I am having trouble finding on the internet as to how dwight schultz is a bad person.
He’s an avowed conservative. That’s enough to get some people to claim he’s Literally Hitler just by itself...
I'm speaking more about the raging misogyny. While he may... may... have mellowed in his old age. during his early A-Team days he and the other main cast hated having women on the show, tried routinely to have actresses fired from their boys club and made their lives on set miserable.
I couldn't care less whether someone is right or left on the political spectrum since my own views stray to both sides depending on the issue. My contempt is for racists, sexists and bigots in general.
Avowed-that has been asserted, admitted, or stated publicly.
Hmmm...saying someone is bad because of their political views, that doesn't sound like Nazi Germany.
I realize your statement is sarcastic, but you're right, it doesn't. It sounds like the entire history of two party systems. People who care deeply about politics and line themselves heavily with one party (or heavily against another party) do not tend to be fans of people who belong to or support the other.
I do thank you for taking time out of your day to prove Godwin's Law is still perfectly sound.
Don't worry it will be like that in those places soon enough.
The law probably won't change. It's been in place for hundreds of years and been successful. The American founding fathers simply made a huge mistake, but it may get rectified soon.
It's awfully strange to see Trump doing something positive and progressive, but I hope that he is successful. It's equally strange to see the other (supposedly progressive) party opposing him. It just goes to show that they like to oppose each other for no apparent reason.
The issue at heart is whether or not we want the fees paid to actors for use of their likeness to support people who have done something or been accused of something wrong. Take the Hey Song, for example. It’s a great song for pumping up the crowd at sporting events but the person who gets the royalties, Gary Glitter, is in prison for child pornography and sexual abuse of children in several countries. People have made a good argument that not playing the Hey Song and this depriving Gary Glitter of the royalty checks is a good thing.
In this case, Stephen Collins is in a similar boat but as far as I know has not been criminally charged with anything. George Takei has been accused of sexual assault of an adult but has shrugged off such allegations (poorly). The others who have various personal and/or legal problems aren’t as serious but still represent the possibility of us funding them and their actions indirectly.
Regardless of their personal legal and moral status, DB choosing to not to create a character based on an actor’s problems - or a movement by the player base to avoid certain characters - has nothing to do with “innocent until proven guilty” because these are not legal proceedings. The burden of proof for civil suits is less than that for criminal charges even if we could call “not wanting to finance an actor’s personal activities” a legal proceeding.
With this in mind, I think it is fairest to say that this should be a case-by-case decision. As much as I would like to see Will Decker as a character, I’m not really sure I would like to give money - however small of an amount - to Stephen Collins. Despite her many problems, however, I don’t mind seeing more versions of Kes. I don’t mind seeing more versions of Barclay because I like that character more than I disagree with Dwight Schultz’s politics.
The main problem in all of this lies in extremely flawed U.S. libel laws. People make these allegations without a shred of proof and will never face any repercussions. Much of this wouldn't happen in a more advanced society like the UK or Canada, where people are treated equally under the law and must provide some proof before making damaging claims. I don't know what these actors did or did not do, but I feel bad that they have had their careers destroyed with no chance to effectively defend their reputation.
No, the main problem lies in the short statute of limitations to prosecute sexual predators. Many victims are unable to come forward at the time of attack for myriad reasons and when they are able to come forward it is too late. And those that come forward immediately after the attack are often ignored by authorities or accused of "asking for it" or other such evil nonsense. These victims cannot get justice in legal courts and so they try to get justice in the court of public opinion. It is true that not everyone accused is necessarily guilty and that we have to be careful to not judge until we get all the facts we can. But we also have to be mindful that there have been many rich and famous people that have used their money and fame to escape prosecution for years. Many of Cosby's accusers were ignored by the police because he was famous.
The main problem in all of this lies in extremely flawed U.S. libel laws. People make these allegations without a shred of proof and will never face any repercussions. Much of this wouldn't happen in a more advanced society like the UK or Canada, where people are treated equally under the law and must provide some proof before making damaging claims. I don't know what these actors did or did not do, but I feel bad that they have had their careers destroyed with no chance to effectively defend their reputation.
Stephen Collins admitted to sexual contact with minors. Jennifer Lien’s rap sheet is a matter of public record. Dwight Schultz’s misogyny is a matter of public record. These things aren’t due to lax libel laws, so please don’t try to suggest they are. If you need proof spoon-fed to you, say the word and it shall be provided.
Your argument may hold water with respect to George Takei’s accuser, but I am less likely to question those claims than others that have been made towards public figures because Takei tried to blame it on Russia rather something a sane person would do.
