So the new info is that the tapes have been allegedly edited
If it is true all established context is out the window.
Um, yeah. The "new info" comes from Gibson's lawyers. You know, the ones whose job it is to get his ass acquitted on domestic-violence charges. This is what lawyers call "poisoning the well".
As an example of what this means: Let's say you're defending a guy on a murder charge and you want to persuade the jury that, despite all the evidence, it wasn't your guy, it was a mysterious Satanic cult that actually killed his estranged wife and then vanished. If you bring this up in front of a jury for the first time they're going to think you're an idiot - so you want to get the Satanic cult story out into the media right away. That way, when you actually get to trial and present your cult story, the jurors have already heard this extensively and think "Oh yeah, I think I heard something about that in TV." It's more credible.
Is it possible that the whole tape is a fake? Sure, anything's possible (that's another lawyer saying). And I wouldn't be deeply shocked if she tried to use the tapes to pry a big chunk of cash out of him. But, again, it's amazing how many people are scrambling to justify Gibson's behavior with Blame the Bitches.
I am not sure if you think I am justifying his behavior but I am not. I am just saying that if its true then the context has changed. Pick one and see what I mean.
Situation A:
Girl: You took away all my credit cards. That was mean!
Guy: You deserved it! And I will do it again!
Situation B:
Girl: How could you hit a woman holding your child?
Guy: You deserved it! And I will do it again!
The dude is nuts, no doubt about it. I believe everyone has established that. That same article I linked named an expert that has lent some credence to the accusations of editing so its not just lawyers throwing out possibilities.
Is this an expert witness that Gibson's lawyers have hired? Because I just googled the guy and that's what he does.
And it doesn't seem to me he has provided any evidence the tapes were edited, nor does he even point out where. "Expert" doesn't mean you get to say what happened and not have to back it up.
There was another guy, Arlo West I believe that has said the same thing. But your right, these guys work for private firms. And no one is saying in what way they were edited. If anyone was paid to find this out though I would think they would leave the evidence confidential as its obvious these will play a part in civil, if not criminal, court.
I lean towards paid advocates, but who knows. Its a possibility.
I am starting to wonder how many of these things there are. It seems like its becoming a daily 9am scheduled program with these things.
So the new info is that the tapes have been allegedly edited
If it is true all established context is out the window.
Um, yeah. The "new info" comes from Gibson's lawyers. You know, the ones whose job it is to get his ass acquitted on domestic-violence charges. This is what lawyers call "poisoning the well".
As an example of what this means: Let's say you're defending a guy on a murder charge and you want to persuade the jury that, despite all the evidence, it wasn't your guy, it was a mysterious Satanic cult that actually killed his estranged wife and then vanished. If you bring this up in front of a jury for the first time they're going to think you're an idiot - so you want to get the Satanic cult story out into the media right away. That way, when you actually get to trial and present your cult story, the jurors have already heard this extensively and think "Oh yeah, I think I heard something about that in TV." It's more credible.
Is it possible that the whole tape is a fake? Sure, anything's possible (that's another lawyer saying). And I wouldn't be deeply shocked if she tried to use the tapes to pry a big chunk of cash out of him. But, again, it's amazing how many people are scrambling to justify Gibson's behavior with Blame the Bitches.
I am not sure if you think I am justifying his behavior but I am not. I am just saying that if its true then the context has changed. Pick one and see what I mean.
Situation A:
Girl: You took away all my credit cards. That was mean!
Guy: You deserved it! And I will do it again!
Situation B:
Girl: How could you hit a woman holding your child?
Guy: You deserved it! And I will do it again!
The dude is nuts, no doubt about it. I believe everyone has established that. That same article I linked named an expert that has lent some credence to the accusations of editing so its not just lawyers throwing out possibilities.
Maybe this is showing MY massive cynicism, but I don't think there's anyone in this thread that isn't aware that the tapes were "edited." I very much doubt that any one of these five tapes shows an entire conversation between Mel and Oksana. Almost definitely, she (or someone) cut the beginnings and ends off to get to the good parts. It's completely true and legal to say that the tapes were edited, but that doesn't mean the middles were edited, or that they were edited to replace things she said, or to move things out of order. And you don't need a forensic expert to tell you that, but of course that gives a nice ring of credibility to the doubt they are trying to sew.
But who knows? The point remains the same: Without evidence, there is nothing, and all speculation as to the specifics of what Oksana may have done are pure fantasy. The non-specific testimony of a forensic expert as related by Mel Gibson's lawyers isn't evidence.
Also, you didn't initally say that the context "changed," you said that the context "went out the window."
Even if the tape was heavily edited to replace things Oksana said in the conversation or to rearrange the order of words and phrases Mel said (or both), we can be sure -- beyond any reasonable doubt -- of certain words and phrases he said. So your situation A and situation B is only a part of this. Let me offer two other situations that arose in the tapes, in which what Oksana did or said is irrelevant:
Real Situation (Situation A):
Oksana: "We never talked about this. I never lied to you."
Mel: "I hope you get raped by a pack of n-words!"
Fantasy Situation (er, I mean Situation :
Oksana: "I will slap everyone in the world with my big beautiful titties and then I'm going to rape your wallet for 10 million dollars you dumb motherfucking piece of fuckshit dingleberry hobgoblin!!!!!!"
Mel: "I hope you get raped by a pack of n-words!"
So, see, I don't think that her actions much matter. Even if she said stuff that was twice as bad as Mel (refer to Fantasy Situation B above), we still have these terrible things that Mel absolutely, without a doubt said. There is no order in which he could have said those things, no comment he could have followed from, that would excuse any of those comments. And there are dozens spread across the tapes.
