privy to all the details of the case, it seems like it would have been worth coming forward right away if evidence existed to support the claims of the victims. It's hard to believe Masterson and the Church of Scientology would leave a trail detailing his crimes for the past 20 years, but it's possible. Ultimately, it's the passing of time and lack of statute of limitations that bother me. It allows anybody to come out of the wood work whenever they want and make these allegations. Russell Brand's the latest celebrity to get hit with similar accusations from the past. The timing is rather interesting now that he's become a controversial anti-establishment figure.
 
Last edited:

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
16,454
Reaction score
4,123
Awards
13
Location
USA
Ultimately, it's the passing of time and lack of statute of limitations that bother me. It allows anybody to come out of the wood work whenever they want and make these allegations. Russell Brand's the latest celebrity to get hit with similar accusations from the past. The timing is rather interesting now that he's become a controversial anti-establishment figure.

Yes, the statute of limitations exists for exactly this reason, and that's exactly why the feminists demanded it be removed (rationalizing PTSD prevented them from filing in time).

Some of the feminists have openly admitted that men being convicted for false allegations is just fine. And some of them seem more interested in prosecuting -- and persecuting -- innocent men than they are guilty men. Presumably, because of the message it sends.

So we can now expect men who express political views, conservative or liberal (which doesn't match the current orthodoxy) that the wokesters don't like to have this done with increasingly frequency. Or anybody from your distant past who still resents you for some subjective reason to potentially come forward decades later.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
16,454
Reaction score
4,123
Awards
13
Location
USA
It's a symptom of the establishment's attempt to reroute as much of the moneys to women as possible.

And why? Because 85% of the consumer dollars are spent by women; only 15% are spent by men. So you need to put as much cash (hers and his) into her hands so she can send it up to the real patriarchy at the tip top (whose privilege doesn't trickle down to all men, despite what the feminists claim). Which is why the media is 24/7 praise and flattery for women (and hatred for men) and why the divorce courts are ridiculously skewed in her favor.

Because it's the women and their spending that enrich the corporations. Feminism and old school patriarchy have been hand-in-hand on the down-low from the very beginning. Feminism isn't a reaction against the patriarchy, it's an expression of the patriarchy.

As some have noted, women have been running the patriarchy for eons.

Nikola Tesla predicted this would happen more than a century ago, the queen bee syndrome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Winner
LV
1
 
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
2,686
Awards
6
Member Since
June 2001
It's a symptom of the establishment's attempt to reroute as much of the moneys to women as possible.

And why? Because 85% of the consumer dollars are spent by women; only 15% are spent by men. So you need to put as much cash (hers and his) into her hands so she can send it up to the real patriarchy at the tip top (whose privilege doesn't trickle down to all men, despite what the feminists claim). Which is why the media is 24/7 praise and flattery for women (and hatred for men) and why the divorce courts are ridiculously skewed in her favor.

Because it's the women and their spending that enrich the corporations. Feminism and old school patriarchy have been hand-in-hand on the down-low from the very beginning. Feminism isn't a reaction against the patriarchy, it's an expression of the patriarchy.

As some have noted, women have been running the patriarchy for eons.

Nikola Tesla predicted this would happen more than a century ago, the queen bee syndrome.

This video seems silly on the face of it, but ...


...and some countries have bachelor taxes, a way of having a woman divorce you when you've never even met her.
I thought six years ago that the deification of women and hatred of men was just a fad, yet a day still doesn't go by where I don't see that type of content on social media.

Even products geared towards men like Gillette and Bud Lite received ad campaigns mocking their customer base. And who were behind the ads? Oppressed women, of course. Because, as we all know, women are literally angels and men are literally the devil. Anyone who deviates from that is a victim-shaming, oppressive, misogynistic pig.
 
Last edited:

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
16,454
Reaction score
4,123
Awards
13
Location
USA
I thought six years ago that the deification of women and hatred of men was just a fad, yet a day still doesn't go by where I don't see that type of content on social media.

