News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Aston Kutcher, a celebrity famous for his philanthropy, says a man guilty of two rapes should have his charity taken into account.
In other words: A man with excess money, and who gives some of that excess to charity, says a person's charity should balance out that person's crimes.
I think it's the personal connection that makes him find reasons to consider Danny's side of things more charitably. I sort of accept that he is just a dumb Hollywood guy with a soft spot for a friend. Except for one thing...
He's involved with fighting human trafficking which ought to give him a pretty clear perspective regarding sexual assault victims. That's what I can't reconcile.
Maybe he just doesn't want to believe because he knew him for so long.
That's exactly the perspective I consider in the first paragraph and then dismiss in the second. I feel like you've just asked, "But why male models?" for the second time.
That last sentence is scorching and I hope the other dude gets his act together.
He's one of those kids who can't read good.
Could it be a shot at rehabilitation?
Involved in? You mean his accountant and manager got together and made a list of charities to give to that would be good for his image.
Dude literally founded the charity, how much more involved does one need to be?
That’s not “involved” at all. That’s a tax write off ffs.
Let's have some devils advocate! Everybody loves devils advocate. Just real quick before I start cooking, I just want to say that rape is bad and there's no excuse. That's important and I'm not going to use it in my examples. Murder though - that's basically fine, I think.
A lot of crimes amount to one bad decision. A life of being a really good person and then one time you murder someone, then jail forever? (Well, yes, but actually no - first time offenders don't get life in prison, even for murder.)
Even if you have a dark side that you've been keeping under wraps, that's actually good! If there are people with dark sides, what we want is for them to not act on it - sociopaths, pedophiles - like, if we take for granted that these are conditions which occur in people and there's no cure, what we want is for them to not act on it.
But, one day, you fail, your dark side gets out and you do one of the horrible things you've been trying not to do; then it's easier to do it again, and again, and suddenly you're a serial killer. 40 years of being good despite a very difficult challenge, to suppress that darkness, but the rest of your life, you're judged for the few bad decisions you made in moments of weakness.
Let's talk about Ebeneezer Scrooge. Tis the season after all.
That dude was a total dick for like 60 years, but, in the end of the story, he's changed - it's a redemption story. But his name, Scrooge, is a commonplace synonym which characterizes him as a villain; fuck his redemption, he lived most of his life as a dick, and we remember him that way.
So which is it? Do we judge based on most of their lives, or do we judge based on a recent set of decisions which severely depart from that? Or do we just go with whichever was worst?
When it comes to Ashton Kutcher, like, even a serial killer isn't murdering literally every moment of their day. They have jobs, they go to the store. All that time, that person is being a good person, they're suppressing their darkness. It's easy to see a person in that light when that's how you've seen them for basically your entire adult life.
That said, Ashton Kutcher is a rich TV star so basically all his opinions are invalid. He probably only helps victims of sex trafficking because his PR team thought it would be a good fit for his brand. Not to say he doesn't like helping - I'm just saying fuck that guy. Fuck all those guys.
That was quite a journey, my friend. To address your central point, I'm certain a scenario such as you propose happens. However, the reality is most people commit far more crime than they are ever caught and tried for. Especially when it comes to rape which is one of the most under-reported and under-prosecuted crimes. I'm going by memory here so I might be wrong, but something like 3% of accused rapists get convicted. So worst case scenario, you or I could go rape someone right now and be virtually guaranteed of getting away with it.
It's vastly more likely that this wasn't a one-time thing, but the tip of the iceberg. Of course, we can't be sure but statistics tells us Danny likely isn't someone waging an internal war with a rapist who lost once. It's also the case that once you commit a crime once, it becomes easier and more comfortable to do it again.
Of course if one of my friends was accused of rape, I'd say that doesn't sound like them at all. After all, if I thought one of my friends was a rapist we wouldn't be friends for long. But in terms of keeping people safe, it would be irresponsible of us to give people the benefit of doubt and hope they've learned their lesson. We would almost certainly be wrong.
But ultimately, Ashton should know that already. I will grant him that the statements written by him and Mila were given months before all the details were made public.
I think this is the most likely factor in why both Kutcher and Kunis wrote statements. They knew a friend was in court (who probably told them it was all crap and that they were innocent) and that their friend would benefit from a reference from someone well known who could vouch for their good character. So they did it to help a friend who they likely believed would be cleared of wrongdoing.