Ah, I agree. My wording was a bit strong on the "out the window" thing. I was mainly concerned with the beating thing. Like I said, there is no doubt the guy is a hot-headed bigot ( and worse but my vocabulary escapes me at present ).
And again, I am not trying to excuse his behavior in any way. Just adding information to the pool of discussion.
There was nothing hypothetical about this question. In any criminal situation, should the circumstances under which the crime was committed not be investigated? Regardless of gender, regardless of socio-economic status--is it appropriate for an alleged victim to get a pass because they claim or because there has been a crime committed against them?
Has anyone argued that the police should not continue to investigate this crime, or should not review the tapes? Has anyone said that they would normally agree a full investigation should occur, but because Gibson is a rich white guy that should be thrown out the window? Why do you conflate a full investigation with "giving credence to wild-ass guesses based on nothing more than speculation"?
Why do you throw out "Blame the Bitches" as the explanation for someone's wanting to ensure that the investigation is unbiased?
Where has anyone said "she deserved being hit" or "she deserved to be verbally abused?" Where has anyone said "she definitely is only doing this for the money" or "Mel is not responsible for his actions because she provoked him?"
Asking for a full investigation means not discounting possiblities unless they can be proven untrue.
There was nothing hypothetical about this question. In any criminal situation, should the circumstances under which the crime was committed not be investigated? Regardless of gender, regardless of socio-economic status--is it appropriate for an alleged victim to get a pass because they claim or because there has been a crime committed against them?
Has anyone argued that the police should not continue to investigate this crime, or should not review the tapes? Has anyone said that they would normally agree a full investigation should occur, but because Gibson is a rich white guy that should be thrown out the window? Why do you conflate a full investigation with "giving credence to wild-ass guesses based on nothing more than speculation"?
Why do you throw out "Blame the Bitches" as the explanation for someone's wanting to ensure that the investigation is unbiased?
Where has anyone said "she deserved being hit" or "she deserved to be verbally abused?" Where has anyone said "she definitely is only doing this for the money" or "Mel is not responsible for his actions because she provoked him?"
Asking for a full investigation means not discounting possiblities unless they can be proven untrue.
Asking for a full, unbiased investigation? Nothing wrong with that.
Suggesting that Oksana likely manipulated Mel without any evidence or reasonable deductive logic to suggest she did? Misogynist fantasy.
Is anyone trying to excuse Mel Gibson's comments here? It seems to me that most of the fighting going on in this thread is about how intrinsically bad Mel Gibson is for saying those things. It should be noted that the only person he actually impacted here is Oksana. My personal view is that it is really hard to tell from a situation like this because there is so much we don't know. That said, I think anytime someone threatens a person it is good that it gets uncovered. That's what surprises me about the the rage against Mel. People seem more angry that he used bad language than he threatened to kill a person. The thing that makes domestic violence worse than your basic run of the mill violence isn't the genders involved. It is the secrecy. The fact that people get away with it. This is why I'm in favor of tapes like this and feel no sympathy for Gibson. On the other hand, yelling c**t and n**r a bunch is just what rich white men do when they don't think anyone is listening.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
So, even if these were edited, in what context is screaming "n***ers" in a rage okay? 'Cause, he still had to say every word on those tapes to piece them all together.
More likely, they're both fucking rich, and she just bought some nice equipment when she decided to record him being abusive.
I've read that the fact that it was Gibson screaming is now in doubt.
There's no way. If it wasn't Mel, the first thing he or his people would have said is, "Wait, that's someone else entirely. What the hell?"
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
On the other hand, yelling c**t and n**r a bunch is just what rich white men do when they don't think anyone is listening.
umm
seriously?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Suggesting that Oksana likely manipulated Mel without any evidence or reasonable deductive logic to suggest she did? Misogynist fantasy.
Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
I can come up with some pretty plausible scenarios where she manipulated Mel. Have you never watched a Film Noir? Cherche la femme. He is rich. She is ambitious. It doesn't take a delusional misogynist to come up with some scenarios where she is the bad guy.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
So the new info is that the tapes have been allegedly edited
If it is true all established context is out the window.
Um, yeah. The "new info" comes from Gibson's lawyers. You know, the ones whose job it is to get his ass acquitted on domestic-violence charges. This is what lawyers call "poisoning the well".
As an example of what this means: Let's say you're defending a guy on a murder charge and you want to persuade the jury that, despite all the evidence, it wasn't your guy, it was a mysterious Satanic cult that actually killed his estranged wife and then vanished. If you bring this up in front of a jury for the first time they're going to think you're an idiot - so you want to get the Satanic cult story out into the media right away. That way, when you actually get to trial and present your cult story, the jurors have already heard this extensively and think "Oh yeah, I think I heard something about that in TV." It's more credible.
Is it possible that the whole tape is a fake? Sure, anything's possible (that's another lawyer saying). And I wouldn't be deeply shocked if she tried to use the tapes to pry a big chunk of cash out of him. But, again, it's amazing how many people are scrambling to justify Gibson's behavior with Blame the Bitches.
I am not sure if you think I am justifying his behavior but I am not. I am just saying that if its true then the context has changed. Pick one and see what I mean.
Situation A:
Girl: You took away all my credit cards. That was mean!
Guy: You deserved it! And I will do it again!
Situation B:
Girl: How could you hit a woman holding your child?
Guy: You deserved it! And I will do it again!
The dude is nuts, no doubt about it. I believe everyone has established that. That same article I linked named an expert that has lent some credence to the accusations of editing so its not just lawyers throwing out possibilities.
Maybe this is showing MY massive cynicism, but I don't think there's anyone in this thread that isn't aware that the tapes were "edited." I very much doubt that any one of these five tapes shows an entire conversation between Mel and Oksana. Almost definitely, she (or someone) cut the beginnings and ends off to get to the good parts. It's completely true and legal to say that the tapes were edited, but that doesn't mean the middles were edited, or that they were edited to replace things she said, or to move things out of order. And you don't need a forensic expert to tell you that, but of course that gives a nice ring of credibility to the doubt they are trying to sew.
