"That 70s Show" Actor Danny Masterson Again Facing Rape Charges
 

Looks like something's finally gonna happen with this. Arrested this morning, out on bail. Looking at up to 45 years if convicted.

https://apnews.com/0094b7382d1bb5425...fY5rjFDrv8oZVQ

As stated in the article, these allegations are nearly two decades old and just NOW they're finally getting around to arresting and charging him. The ol' Scientology Cult must have a lot more pull than anyone realized, to keep things from moving forward for so long.

I've been seeing this all day, and I keep seeing people acting shocked by it. I heard this sh*t like, forever ago, and I assumed it was common knowledge by now.

Keep in mind, he's not alleged to be a "rapist" in the sense of "The girl maybe had too much to drink and then regretted it the next day and now she's making accusations" or anything. By all accounts he's a "Hold them down and choke them until they submit" kind of rapist. Gross. And there were originally more women coming forward but the statutes of limitations expired. Who knows how "prolific" this guy's been?

Between the fact that these allegations are not new, a LOT of details have already come out many years ago, and the fact that he's neither All That Rich nor All That Famous, I'm very much inclined to believe the allegations in this case. If any woman were trying to extort money from a celebrity, spending 20 years in pursuit of it while most people don't even know the guy's name seems like a really sh*tty way of going about it.

I'm curious to see if "That 70s Show" reruns are gonna be the next thing to be "cancelled". I kinda don't think so, and I'm not rooting for that, I'm just curious to see. There's so many arbitrary double-standards with these things, with who gets punished and how much, what gets "cancelled" and what gets left alone, that it becomes impossible to predict. In his case, he's been heavily protected by the Scientology Cult, which is why it's taken so long to even get this far with regard to charging him, but he's also pretty popular among certain circles in Hollywood, which may make it less desirable for them to "sacrifice" him outright. Point being, he's well-liked and has powerful friends. He was in deep with Weinstein, for example. Hmm....

We'll see where this goes. Too much smoke for far too long to be nonsense, in my opinion. To my understanding, this is another Cosby case, where "everybody" knew he was guilty for years and years but everyone just kinda shrugged because he was rich and friends with the right people.

I'm like F*ck This Guy, personally.

I never understood why these celebrities commit these horrible acts. What is driving them to rape? Could it be the alcohol? All this fame and fortune can corrupt one's mind. It makes it feel like your entitled.

They are either become crazy from power or they always has been rotten monsters, and fame just allowed them to act upon their desires.

I'm usually, in the name of social justice, very much inclined to stand by the women (or whoever the victims are in these cases)... In this case, yeah there has been a lot of super shady, sketchy $hit going down with scientologists and weird things for supposedly two decades now.

That said, there's something inside of me, for whatever reason I'm not sure, that wants to give Masterson the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe I'm not aware of all the facts and IF he is indeed an aggressive rapist of the "hold 'em down for my own sadistic purposes" variety, then F*CK HIM. But I don't know... I mean none of us really know these celebrities and it may be a railroad job... or he may legitimately be a disgusting excuse for a carbon-based lifeform. I guess we'll have to watch this case closely to see what the outcome determines (even though our time could be better spent)...

I didn't wanna believe it about Cosby either and look what happened. So, yeah, I don't wanna defend any kind of rape or rapist ever, but I think I just need to be privy to more info before I make a judgement. I mean the guy is a good actor and for me Hyde was the best thing about 70's Show. But if he's actually a f*cking rapist then yeah... I hope he gets burned for this $hit.

You forgot to mention how they're filthy leftists.

Nice catch.

Well, let's let the judicial system work and see what's determined. If he's guilty then he's guilty.

Well said. I think there are far too many who want to play judge and jury with these kinds of things. I know rape is an extremely serious issue but so is ruining a reputation, a career and a personal life. Only time will tell.

As soon as you agree that not everyone who disagrees with you are right wingers. :lol:

Nice quack, quack.

Here's my thing, though: Why falsely accuse THIS guy? Why drag it out for 20 years?

He's not that rich and not that famous. Much bigger fish to go after.

If y'all know me well, you know I'm a skeptic by nature, and I don't automatically Believe All Women. I just don't. I look at the evidence and make my judgment accordingly.

There's no reason to disbelieve them in this case. While I firmly believe Weinstein and Cosby were guilty, I can also see How and Why they could be targeted by false accusations. Those are Big Fish.

Nobody knows who "Danny Masterson" is. "Hyde from That 70s Show" is famous. "Danny Masterson" is not famous. Falsely accusing and extorting Danny Masterson makes no sense. They also filed criminal complaints against him, NOT civil compaints. They didn't ask for money, they asked for him to be thrown in jail. Big difference. They also didn't wait 20 years until he was in a place of prominence and THEN accuse; they accused him Back Then and have been pursuing it ever since.