Then all the details came out and it became clear that he was probably guilty and statements were already sent. They could have requested them back but probably thought it wouldn't make a difference in the result of the case and either didn't worry about it for that reason or just tried to rationalize that they were standing by a friend because of the good old days when he wasn't doing terrible things.
Yeah I think my final point about Ashton should've been more prominent - he's just a TV star, he shouldn't be our moral compass.
It's great he's contributing to this cause but his efforts are a tiny candle when compared to the efforts of the people his money is going to. He sits on a stage, looks handsome, and talks into a microphone about how you shouldn't kidnap people and sell them into sexual slavery. He's not holding anyone's hair back while they vomit.
I'm not reading this whole novel, but
Rape isn't "one bad decision," it's a continuous string of bad decisions the entire time it's happening. Two rapes is certainly not "one bad decision." Dude raped two women. That's a pattern. He's a serial rapist. He needs to die in prison before he inevitably rapes again.
Thanks.
My example was murder, which can be one bad decision. I talked about serial crimes and remorse and all that later - but none of my post was about forgiveness, it was about, specifically, why Ashton Kutcher might say what he did about Masterson.
What interests me about the topic, and why I made that post, is the interplay between redemption (eg Scrooge) and ... whatever redemption's opposite is (eg Masterson).
"Well damn, Jackie, I can't control the rapin'"
I mean I personally feel most people like to think they'd immediately disown any friends that do stuff like this but I'd bet in reality a lot of people would do the same thing.
It's a lot easier to pass judgment when you're not emotionally involved. Same reason why people stay in abusive relationships. On the outside it's cut and dry but sadly emotions are a thing.
I'm not defending Masterson nor am I saying Kutcher isn't in the wrong by defending him. I'm just trying to bring to light that humans are emotional before they're logical.
Hell no, the dude wrote a letter to a judge saying "I know he raped two women, but cmon dude be cool." Fuck that guy, fuck his wife, and fuck everyone else who asked the judge for leniency.
Like I said I agree.
I just feel like a lot more people would resort to something like that if it was more personal.
Basically people are hypocrites and always say they'd do the right thing until they're in that circumstance and then all of a sudden it's not such an easy decision
Idunno. There's a difference between not doing the right thing, and going out of your way to do the wrong thing. I can understand someone not wanting to provide evidence against their friend in court, but I cannot fathom writing a letter requesting leniency for my friend after I find out he raped two women. If he continued to question whether his friend actually committed those crimes, I could maybe understand it, but he acknowledged Masterson's guilt. I would be too upset with him to do that, especially if I were involved with an organization that exists to bring an end to sexual violence.
And you're going to say "that's easy to say until you're in that situation," but it would also be easy to do if I were in that situation. I've dropped long-time friends for less. I would be a wholly different person if I were capable of requesting leniency for a rapist.
And hey good on you. I'm glad you have the resolve and self respect to push those people out of your life. I'm that type of person myself. I've just seen the opposite happen so many times that I'm surprised people are still surprised when it happens
"Dude, where's my moral center?"
Yeah. He's had to look at reams of CASM as part of this for some reason. He also opposed encryption. He does these things for the children so that may might... Get unmolested? I don't know. He's kind of fucked.
If using a charity is something Ashton thinks you can use as a get out of jail free card, then what fucking shit does he do, he's been helping with that anti sex trafficking thing, that's a big ol get out of jail free card in Ashton's mind.
Well, what is Ashton hiding?
I really don't like how much hate they got for this
If someone you love does something horrible, the emotions don't just disappear. It's like grief, people have to work through it, and it happens in different ways.
For them, their long time friend has done something to (for them) hypothetical victims. They asked for leniency in a non-public way...
It's an extremely human thing to do. It doesn't live up to their ideals, but it doesn't invalidate everything they've done
A person's deeds are always relevant to sentencing.
If it was relevant to guilt, that would be obviously problematic. If it's relevant to 25 years instead of 30, that's fine.
He was a suspect in a murder. His girlfriend was murdered, he saw a red pool in the window and somehow thought it was wine and went home.
Makes me think of a dark night in 2001…. 🤔