Even products geared towards men like Gillette and Bud Lite received ad campaigns mocking their customer base. And who were behind the ads? Oppressed women, of course. Because, as we all know, women are literally angels and men are literally the devil. Anyone who deviates from that is a victim-shaming, oppressive, misogynistic pig.

The overtness of it has peaked in the woke era, of course. But it's been part of the culture forever. Most of the ways women (or feministicized women) describe male psychology and male objectification of women is in fact raging projection.

Some people feel that we live, and have always lived, in a matriarchy pretending to be a patriarchy, and pretending to be a patriarchy in order to keep the matriarchy well-greased and in place --- and it's not all men who feel that way.

As one female pundit once observed: "women have always wanted to control men, sexually and non-sexually, because women have an innate jealousy of men -- and that jealousy is not borne of oppression or patriarchy".

Another has asserted that homophobia was historically created by women in order to shame prodigal, but predominantly straight, men back onto the plantation to continue providing attention, utility and resources to women as per usual -- with lesbians and actual gay men just collateral damage.


Not that I agree necessarily, but it's food for thought.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
16,454
Reaction score
4,123
Awards
13
Location
USA
This is where I've always had an issue with cases like this. When there is no concrete evidence how can you convict on words? I've always argued in cases like this someone is telling fibs in court...after raising their right hand to tell the truth, the whole truth......

"Believe all women" means women never lie (but when they do and get caught red-handed lying, then triple down in our support for them -- like with Amber Heard)'

Of course, how many women have never been lied on by other women?? And are we supposed to believe that those women who lie about other women suddenly become truthful when they're talking about men?


To be fair, have any of us read the court documents or trial transcripts? I haven't seen them floating around anywhere, but I'd think that you could prove some things to support their stories - ie communications with the Danny & Co$, his access to certain drugs, other people they might've told soon after the incident(s) and so on. Circumstances do add up sometimes so I think it's a bit unfair to say this is just people claiming things until it's all out there in the open. I'd assume that if it was the case Co$ would be spreading this all over as the entire Masterson family (bar his step father, who left Co$) are deeply involved in the Church and we know they're fans of building websites for their causes.

And, of course, you're right. We don't know -- not for sure. But the Masterson case, and the surrounding reaction, has all the hallmarks of something ugly (other than what he's been accused of doing).

Because, as we all know, women are literally angels and men are literally the devil. Anyone who deviates from that is a victim-shaming, oppressive, misogynistic pig.

There is a default presumption -- from both men and women -- that the very worst of male behavior essentially defines what all men are at their core, and that the very best of female behavior defines what all women are at their core. As if we're one vast sea of Mother Teresas ("if you'd just stop raping us!!") and Ted Bundys (with privilege).

Does anyone recall that feminist placard a few years ago (seemingly scrubbed from google images but once readily available) with a well-dressed, obviously well-to-do woman sitting on a park bench, and a haggard homeless man kneeling in front over her begging for a coin, and the caption reads: "This Man Has Every Imaginable Advantage Over This Woman."

That's the reality of feminism, certainly in the twenty-first century and probably well before.

Equality has nothing to do with it.

And now there's going after Russell Brand:


aaabranddynastier (1).jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tommie

Telly Talk Hero
LV
3
 
Messages
6,364
Reaction score
9,251
Awards
9
Location
Sweden
Member Since
I dunno
And, of course, you're right. We don't know -- not for sure. But the Masterson case, and the surrounding reaction, has all the hallmarks of something ugly (other than what he's been accused of doing).
What "hallmarks"? Why would they set Masterson up, by the way? Other than being very highly ranked within Co$, he's actually one of those people who've rarely interacted with the media over the years. One thing I can buy - however - is that the DA's office saw a way to send a message to Co$ by going all-in on the case and pursuing it with all they had, but at the same time Co$ have an army of lawyers and they couldn't get it dropped. But that's not exactly a conspiracy theory - it's "just" tension between the government and Co$.
And now there's going after Russell Brand:
The Times' article on Brand is one of the best pieces of journalism I've read in ages - well-researched and sourced --- and no wonder considering they spent a year on it, which is virtually unheard of these days. On the other hand it's not surprising - I first heard murmurings of accusations coming towards Brand a few years ago and apparently he was very litigious about it and kept a close watch on it, to the point where gossip websites had to delete any comments even referring to it.