I do not, by default, "Believe All Women". I believe the ones in which the evidence supports their accusations. This fits. I cannot see any reason at all why anyone who's accused him would lie.

We'll see, but I don't think it's a work. I think he's a scumbag who used his money and influence and connections and entitlement to abuse women, and I think he deserves to be punished for it.

If I'm proven wrong, I'm proven wrong. This case, to me, seems pretty straightforward.
---------------

Also, c'mon guys, I almost never make threads. Go rub your dicks together and try to make fire in one'a your own. :trazz: It would be nice if ONE Current Events thread didn't get locked, y'know?

Ah, so the Drome's a place where people's polly-ticks gets threads locked down? I imagine a bunch of Bush-Trump warmongering, anti-universal healthcare, anti-Black Lives Matter racist, conspiratorial types come in here and piss everyone off? Tough break, kids. That sucks.

That's assuming you guys are all sufficiently decent lefties, like me, right?

Well, yeah, let's not lockdown a thread please. Be civil, kind and obey the forum rules.

I can give this an honest effort at answering.

We live in a culture where we've been taught for decades and decades that being a celebrity means having people thrown at you as if you are a treasure.

But it's a wake-up call to realize that once again most people look at the information incorrectly. Let's use the crazy stories from Def Leppard's heyday as an example.

Stories of crazy, after concert orgies, women running around doing anything for the band backstage. Probably true. But what's not true is that every woman in the audience would commit to that behavior. Take an arena audience of 23,000 people. Arguably we will say half female. There certainly aren't 11,500 women who were going to be back stage committing any act the band wanted. But the stories would make you think so. Maybe there were 100. Of that, 25 get back stage. Barely a drop in the hat and that was during an age where that was the zeitgeist.

Now compare that to the crew of That 70's Show. "But I'm a celebrity! You love me!" this guy thinks. But now he faces the wakeup call not only born of the ratio I outlined in the Def Leppard example, but even a worse ratio given his big claim to fame isn't really that big of a deal, and the fact that it's a different era when compared to well-marketed celebrity stories from the 80's.

Short of it is you have an actor that probably feels entitled through his fame and it's a huge system shock when he realizes that most people don't care, and that those that do are in a much smaller group than the stories of pop culture would have you believe. So he takes his "entitlement" and pushes too hard not understanding the "not interested" and without the empathy that it takes to stop.

:lol: Uh, yeah, I don't subscribe much to labels but I, personally, find a lot of people on the so-called "Left" to be even more full of sh*t than people who'd say they were on "The Right", they just have better intentions sometimes.

I have friends on both sides but I side with neither. That's dangerous. Please be patient in allowing me to explain my position, yeah? Here we go:

I like to judge people and groups by their worst traits. The worst thing about "The Right" (if we're forced, for the purposes of making a broad point, into talking about them collectively rather than as individuals) is that they can be incredibly callous, even vicious. The worst thing about "The Left" (once again, speaking purely as a collective; obviously not all individual members of a group share the same values) is that they absolutely don't believe in freedom of thought, and want anyone who doesn't share their exact specific ideas and ideals to be silenced or killed. I don't like that.

Right now, for instance, too many of my "liberal" friends on FB have been screaming "KILL ALL COPS" and "I hope everyone at the Trump rally catches COVID and dies, that'll learn them." Some of the kindest and most decent human beings I know voted for Trump, including a lot of my clients. My next door neighbor hangs a giant TRUMP flag on his lawn, and he also gives the Hispanic kids across the street rides on his four-wheeler and chips in around the neighborhood. There's good people on The Right, I know a ton of them.
But someone who's never met them wants them dead because of how they vote. :roll: That's why *I* don't vote, because that involves taking sides and I can't in good conscience take any side when people are so thoroughly awful on either side of the imaginary line sometimes.

I take people as individuals, not as members of A Group. That's Othering. That leads to violence. Even if an individual is a proud and outspoken member of A Group, I still treat them as an individual and try to ignore what pack they run with, because They are not The Pack. That's how I was raised, that's what I believe in, and that's what most of my more conservative-leaning friends believe in. My liberal-leaning friends, not so much. I still love them. But I don't like the way they think sometimes. I don't like "Kill All Cops", I don't like "Cancel a TV show because someone involved in it did a Bad Thing", and I don't like "Someone should never be allowed to hold a job again because of how they vote." Stuff like that means I could never, ever, ever be on The Left. They hold too strongly to those specific beliefs. They wouldn't WANT me in their little club. And that's fine, too.

Basically, I'm way too much of an individual, and support individual rights and freedom of thought, WAY too much to ever be "liberal". They generally subscribe to too much Groupthink. Not my bag.