The issue at heart is whether or not we want the fees paid to actors for use of their likeness to support people who have done something or been accused of something wrong. Take the Hey Song, for example. It’s a great song for pumping up the crowd at sporting events but the person who gets the royalties, Gary Glitter, is in prison for child pornography and sexual abuse of children in several countries. People have made a good argument that not playing the Hey Song and this depriving Gary Glitter of the royalty checks is a good thing.
In this case, Stephen Collins is in a similar boat but as far as I know has not been criminally charged with anything. George Takei has been accused of sexual assault of an adult but has shrugged off such allegations (poorly). The others who have various personal and/or legal problems aren’t as serious but still represent the possibility of us funding them and their actions indirectly.
Regardless of their personal legal and moral status, DB choosing to not to create a character based on an actor’s problems - or a movement by the player base to avoid certain characters - has nothing to do with “innocent until proven guilty” because these are not legal proceedings. The burden of proof for civil suits is less than that for criminal charges even if we could call “not wanting to finance an actor’s personal activities” a legal proceeding.
With this in mind, I think it is fairest to say that this should be a case-by-case decision. As much as I would like to see Will Decker as a character, I’m not really sure I would like to give money - however small of an amount - to Stephen Collins. Despite her many problems, however, I don’t mind seeing more versions of Kes. I don’t mind seeing more versions of Barclay because I like that character more than I disagree with Dwight Schultz’s politics.
The main problem in all of this lies in extremely flawed U.S. libel laws. People make these allegations without a shred of proof and will never face any repercussions. Much of this wouldn't happen in a more advanced society like the UK or Canada, where people are treated equally under the law and must provide some proof before making damaging claims. I don't know what these actors did or did not do, but I feel bad that they have had their careers destroyed with no chance to effectively defend their reputation.
No, the main problem lies in the short statute of limitations to prosecute sexual predators. Many victims are unable to come forward at the time of attack for myriad reasons and when they are able to come forward it is too late. And those that come forward immediately after the attack are often ignored by authorities or accused of "asking for it" or other such evil nonsense. These victims cannot get justice in legal courts and so they try to get justice in the court of public opinion. It is true that not everyone accused is necessarily guilty and that we have to be careful to not judge until we get all the facts we can. But we also have to be mindful that there have been many rich and famous people that have used their money and fame to escape prosecution for years. Many of Cosby's accusers were ignored by the police because he was famous.
That's also a very big issue, but running smear campaigns in the media does nothing to solve the underlying problems. It has made things adversarial and much worse than they were before. I shudder to think of all of the innocent people that have had their lives destroyed and all of the disgusting people that have profited from it.
I'm certainly not implying that Canada is doing things perfectly, but they are leaving libel protections in place and working to reform the justice system. The goal is to make it easier for alleged victims to provide their proof in the court of law without the accompanying embarrassment or media frenzy for both parties.
I am not doubting you, I just was not able to find anything besides being a conservative.
I honestly don't recall. It was years ago that I read it. Murdoch and Barclay were two fantastic characters and I was shocked when I came across it. IIRC I found it around the same time Dirk Benedict when on a mini-meltdown about RDM recasting Starbuck as a woman.
The main problem in all of this lies in extremely flawed U.S. libel laws. People make these allegations without a shred of proof and will never face any repercussions. Much of this wouldn't happen in a more advanced society like the UK or Canada, where people are treated equally under the law and must provide some proof before making damaging claims. I don't know what these actors did or did not do, but I feel bad that they have had their careers destroyed with no chance to effectively defend their reputation.
Stephen Collins admitted to sexual contact with minors. Jennifer Lien’s rap sheet is a matter of public record. Dwight Schultz’s misogyny is a matter of public record. These things aren’t due to lax libel laws, so please don’t try to suggest they are. If you need proof spoon-fed to you, say the word and it shall be provided.
Your argument may hold water with respect to George Takei’s accuser, but I am less likely to question those claims than others that have been made towards public figures because Takei tried to blame it on Russia rather something a sane person would do.
My comment was made in reference to Takei and other claims of a similarly dubious nature. I apologize for not being more clear about that.
The issue at heart is whether or not we want the fees paid to actors for use of their likeness to support people who have done something or been accused of something wrong. Take the Hey Song, for example. It’s a great song for pumping up the crowd at sporting events but the person who gets the royalties, Gary Glitter, is in prison for child pornography and sexual abuse of children in several countries. People have made a good argument that not playing the Hey Song and this depriving Gary Glitter of the royalty checks is a good thing.