But who knows? The point remains the same: Without evidence, there is nothing, and all speculation as to the specifics of what Oksana may have done are pure fantasy. The non-specific testimony of a forensic expert as related by Mel Gibson's lawyers isn't evidence.
Also, you didn't initally say that the context "changed," you said that the context "went out the window."
Even if the tape was heavily edited to replace things Oksana said in the conversation or to rearrange the order of words and phrases Mel said (or both), we can be sure -- beyond any reasonable doubt -- of certain words and phrases he said. So your situation A and situation B is only a part of this. Let me offer two other situations that arose in the tapes, in which what Oksana did or said is irrelevant:
Real Situation (Situation A):
Oksana: "We never talked about this. I never lied to you."
Mel: "I hope you get raped by a pack of n-words!"
Fantasy Situation (er, I mean Situation :
Oksana: "I will slap everyone in the world with my big beautiful titties and then I'm going to rape your wallet for 10 million dollars you dumb motherfucking piece of fuckshit dingleberry hobgoblin!!!!!!"
Mel: "I hope you get raped by a pack of n-words!"
So, see, I don't think that her actions much matter. Even if she said stuff that was twice as bad as Mel (refer to Fantasy Situation B above), we still have these terrible things that Mel absolutely, without a doubt said. There is no order in which he could have said those things, no comment he could have followed from, that would excuse any of those comments. And there are dozens spread across the tapes.
That article someone listed earlier sad something about a site that's been releasing tapes of a man who sounds exactly like Gibson spewing fake rants so I'm not even sure about that anymore.
In any case this whole thing is just getting incredibly stupid.
There was nothing hypothetical about this question. In any criminal situation, should the circumstances under which the crime was committed not be investigated? Regardless of gender, regardless of socio-economic status--is it appropriate for an alleged victim to get a pass because they claim or because there has been a crime committed against them?
Has anyone argued that the police should not continue to investigate this crime, or should not review the tapes? Has anyone said that they would normally agree a full investigation should occur, but because Gibson is a rich white guy that should be thrown out the window? Why do you conflate a full investigation with "giving credence to wild-ass guesses based on nothing more than speculation"?
Why do you throw out "Blame the Bitches" as the explanation for someone's wanting to ensure that the investigation is unbiased?
Where has anyone said "she deserved being hit" or "she deserved to be verbally abused?" Where has anyone said "she definitely is only doing this for the money" or "Mel is not responsible for his actions because she provoked him?"
Asking for a full investigation means not discounting possiblities unless they can be proven untrue.
Asking for a full, unbiased investigation? Nothing wrong with that.
Suggesting that Oksana likely manipulated Mel without any evidence or reasonable deductive logic to suggest she did? Misogynist fantasy.
Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
Oh, that's an old rhetorical trick. When your position is weak, retreat into platitudes that nobody can disagree with unless they want to sound like an idiot. Then you pretend that agreeing with the larger principle (e.g., police should always fully investigate a crime) is proof of your original, more limited position (e.g. because the police have not announced they have 100% ruled out that Oksana totally faked this shit, it's POSSIBLE and we should 'go out on a limb' and consider that could be true).
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Is anyone trying to excuse Mel Gibson's comments here? It seems to me that most of the fighting going on in this thread is about how intrinsically bad Mel Gibson is for saying those things. It should be noted that the only person he actually impacted here is Oksana.
Well, and his kid. You know, the one she was holding when he punched her in the face?
And I don't know, other than "excuse" what would you consider the appropriate term for "trying to say it wasn't totally his fault because the female provoked him", or "inventing scenarios out of whole cloth where the whole thing was faked"?
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Is anyone trying to excuse Mel Gibson's comments here? It seems to me that most of the fighting going on in this thread is about how intrinsically bad Mel Gibson is for saying those things. It should be noted that the only person he actually impacted here is Oksana. My personal view is that it is really hard to tell from a situation like this because there is so much we don't know. That said, I think anytime someone threatens a person it is good that it gets uncovered. That's what surprises me about the the rage against Mel. People seem more angry that he used bad language than he threatened to kill a person. The thing that makes domestic violence worse than your basic run of the mill violence isn't the genders involved. It is the secrecy. The fact that people get away with it. This is why I'm in favor of tapes like this and feel no sympathy for Gibson. On the other hand, yelling c**t and n**r a bunch is just what rich white men do when they don't think anyone is listening.
This isn't an accurate appraisal of the thread. Very few people seem concerned about racial slurs, and even if that's all anyone was talking about, so what? That's still wrong. And your suggestion that "rich white men" just go around yelling c-word and n-word "when they don't think anyone is listening" is both absurd and offensive. It's just not true. Some do, sure, but it's not a common thing. And even if it was, it would still be wrong.
But anyway, that doesn't seem to be the main thrust of the thread. My participation, at least, is in trying to figure out why people are assuming Oksana is being manipulative without evidence to suggest she is. It seems a lot of people are actually talking about the abuse angle. More than the racial slur angle. So uh I don't get your post at all.
On the other hand, yelling c**t and n**r a bunch is just what rich white men do when they don't think anyone is listening.
umm
seriously?
That was supposed to be a joke but it didn't come off. What I should have said is that I've heard a lot of c**t and n**r in my life from people who I was surprised to hear it from but who were otherwise upstanding citizens as far as I could tell. Perhaps this has desensitized me, but threats >>>>> bad words in my book.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Suggesting that Oksana likely manipulated Mel without any evidence or reasonable deductive logic to suggest she did? Misogynist fantasy.
Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
I can come up with some pretty plausible scenarios where she manipulated Mel. Have you never watched a Film Noir? Cherche la femme. He is rich. She is ambitious. It doesn't take a delusional misogynist to come up with some scenarios where she is the bad guy.
Have I watched movies before? Yes, I have.
Now please do a thread search for the keyword "fantasy" and user name "Drez" and please read all or some of those posts for an appropriate response to why I think bringing film noir into this discussion is inappropriate.
And your suggestion that "rich white men" just go around yelling c-word and n-word "when they don't think anyone is listening" is both absurd and offensive. It's just not true. Some do, sure, but it's not a common thing. And even if it was, it would still be wrong.
Of course that's what rich white men do. Just like poor black men go around stealing TVs when they think nobody's watching.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
And your suggestion that "rich white men" just go around yelling c-word and n-word "when they don't think anyone is listening" is both absurd and offensive. It's just not true. Some do, sure, but it's not a common thing. And even if it was, it would still be wrong.
Of course that's what rich white men do. Just like poor black men go around stealing TVs when they think nobody's watching.
Watching them or the TV?
hyuk, hyuk
edit: Not even a good joke. What is wrong with me.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
On the other hand, yelling c**t and n**r a bunch is just what rich white men do when they don't think anyone is listening.
umm
seriously?
That was supposed to be a joke but it didn't come off. What I should have said is that I've heard a lot of c**t and n**r in my life from people who I was surprised to hear it from but who were otherwise upstanding citizens as far as I could tell. Perhaps this has desensitized me, but threats >>>>> bad words in my book.
This thread bores me now...where can I listen to tape 5?
Also, im awaiting the mel-Oksana (or just Oksana) sex tape that will likely follow this.
Regardless of Mel, it is my opinion that this lady probably will not like when her 5 minutes of fame vanishes, and will show me her boobies to get 5 more minutes (though in my case, itll likely be like 2 minutes and 16 seconds)
So, even if these were edited, in what context is screaming "n***ers" in a rage okay? 'Cause, he still had to say every word on those tapes to piece them all together.
More likely, they're both fucking rich, and she just bought some nice equipment when she decided to record him being abusive.
I've read that the fact that it was Gibson screaming is now in doubt.
There's no way. If it wasn't Mel, the first thing he or his people would have said is, "Wait, that's someone else entirely. What the hell?"
I haven't exactly been reading voraciously about this issue, but I did read one article that said that this is what he and his people were saying. I can't seem to find it now, but apparently it was obviously wrong.
So, even if these were edited, in what context is screaming "n***ers" in a rage okay? 'Cause, he still had to say every word on those tapes to piece them all together.
More likely, they're both fucking rich, and she just bought some nice equipment when she decided to record him being abusive.
I've read that the fact that it was Gibson screaming is now in doubt.
There's no way. If it wasn't Mel, the first thing he or his people would have said is, "Wait, that's someone else entirely. What the hell?"
I haven't exactly been reading voraciously about this issue, but I did read one article that said that this is what he and his people were saying. I can't seem to find it now, but apparently it was obviously wrong.
Pretty sure my first reaction to hearing myself on a taped phone call would be "who the hell is that?" regardless of whether it was me or someone who sounded just like me. What we think we sound like is usually very different from what we actually sound like.
Suggesting that Oksana likely manipulated Mel without any evidence or reasonable deductive logic to suggest she did? Misogynist fantasy.
Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
I can come up with some pretty plausible scenarios where she manipulated Mel. Have you never watched a Film Noir? Cherche la femme. He is rich. She is ambitious. It doesn't take a delusional misogynist to come up with some scenarios where she is the bad guy.
Have I watched movies before? Yes, I have.
Now please do a thread search for the keyword "fantasy" and user name "Drez" and please read all or some of those posts for an appropriate response to why I think bringing film noir into this discussion is inappropriate.
A potential motive =/= fantasy.
Your misogynist fantasy isn't difficult to comprehend because it is wrong. The argument has nothing to do with gender. Nothing. Period. At all. It has to do with motive primarily, as well as reasonable doubt and criminal investigation.
So, even if these were edited, in what context is screaming "n***ers" in a rage okay? 'Cause, he still had to say every word on those tapes to piece them all together.
More likely, they're both fucking rich, and she just bought some nice equipment when she decided to record him being abusive.
I've read that the fact that it was Gibson screaming is now in doubt.
There's no way. If it wasn't Mel, the first thing he or his people would have said is, "Wait, that's someone else entirely. What the hell?"
I haven't exactly been reading voraciously about this issue, but I did read one article that said that this is what he and his people were saying. I can't seem to find it now, but apparently it was obviously wrong.
Pretty sure my first reaction to hearing myself on a taped phone call would be "who the hell is that?" regardless of whether it was me or someone who sounded just like me. What we think we sound like is usually very different from what we actually sound like.
Yes, but we aren't famous actors with careers spanning three decades who have probably heard recordings of their voices thousands of times.
Regardless, unless he was blacked out at the time, he would recognize the things being said as having come from his dumb-ass mouth.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Suggesting that Oksana likely manipulated Mel without any evidence or reasonable deductive logic to suggest she did? Misogynist fantasy.
Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
I can come up with some pretty plausible scenarios where she manipulated Mel. Have you never watched a Film Noir? Cherche la femme. He is rich. She is ambitious. It doesn't take a delusional misogynist to come up with some scenarios where she is the bad guy.
Have I watched movies before? Yes, I have.
Now please do a thread search for the keyword "fantasy" and user name "Drez" and please read all or some of those posts for an appropriate response to why I think bringing film noir into this discussion is inappropriate.
A potential motive =/= fantasy.