Not that Righties don't sometimes subscribe to cult mentality, too, but then those people are Extremists, and ALL Extremists are bad. All I know is, most conservative types I deal with, politics never comes up. They don't ask me who I vote for (I don't vote, never will), they don't ask me my opinion on social issues before they decide if they like me or not, and if we disagree, we disagree but we're still friends. And I gotta say, I like that. No Conservative-leaning person has EVER told me, "We can't be friends anymore if you don't feel exactly the same way as I do about ____." Not on any topic. But a lot of left-leaning people have. And I think that's a shame. I love those people and wish them the best, but I don't like ultimatums. It's a shame that so many of them see life and relationships as an All Or Nothing game.

So... yeah, nah. If anything, I mean if I HAD to choose a label for myself, I'd be a conservative-leaning Libertarian with some strongly Liberal positions on things like abortion and who people have sex with. But that's about it. Economically and socially conservative in most respects. But yeah, if I were to pick a label - and I wouldn't - but probably Libertarian. But again... I don't like labels. Labels divide people. I don't like being put in a box and I'm sure others don't either.

Whew! Sorry to get political, but... You asked, so I'm just laying it straight for ya. Hope we're still friends! I mean that. I individually love everyone. Collectively? People can take their political affiliations and cram 'em. That's always and forever my position.
-------------------------

BACK TO TOPIC: Once again, IMJ bangs the f*cking nail so hard that it came out the other side of the plank. When you're on, you are ON, my dude. Good sh*t, pal! Where ya been lately?

Prepon and Kunis are much more famous than Masterson (and whats his name too , he dated Demi Moore)

That would be Ashton Kutcher

Just admit you were wrong about Amber Heard.

I love you, man. :)

At this point, I'm just sick and tired of men who use their position of power to abuse vulnerable women.

During this past week, Cameron Stewart, Warren Ellis, Chris D'Elia, Austin Carlile, and now Danny Masterson were all revealed to be rapists, assaulters, harassers, or just all-around creeps. Hell, Ansel Elgort just got outted as a rapist today. Who will get outted tomorrow?

Just, punish them all at this point.

There's not a lot that I admire or respect about the American justice system... but I do appreciate the old adage INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

The ONLY story that makes sense is they got drunk/high and smacked each other around, if you've ever been witness to any situation like that. Absolutely no man is gonna stand there and let a chick smack the sh*t out of him like that without doing anything. Even if she hit him 100 times and he hit her like, twice, he definitely hit her. That's all I've ever been saying. They're both sh*tty people. Also, they're drug addicts, so who gives a sh*t about either of 'em? Why does every situation need a Good Guy and a Bad Guy? Sometimes everyone involved is sh*tty, that's allowed.

Love you too, boss, but that wasn't a very well-crafted joke. :trazz: I've been saying from the beginning that they had to have hit each other and my position hasn't changed. I don't even care, frankly I'm inclined to think she had it coming for whatever that's worth. But that doesn't mean he's not a rag as well. He's a total rag.
----------

Re: Those others recently accused:

Man, glad I'm not famous. I've made so many off-color misogynist comments and grabbed so much ass that I'd end up in a goddamn gulag until the end of time if I was anyone worth "canceling". Good thing I'm a nobody. :lol:

But yeah, totally "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". But in Masterson's case I can't find a single thing that implies any shenanigans. If I were a prosecutor, I'd be looking at facts like "none of the victims asked for money" and "they have never stopped pursuing this". Because most of the times, when it's a work, the chicks ask for money. When they want jail, it's generally more legit.

It's like the Kate Kennedy chick who accused Hulk Hogan of sexually assaulting her back in 1995, and he counter-sued for extortion and defamation, and they settled out of court. It all was a wash because in the eyes of the court, the fact that the woman's FIRST act was to send Hogan a letter saying "Pay me money or I go public with these accusations" was a huge red flag. His lawyers argued, rightly, that if a crime of such nature occurred, you should go to the police, but she never did, she ONLY ever talked about money, and eventually she got something and went away. Nobody else has ever made a single accusation towards the guy. So based on evidence, we can assume that THAT situation was some kooky broad looking for an easy payday, because the facts don't support her accusations. The fact that she took her settlement and disappeared also speaks volumes about her.

But if you never ask for a dime and insist you want the guy in jail, well... he's either guilty or you caught him banging your mom or something. He did SOMEthing, put it like that. I'm skeptical when women ask for money, but less so when they just want punishment. Why fight for so many years to send someone to jail when YOU get nothing out of it, unless they're actually guilty? That's the way I see it.

Considering current climate in US, and Twitter retarded mob, there is minor possibility it will not last long.