In this case, Stephen Collins is in a similar boat but as far as I know has not been criminally charged with anything. George Takei has been accused of sexual assault of an adult but has shrugged off such allegations (poorly). The others who have various personal and/or legal problems aren’t as serious but still represent the possibility of us funding them and their actions indirectly.
Regardless of their personal legal and moral status, DB choosing to not to create a character based on an actor’s problems - or a movement by the player base to avoid certain characters - has nothing to do with “innocent until proven guilty” because these are not legal proceedings. The burden of proof for civil suits is less than that for criminal charges even if we could call “not wanting to finance an actor’s personal activities” a legal proceeding.
With this in mind, I think it is fairest to say that this should be a case-by-case decision. As much as I would like to see Will Decker as a character, I’m not really sure I would like to give money - however small of an amount - to Stephen Collins. Despite her many problems, however, I don’t mind seeing more versions of Kes. I don’t mind seeing more versions of Barclay because I like that character more than I disagree with Dwight Schultz’s politics.
The main problem in all of this lies in extremely flawed U.S. libel laws. People make these allegations without a shred of proof and will never face any repercussions. Much of this wouldn't happen in a more advanced society like the UK or Canada, where people are treated equally under the law and must provide some proof before making damaging claims. I don't know what these actors did or did not do, but I feel bad that they have had their careers destroyed with no chance to effectively defend their reputation.
No, the main problem lies in the short statute of limitations to prosecute sexual predators. Many victims are unable to come forward at the time of attack for myriad reasons and when they are able to come forward it is too late. And those that come forward immediately after the attack are often ignored by authorities or accused of "asking for it" or other such evil nonsense. These victims cannot get justice in legal courts and so they try to get justice in the court of public opinion. It is true that not everyone accused is necessarily guilty and that we have to be careful to not judge until we get all the facts we can. But we also have to be mindful that there have been many rich and famous people that have used their money and fame to escape prosecution for years. Many of Cosby's accusers were ignored by the police because he was famous.
That's also a very big issue, but running smear campaigns in the media does nothing to solve the underlying problems. It has made things adversarial and much worse than they were before. I shudder to think of all of the innocent people that have had their lives destroyed and all of the disgusting people that have profited from it.
I'm certainly not implying that Canada is doing things perfectly, but they are leaving libel protections in place and working to reform the justice system. The goal is to make it easier for alleged victims to provide their proof in the court of law without the accompanying embarrassment or media frenzy for both parties.
I disagree. Often in these cases nothing is done until there is media attention. Only by publically shaming Michigan State and the Gymnastics and Olympic organizations is anything being done to prevent other Dr. Nassars. Without media attention Dr. Nassar was able to continue to attack girls and women for years and years. And there has only been an increase in laws and police action in recent years because of the attention of the media. It is sad and shameful but often changes for the better only come because of media and public pressure. And as far as peoples' careers being ruined, most of these people that have had their careers affected have been accused by many different people by horrible acts, not just one person. And although the accused have their names tarnished, most are not going to jail, even the ones that really should. And the people that were attacked will be affected their whole lives.
Star Trek has many, many actors some of whom you may dislike. Should we excise them from the show because we don't like them? Or because an accusation was made?
In this instance I think it's viewers choice. You can choose not to watch TOS if you like because Sulu. Vote with your heart. However, regardless of his (alleged) misbehaviour on one occasion, I do believe the work he has done in Star Trek and in his personal life should have an impact on how you view him. Does the good outweigh the bad? Is everyone allowed a mistake? Can people be forgiven for that mistake?
If you don't like a character, or a card, you can ditch it. At a certain point in your distaste, you can ditch the show.
As an aside, I wonder what Scott Bakula has done to make DB refuse to put him in an event?
As an aside, I wonder what Scott Bakula has done to make DB refuse to put him in an event?
He was too good of a person and DB felt they weren't worth enough to make an event for him.
Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 94, we are not accepting members at this time.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
You have crew in the game like the Orion Slaver, various Ferengi traditionalists, torturers like Gul Madred, advocates of Genocide (the Founder, commander Dolim), and other ilk in the collection of fictional characters in this game. Shall we go after Colonel Karr? He is wearing an SS uniform.
Don't forget totalitarian fun sponge Burnham. She is really bad. At least her card is very bad. I haven't seen the show. Perhaps on the show she's different. During the event she was an absolute nightmare. On the other hand, she is a wonderful crew member as far as card traits go. I use her all the time. I just don't trust her. Anyone who tried those stunts that she tried during the event, would go down in history like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler.
While this is a good question, I think the conversation can easily spiral downhill.
I hope not. I'd like to think that we're adult enough and mature enough to discuss serious matters like this.