Your misogynist fantasy isn't difficult to comprehend because it is wrong. The argument has nothing to do with gender. Nothing. Period. At all. It has to do with motive primarily, as well as reasonable doubt and criminal investigation.
A belief that she actually manipulated Mel based on a "potential motive" and no evidence = fantasy. You might as well argue that water isn't wet.
And yes, it has everything to do with gender. I have more evidence from your posts in this thread alone to suggest you are a misogynist than the entire world has that Oksana did something wrong in this situation.
Regardless of Mel, it is my opinion that this lady probably will not like when her 5 minutes of fame vanishes, and will show me her boobies to get 5 more minutes (though in my case, itll likely be like 2 minutes and 16 seconds)
You are aware that she was famous before she met Mel Gibson, right? She's an acclaimed pianist and singer-songwriter. Her break came in 2006 via Josh Groban when one of her songs was featured on his album, not Mel Gibson in 2010 when he shouted deranged things at her on the phone.
A belief that she actually manipulated Mel based on a "potential motive" and no evidence = fantasy. You might as well argue that water isn't wet.
Let me break this down:
1) "A belief that she actually manipulated Mel..."
I haven't said I believe she did. I said she may have and that bears investigating. There is a difference. This is not misogyny, this is wanting to ensure that reasonable investigation is undertaken.
2) "...'a potential motive' and no evidence = fantasy."
It's a good thing motives are never used to investigate criminal activity, then. We wouldn't want law enforcement running around pursuing a bunch of fantasies, would we? Clearly, each and every investigation starts with obvious evidence, so who needs motives?
3) "You might as well argue that water isn't wet."
I'm having a really difficult time politely addressing this comment. It is incorrect.
And yes, it has everything to do with gender. I have more evidence from your posts in this thread alone to suggest you are a misogynist than the entire world has that Oksana did something wrong in this situation.
Please. Enlighten me--show me where I have proven myself to be a card-carrying misogynist. I will be happen to address each and every example you can come up with.
This argument is not about misogyny, it is about legality and morality.
A belief that she actually manipulated Mel based on a "potential motive" and no evidence = fantasy. You might as well argue that water isn't wet.
Let me break this down:
1) "A belief that she actually manipulated Mel..."
I haven't said I believe she did. I said she may have and that bears investigating. There is a difference. This is not misogyny, this is wanting to ensure that reasonable investigation is undertaken.
2) "...'a potential motive' and no evidence = fantasy."
It's a good thing motives are never used to investigate criminal activity, then. We wouldn't want law enforcement running around pursuing a bunch of fantasies, would we? Clearly, each and every investigation starts with obvious evidence, so who needs motives?
3) "You might as well argue that water isn't wet."
I'm having a really difficult time politely addressing this comment. It is incorrect.
And yes, it has everything to do with gender. I have more evidence from your posts in this thread alone to suggest you are a misogynist than the entire world has that Oksana did something wrong in this situation.
Please. Enlighten me--show me where I have proven myself to be a card-carrying misogynist. I will be happen to address each and every example you can come up with.
This argument is not about misogyny, it is about legality and morality.
I never said I could prove you are a misogynist, I said there is supporting evidence. You seem to have problems understanding the difference between fantasy, speculation, possibility, supporting evidence, and proven, but they are all different things.
Anyway, unless you are Mel Gibson, this thread isn't about you and I really don't feel like talking about you anymore. The point I was trying to make was that talking about potential motivations any given person may have in any given situation is one thing. However some people in this thread - not necessarily you - have said they they don't doubt Oksana was/is being manipulative. And these persons putting forth these non-doubts are either terribly cynical or misogynistic.
If you don't understand how or why, I frankly don't care anymore. This argument is a waste of time.
So far I've listened to every one of the Mel rants, with each of them being worse than the last. There are rumors going around that the tapes are edited, doctored, or what have you, but here's the thing: Even if he was baited into the arguments, he still said all those things.
It's really crazy to hear Mel, let alone anyone say things like this to another person. I just can't understand this kind of anger. I'd really like to hear some kind of legit excuse from the Mel camp - like he's on meds that were making him psychotic or something.
This is a definite career killer with how widely publicized it has been, and how it's just a constant torrent of bile spewing from his maw as opposed to an isolated incident here or there like it has been in the past with his comments. Unless of course, the two publicly admitted that they have some sort of crazy verbal abuse sex fetish and that this is essentially foreplay to them and was never meant to be leaked to the public. Yes, a stretch I know but seriously I can't think of any other logical argument other than Mel's just fucking crazy.
Edit: Actually I did run into a guy who had a similar explosion of anger directed at a friend of mine - and unfortunately it was based in his religious beliefs that she was a pagan and that she was hellbound and where she lived was the Valley of the Bones, etc.
I have more evidence from your posts in this thread alone to suggest you are a misogynist than the entire world has that Oksana did something wrong in this situation.
I never said I could prove you are a misogynist, I said there is supporting evidence. You seem to have problems understanding the difference between fantasy, speculation, possibility, supporting evidence, and proven, but they are all different things.
Anyway, unless you are Mel Gibson, this thread isn't about you and I really don't feel like talking about you anymore. The point I was trying to make was that talking about potential motivations any given person may have in any given situation is one thing. However some people in this thread - not necessarily you - have said they they don't doubt Oksana was/is being manipulative. And these persons putting forth these non-doubts are either terribly cynical or misogynistic.
If you don't understand how or why, I frankly don't care anymore. This argument is a waste of time.
You don't get to make claims like this and walk away in the right. Evidence, show it. Also, there's a big difference between being cynical and being misogynistic. For that matter, there's a big difference between being cynical and/or misogynistic and being skeptical, and also between wanting a crime properly investigated.
If you want to run your mouth, you get to show your cards too.