However, I do think Brand shows a different problem, which is how partisan media (and people in general) are - The Guardian was championing Brandt back in 2014 when they made him a poster child for Labour, while at the same time also acknowledging that he has a wee bit of a problem with women. But that was okay then because they saw him as someone who would revitalise the party and bring young people in! Of course, they're now washing their hands of him, barely acknowledging their involvement with the man.

Did Brand's turn toward the right wing and conspiracy cranks open up the possibility of media to investigate him? Probably. But that's not a conspiracy, but more about how people are willing to turn the other way when they think it benefits them to do so. His YouTube channel also isn't very big - one of his latest videos has gotten under 950k viewers in a week, which is nothing considering his profile (plus I'm sure his views has gotten a boost because of the accusations). So the notion that they would try to shut him down because of that is sort of laughable.

I mean - even poor little Dannii Minogue (buy and stream Neon Nights now) had this to say about him in 2006:
“He is completely crazy and a bit of a vile predator,” Minogue told the Mirror after being interviewed by Brand on his MTV chatshow, 1 Leicester Square back in 2006.


“I certainly don’t think he has cured his sex addiction, that’s for sure. He wouldn’t take no for an answer. [...] He always goes that step too far. Never quite far enough to slap his face, but usually too far.”
I believe in Dannii.
 

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Winner
LV
1
 
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
2,686
Awards
6
Member Since
June 2001
If an article exposing Russell Brand's alleged sexual misconduct is indeed one of the best pieces of journalism in ages, what's that say about the mainstream media? They exist to spread pro-war/pro-corporate talking points and propaganda for their chosen party, yet they gleefully put all of their effort into exposing an anti-establishment YouTuber.

And what exactly is too far, but "never quite far enough to slap his face?" Is that another way of saying he was pushy, but not an actual rapist? Brand describes himself as being promiscuous in the past, but claims his sexual encounters were all consensual. Sure, it's not like an actual "vile predator" is going to out himself, but what's it say about these supposed victims who wait for an opportune time to drop these bombshells? Oh wait, that's laughable because Brand's YouTube channel isn't big enough to waste time on him. So why did the mainstream media devote so much time prior to these allegations smearing Brand's new-found political views? They also labeled him a "right winger," which is another insult that's lost all meaning. If you're against war and the corporate capture of government and the mainstream media, you're a right winger. If you advocate working with people along class lines, you're a right winger. If you're willing to have discussions with people on the other side of the aisle from you, you're a right winger. To me, using right wing as a pejorative no longer makes sense. It's become a lazy term to describe just about everybody who isn't on board with the mainstream establishment narratives.

It's funny to think Brand was once mainstream and married to Katy Perry. Whether the allegations are real or fabricated, we all know what happens when you cross the tribe.
 
Last edited:

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Winner
LV
1
 
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
2,686
Awards
6
Member Since
June 2001
It was just revealed in The New York Post that YouTube has suspended the monetization of Brand's channel due to the allegations.

I guess it's laughable that they would try to shut him down after all. They're just preventing him from making money off his videos instead. Guilty until proven innocent!
 
Last edited:

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
16,454
Reaction score
4,123
Awards
13
Location
USA
Did Brand's turn toward the right wing and conspiracy cranks open up the possibility of media to investigate him?

You do realize, don't you, that your astute postings about woke transgenderism would get you labeled "rightwing" by the pseudo-left today...?
 
Top