Me too, but the history of the internet says otherwise
Yeah, but despite age and experience telling me otherwise, I particularly like to believe Trek fans are a cut above the masses and aren't just fans of blinking lights and 'splosions in space. I'm very often wrong but I still like thinking it.
I am not doubting you, I just was not able to find anything besides being a conservative.
I honestly don't recall. It was years ago that I read it. Murdoch and Barclay were two fantastic characters and I was shocked when I came across it. IIRC I found it around the same time Dirk Benedict when on a mini-meltdown about RDM recasting Starbuck as a woman.
The only thing that Dwight Schultz is guilty of is being a conservative. Everybody always speaks very highly of him. The bogus claim that he is a mysogynist comes from a story that Melinda Culea tells (that no one else has ever confirmed, and has been denied by everyone else who was present) that George Peppard told her once that she wasn't wanted on the show and her character was ruining the show. The implication being that it was because she was a woman.
For arguments sake, let us assume the story is true, and that George Peppard was being a mysogynist (and this just isn't an actress pissed off she was fired, or an actress who read way to much into a conversation with someone trying to let her know it wasn't working out). All Dwight Schultz is guilty of is being friends with a mysogynist.
I was in elementary school when I quietly, privately reported what had happened to me at age 4 to the guidance counselor. She launched an investigation. This was the early 80's, though, it didn't take much to derail that kind of investigation in those days. Nothing ever came of it legally.
It damn sure happened, though.
Am I "sensitive" to things like sexual abuse? Yeah, I am. Experience has shown me time and again that people who are quick to scoff at accusations being taken seriously without a court conviction, or who discount to qualms of a survivor as being "compromised", as though we're incapable of still having rational thoughts along with our emotion turmoil, then the people making such specious arguments have absolutely no goddamn idea how fortunate they are to be that oblivious.
After I heard about George Takei last year, I vaulted both of the immortalized Sulus I had in my crew. I couldn't dismiss them entirely, because they were already immortalized. They're never coming out of that freezer.
Because whenever I see that face now, I don't see Hikaru Sulu, the noble and entirely fictitious hero. I see the face of someone who has been accused of hurting people the way I was hurt--and who has escaped answering for it, just as the person who hurt me has.
I'm in no mood to let people for whom these things are merely abstract ideas play gatekeeper of reason or "objectivity", and I'm not even going to look at anything else posted in this thread because, no, I can't handle it. I can't handle a community that I've come to expect to make me feel welcomed and comfortable taking such a deeply personal matter as this and turning it into a pseudo-philosophical exercise.
But I couldn't, for reasons I should hope by now are self-evident, allow this...discussion...to go without saying what I had to say.
And if anything in what I've said has resonated with you and you'd like to talk about it privately with me, you're welcome to message me. I know how hard it can be to carry something like that, and how freeing it can be to open up to someone about it.
I was in elementary school when I quietly, privately reported what had happened to me at age 4 to the guidance counselor. She launched an investigation. This was the early 80's, though, it didn't take much to derail that kind of investigation in those days. Nothing ever came of it legally.
It damn sure happened, though.
Am I "sensitive" to things like sexual abuse? Yeah, I am. Experience has shown me time and again that people who are quick to scoff at accusations being taken seriously without a court conviction, or who discount to qualms of a survivor as being "compromised", as though we're incapable of still having rational thoughts along with our emotion turmoil, then the people making such specious arguments have absolutely no goddamn idea how fortunate they are to be that oblivious.
After I heard about George Takei last year, I vaulted both of the immortalized Sulus I had in my crew. I couldn't dismiss them entirely, because they were already immortalized. They're never coming out of that freezer.
Because whenever I see that face now, I don't see Hikaru Sulu, the noble and entirely fictitious hero. I see the face of someone who has been accused of hurting people the way I was hurt--and who has escaped answering for it, just as the person who hurt me has.
I'm in no mood to let people for whom these things are merely abstract ideas play gatekeeper of reason or "objectivity", and I'm not even going to look at anything else posted in this thread because, no, I can't handle it. I can't handle a community that I've come to expect to make me feel welcomed and comfortable taking such a deeply personal matter as this and turning it into a pseudo-philosophical exercise.
But I couldn't, for reasons I should hope by now are self-evident, allow this...discussion...to go without saying what I had to say.
And if anything in what I've said has resonated with you and you'd like to talk about it privately with me, you're welcome to message me. I know how hard it can be to carry something like that, and how freeing it can be to open up to someone about it.
Thanks for sharing your story. It must have been very difficult.
I'm a scientist and a cynic so I don't take my point of view on some of these matters to hurt the feelings of people like yourself. I look at the facts and make the most logical assumption.