Edit: Actually I did run into a guy who had a similar explosion of anger directed at a friend of mine - and unfortunately it was based in his religious beliefs that she was a pagan and that she was hellbound and where she lived was the Valley of the Bones, etc.
Sure it wasn't Mel in disguise? Don't think he has much love for pagans either.
You don't get to make claims like this and walk away in the right. Evidence, show it. Also, there's a big difference between being cynical and being misogynistic. For that matter, there's a big difference between being cynical and/or misogynistic and being skeptical, and also between wanting a crime properly investigated.
"Let's withhold judgment until we hear all the facts from the police investigation" = wanting a crime properly investigated.
"I don't assume it's true just because some celebrity site reported it" = skeptical.
"She probably is going to use these tapes to squeeze money out of him" = cynical.
"He admitted to punching her in the mouth and hopes she gets gang-raped? Well, she probably drove him to say those things, even assuming she didn't fake the tapes. I mean, I know women like that" = misogynist and/or huge Mel Gibson fan.
Imagine if this was reversed - if a very famous Hollywood actress with a history of mouth-crazy was taped by her attractive, not-as-famous younger boyfriend admitting to punching him in the face while he held their child, screaming racial epithets, hoped he got gang-raped by "n*ggers", and threatened to kill him and get away with it. Would anyone be posting about hoping to see him in a sex tape? Or talking about how they know couples where the guy provokes the woman into beating on him? Or speculating that he secretly edited the tapes?
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I have more evidence from your posts in this thread alone to suggest you are a misogynist than the entire world has that Oksana did something wrong in this situation.
I never said I could prove you are a misogynist, I said there is supporting evidence. You seem to have problems understanding the difference between fantasy, speculation, possibility, supporting evidence, and proven, but they are all different things.
Anyway, unless you are Mel Gibson, this thread isn't about you and I really don't feel like talking about you anymore. The point I was trying to make was that talking about potential motivations any given person may have in any given situation is one thing. However some people in this thread - not necessarily you - have said they they don't doubt Oksana was/is being manipulative. And these persons putting forth these non-doubts are either terribly cynical or misogynistic.
If you don't understand how or why, I frankly don't care anymore. This argument is a waste of time.
You don't get to make claims like this and walk away in the right.
First off, yes I do. I'm not your puppet. I am under no obligation of any kind to sit here and respond to you just because that's what you think you are entitled to from me.
Second, I'm not your father or your teacher. I'm not going to hold your hand and teach you how to get from point A to point B in a simple logic system. I've already defined misogyny and I've already given numerous examples and explanations as to why certain arguments hearken back to and suggest misogyny. In short, I've already supplied my supporting evidence.
If you don't think you're a misogynist or you think I'm a silly goose, as you've said in numerous posts, then what I've said shouldn't bother you. If it does bother you, you can just sit there and ponder why. I've made my position abundantly clear whether you comprehended it or not.
Also, there's a big difference between being cynical and being misogynistic.
A distinction I admitted to either before or just after you started replying to me in the first place. Cynicism to this degree isn't really much better than misogyny, so I'm not sure why the distinction matters that much to you.
For that matter, there's a big difference between being cynical and/or misogynistic and being skeptical, and also between wanting a crime properly investigated.
Yes, I am aware of those distinctions. I'm glad you seem to comprehend that there are lexical differences between these words, but you don't seem able to apply those distinctions to the various comments put forth by various people in this thread.
If you want to run your mouth, you get to show your cards too.
Again, I am not responsible for your inflated sense of entitlement. I suggest you get used to not having people jump through hoops just because you say so. It's pretty arrogant to sit there and tell someone "no, you're going to answer me because I say so," especially twice in one post.
And I say again that some people in this thread have made statements that are either the product of misogyny or are cynical to an indefensible degree. "I'm going to go out on a limb and say that she's probably manipulating..." is either excessively cynical or misogynist. Whichever drink you choose is still poison. I know YOU didn't make that comment. Some other guy did. But I recall you responding to me, earlier, when I was responding to him about that kind of malarkey. So let me be clear: If you believe there is nothing wrong with that suggestion, then you are likely as much of a misogynist as he is. If you merely misinterpreted my comments that were directed at him as being directed at you, then that is your own fault.
Posts
I am not sure if you think I am justifying his behavior but I am not. I am just saying that if its true then the context has changed. Pick one and see what I mean.
Situation A:
Girl: You took away all my credit cards. That was mean!
Guy: You deserved it! And I will do it again!
Situation B:
Girl: How could you hit a woman holding your child?
Guy: You deserved it! And I will do it again!
The dude is nuts, no doubt about it. I believe everyone has established that. That same article I linked named an expert that has lent some credence to the accusations of editing so its not just lawyers throwing out possibilities.
And it doesn't seem to me he has provided any evidence the tapes were edited, nor does he even point out where. "Expert" doesn't mean you get to say what happened and not have to back it up.
I lean towards paid advocates, but who knows. Its a possibility.
I am starting to wonder how many of these things there are. It seems like its becoming a daily 9am scheduled program with these things.
Maybe this is showing MY massive cynicism, but I don't think there's anyone in this thread that isn't aware that the tapes were "edited." I very much doubt that any one of these five tapes shows an entire conversation between Mel and Oksana. Almost definitely, she (or someone) cut the beginnings and ends off to get to the good parts. It's completely true and legal to say that the tapes were edited, but that doesn't mean the middles were edited, or that they were edited to replace things she said, or to move things out of order. And you don't need a forensic expert to tell you that, but of course that gives a nice ring of credibility to the doubt they are trying to sew.
But who knows? The point remains the same: Without evidence, there is nothing, and all speculation as to the specifics of what Oksana may have done are pure fantasy. The non-specific testimony of a forensic expert as related by Mel Gibson's lawyers isn't evidence.
Also, you didn't initally say that the context "changed," you said that the context "went out the window."
Even if the tape was heavily edited to replace things Oksana said in the conversation or to rearrange the order of words and phrases Mel said (or both), we can be sure -- beyond any reasonable doubt -- of certain words and phrases he said. So your situation A and situation B is only a part of this. Let me offer two other situations that arose in the tapes, in which what Oksana did or said is irrelevant:
Real Situation (Situation A):
Oksana: "We never talked about this. I never lied to you."
Mel: "I hope you get raped by a pack of n-words!"
Fantasy Situation (er, I mean Situation
Oksana: "I will slap everyone in the world with my big beautiful titties and then I'm going to rape your wallet for 10 million dollars you dumb motherfucking piece of fuckshit dingleberry hobgoblin!!!!!!"
Mel: "I hope you get raped by a pack of n-words!"
So, see, I don't think that her actions much matter. Even if she said stuff that was twice as bad as Mel (refer to Fantasy Situation B above), we still have these terrible things that Mel absolutely, without a doubt said. There is no order in which he could have said those things, no comment he could have followed from, that would excuse any of those comments. And there are dozens spread across the tapes.
And again, I am not trying to excuse his behavior in any way. Just adding information to the pool of discussion.
Why do you throw out "Blame the Bitches" as the explanation for someone's wanting to ensure that the investigation is unbiased?
Where has anyone said "she deserved being hit" or "she deserved to be verbally abused?" Where has anyone said "she definitely is only doing this for the money" or "Mel is not responsible for his actions because she provoked him?"
Asking for a full investigation means not discounting possiblities unless they can be proven untrue.
Where has anyone said that the investigation should be other than unbiased?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Asking for a full, unbiased investigation? Nothing wrong with that.
Suggesting that Oksana likely manipulated Mel without any evidence or reasonable deductive logic to suggest she did? Misogynist fantasy.
Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
There's no way. If it wasn't Mel, the first thing he or his people would have said is, "Wait, that's someone else entirely. What the hell?"
umm
seriously?
I can come up with some pretty plausible scenarios where she manipulated Mel. Have you never watched a Film Noir? Cherche la femme. He is rich. She is ambitious. It doesn't take a delusional misogynist to come up with some scenarios where she is the bad guy.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
That article someone listed earlier sad something about a site that's been releasing tapes of a man who sounds exactly like Gibson spewing fake rants so I'm not even sure about that anymore.
In any case this whole thing is just getting incredibly stupid.
Oh, that's an old rhetorical trick. When your position is weak, retreat into platitudes that nobody can disagree with unless they want to sound like an idiot. Then you pretend that agreeing with the larger principle (e.g., police should always fully investigate a crime) is proof of your original, more limited position (e.g. because the police have not announced they have 100% ruled out that Oksana totally faked this shit, it's POSSIBLE and we should 'go out on a limb' and consider that could be true).
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Well, and his kid. You know, the one she was holding when he punched her in the face?
And I don't know, other than "excuse" what would you consider the appropriate term for "trying to say it wasn't totally his fault because the female provoked him", or "inventing scenarios out of whole cloth where the whole thing was faked"?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
This isn't an accurate appraisal of the thread. Very few people seem concerned about racial slurs, and even if that's all anyone was talking about, so what? That's still wrong. And your suggestion that "rich white men" just go around yelling c-word and n-word "when they don't think anyone is listening" is both absurd and offensive. It's just not true. Some do, sure, but it's not a common thing. And even if it was, it would still be wrong.
But anyway, that doesn't seem to be the main thrust of the thread. My participation, at least, is in trying to figure out why people are assuming Oksana is being manipulative without evidence to suggest she is. It seems a lot of people are actually talking about the abuse angle. More than the racial slur angle. So uh I don't get your post at all.
That was supposed to be a joke but it didn't come off. What I should have said is that I've heard a lot of c**t and n**r in my life from people who I was surprised to hear it from but who were otherwise upstanding citizens as far as I could tell. Perhaps this has desensitized me, but threats >>>>> bad words in my book.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Have I watched movies before? Yes, I have.
Now please do a thread search for the keyword "fantasy" and user name "Drez" and please read all or some of those posts for an appropriate response to why I think bringing film noir into this discussion is inappropriate.
Of course that's what rich white men do. Just like poor black men go around stealing TVs when they think nobody's watching.
Watching them or the TV?
hyuk, hyuk
edit: Not even a good joke. What is wrong with me.
Amen to that
Also, im awaiting the mel-Oksana (or just Oksana) sex tape that will likely follow this.
Regardless of Mel, it is my opinion that this lady probably will not like when her 5 minutes of fame vanishes, and will show me her boobies to get 5 more minutes (though in my case, itll likely be like 2 minutes and 16 seconds)
I haven't exactly been reading voraciously about this issue, but I did read one article that said that this is what he and his people were saying. I can't seem to find it now, but apparently it was obviously wrong.
Pretty sure my first reaction to hearing myself on a taped phone call would be "who the hell is that?" regardless of whether it was me or someone who sounded just like me. What we think we sound like is usually very different from what we actually sound like.
A potential motive =/= fantasy.
Your misogynist fantasy isn't difficult to comprehend because it is wrong. The argument has nothing to do with gender. Nothing. Period. At all. It has to do with motive primarily, as well as reasonable doubt and criminal investigation.
Yes, but we aren't famous actors with careers spanning three decades who have probably heard recordings of their voices thousands of times.
Regardless, unless he was blacked out at the time, he would recognize the things being said as having come from his dumb-ass mouth.
A belief that she actually manipulated Mel based on a "potential motive" and no evidence = fantasy. You might as well argue that water isn't wet.
And yes, it has everything to do with gender. I have more evidence from your posts in this thread alone to suggest you are a misogynist than the entire world has that Oksana did something wrong in this situation.
You are aware that she was famous before she met Mel Gibson, right? She's an acclaimed pianist and singer-songwriter. Her break came in 2006 via Josh Groban when one of her songs was featured on his album, not Mel Gibson in 2010 when he shouted deranged things at her on the phone.
Let me break this down:
1) "A belief that she actually manipulated Mel..."
I haven't said I believe she did. I said she may have and that bears investigating. There is a difference. This is not misogyny, this is wanting to ensure that reasonable investigation is undertaken.
2) "...'a potential motive' and no evidence = fantasy."
It's a good thing motives are never used to investigate criminal activity, then. We wouldn't want law enforcement running around pursuing a bunch of fantasies, would we? Clearly, each and every investigation starts with obvious evidence, so who needs motives?
3) "You might as well argue that water isn't wet."
I'm having a really difficult time politely addressing this comment. It is incorrect.
Please. Enlighten me--show me where I have proven myself to be a card-carrying misogynist. I will be happen to address each and every example you can come up with.
This argument is not about misogyny, it is about legality and morality.
I never said I could prove you are a misogynist, I said there is supporting evidence. You seem to have problems understanding the difference between fantasy, speculation, possibility, supporting evidence, and proven, but they are all different things.
Anyway, unless you are Mel Gibson, this thread isn't about you and I really don't feel like talking about you anymore. The point I was trying to make was that talking about potential motivations any given person may have in any given situation is one thing. However some people in this thread - not necessarily you - have said they they don't doubt Oksana was/is being manipulative. And these persons putting forth these non-doubts are either terribly cynical or misogynistic.
If you don't understand how or why, I frankly don't care anymore. This argument is a waste of time.
It's really crazy to hear Mel, let alone anyone say things like this to another person. I just can't understand this kind of anger. I'd really like to hear some kind of legit excuse from the Mel camp - like he's on meds that were making him psychotic or something.
This is a definite career killer with how widely publicized it has been, and how it's just a constant torrent of bile spewing from his maw as opposed to an isolated incident here or there like it has been in the past with his comments. Unless of course, the two publicly admitted that they have some sort of crazy verbal abuse sex fetish and that this is essentially foreplay to them and was never meant to be leaked to the public. Yes, a stretch I know but seriously I can't think of any other logical argument other than Mel's just fucking crazy.
Edit: Actually I did run into a guy who had a similar explosion of anger directed at a friend of mine - and unfortunately it was based in his religious beliefs that she was a pagan and that she was hellbound and where she lived was the Valley of the Bones, etc.
You don't get to make claims like this and walk away in the right. Evidence, show it. Also, there's a big difference between being cynical and being misogynistic. For that matter, there's a big difference between being cynical and/or misogynistic and being skeptical, and also between wanting a crime properly investigated.
If you want to run your mouth, you get to show your cards too.
I say again--this argument is NOT about misogyny.
Sure it wasn't Mel in disguise? Don't think he has much love for pagans either.
"Let's withhold judgment until we hear all the facts from the police investigation" = wanting a crime properly investigated.
"I don't assume it's true just because some celebrity site reported it" = skeptical.
"She probably is going to use these tapes to squeeze money out of him" = cynical.
"He admitted to punching her in the mouth and hopes she gets gang-raped? Well, she probably drove him to say those things, even assuming she didn't fake the tapes. I mean, I know women like that" = misogynist and/or huge Mel Gibson fan.
Imagine if this was reversed - if a very famous Hollywood actress with a history of mouth-crazy was taped by her attractive, not-as-famous younger boyfriend admitting to punching him in the face while he held their child, screaming racial epithets, hoped he got gang-raped by "n*ggers", and threatened to kill him and get away with it. Would anyone be posting about hoping to see him in a sex tape? Or talking about how they know couples where the guy provokes the woman into beating on him? Or speculating that he secretly edited the tapes?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
First off, yes I do. I'm not your puppet. I am under no obligation of any kind to sit here and respond to you just because that's what you think you are entitled to from me.
Second, I'm not your father or your teacher. I'm not going to hold your hand and teach you how to get from point A to point B in a simple logic system. I've already defined misogyny and I've already given numerous examples and explanations as to why certain arguments hearken back to and suggest misogyny. In short, I've already supplied my supporting evidence.
If you don't think you're a misogynist or you think I'm a silly goose, as you've said in numerous posts, then what I've said shouldn't bother you. If it does bother you, you can just sit there and ponder why. I've made my position abundantly clear whether you comprehended it or not.
See above.
A distinction I admitted to either before or just after you started replying to me in the first place. Cynicism to this degree isn't really much better than misogyny, so I'm not sure why the distinction matters that much to you.
Yes, I am aware of those distinctions. I'm glad you seem to comprehend that there are lexical differences between these words, but you don't seem able to apply those distinctions to the various comments put forth by various people in this thread.
Again, I am not responsible for your inflated sense of entitlement. I suggest you get used to not having people jump through hoops just because you say so. It's pretty arrogant to sit there and tell someone "no, you're going to answer me because I say so," especially twice in one post.
And I say again that some people in this thread have made statements that are either the product of misogyny or are cynical to an indefensible degree. "I'm going to go out on a limb and say that she's probably manipulating..." is either excessively cynical or misogynist. Whichever drink you choose is still poison. I know YOU didn't make that comment. Some other guy did. But I recall you responding to me, earlier, when I was responding to him about that kind of malarkey. So let me be clear: If you believe there is nothing wrong with that suggestion, then you are likely as much of a misogynist as he is. If you merely misinterpreted my comments that were directed at him as being directed at you, then that is your own fault.
ABC news discusses.