When I see someone make a claim against George Takei without a shred of evidence, I really have no reason to believe that it is true or untrue. There are no facts in the case and one witness is not more credible than the other, at least to my knowledge. My moral compass tells me that is wrong to cast judgement on people who are not proven (or even likely) to have done anything wrong and most importantly, cannot effectively defend themselves. Perhaps if I had an experience like yours, my moral compass would point in a different direction, but I must be who I am. Don't criticize people too harshly for not sharing the same viewpoint as yourself. We're all trying to be good people in our own way.
Comments
I'm speaking more about the raging misogyny. While he may... may... have mellowed in his old age. during his early A-Team days he and the other main cast hated having women on the show, tried routinely to have actresses fired from their boys club and made their lives on set miserable.
I couldn't care less whether someone is right or left on the political spectrum since my own views stray to both sides depending on the issue. My contempt is for racists, sexists and bigots in general.
I realize your statement is sarcastic, but you're right, it doesn't. It sounds like the entire history of two party systems. People who care deeply about politics and line themselves heavily with one party (or heavily against another party) do not tend to be fans of people who belong to or support the other.
I do thank you for taking time out of your day to prove Godwin's Law is still perfectly sound.
The law probably won't change. It's been in place for hundreds of years and been successful. The American founding fathers simply made a huge mistake, but it may get rectified soon.
It's awfully strange to see Trump doing something positive and progressive, but I hope that he is successful. It's equally strange to see the other (supposedly progressive) party opposing him. It just goes to show that they like to oppose each other for no apparent reason.
No, the main problem lies in the short statute of limitations to prosecute sexual predators. Many victims are unable to come forward at the time of attack for myriad reasons and when they are able to come forward it is too late. And those that come forward immediately after the attack are often ignored by authorities or accused of "asking for it" or other such evil nonsense. These victims cannot get justice in legal courts and so they try to get justice in the court of public opinion. It is true that not everyone accused is necessarily guilty and that we have to be careful to not judge until we get all the facts we can. But we also have to be mindful that there have been many rich and famous people that have used their money and fame to escape prosecution for years. Many of Cosby's accusers were ignored by the police because he was famous.
Stephen Collins admitted to sexual contact with minors. Jennifer Lien’s rap sheet is a matter of public record. Dwight Schultz’s misogyny is a matter of public record. These things aren’t due to lax libel laws, so please don’t try to suggest they are. If you need proof spoon-fed to you, say the word and it shall be provided.
Your argument may hold water with respect to George Takei’s accuser, but I am less likely to question those claims than others that have been made towards public figures because Takei tried to blame it on Russia rather something a sane person would do.
That's also a very big issue, but running smear campaigns in the media does nothing to solve the underlying problems. It has made things adversarial and much worse than they were before. I shudder to think of all of the innocent people that have had their lives destroyed and all of the disgusting people that have profited from it.
I'm certainly not implying that Canada is doing things perfectly, but they are leaving libel protections in place and working to reform the justice system. The goal is to make it easier for alleged victims to provide their proof in the court of law without the accompanying embarrassment or media frenzy for both parties.
I honestly don't recall. It was years ago that I read it. Murdoch and Barclay were two fantastic characters and I was shocked when I came across it. IIRC I found it around the same time Dirk Benedict when on a mini-meltdown about RDM recasting Starbuck as a woman.
It shouldn't be based on personal opinions (as much as I disagree with them).
My comment was made in reference to Takei and other claims of a similarly dubious nature. I apologize for not being more clear about that.
I disagree. Often in these cases nothing is done until there is media attention. Only by publically shaming Michigan State and the Gymnastics and Olympic organizations is anything being done to prevent other Dr. Nassars. Without media attention Dr. Nassar was able to continue to attack girls and women for years and years. And there has only been an increase in laws and police action in recent years because of the attention of the media. It is sad and shameful but often changes for the better only come because of media and public pressure. And as far as peoples' careers being ruined, most of these people that have had their careers affected have been accused by many different people by horrible acts, not just one person. And although the accused have their names tarnished, most are not going to jail, even the ones that really should. And the people that were attacked will be affected their whole lives.
In this instance I think it's viewers choice. You can choose not to watch TOS if you like because Sulu. Vote with your heart. However, regardless of his (alleged) misbehaviour on one occasion, I do believe the work he has done in Star Trek and in his personal life should have an impact on how you view him. Does the good outweigh the bad? Is everyone allowed a mistake? Can people be forgiven for that mistake?
If you don't like a character, or a card, you can ditch it. At a certain point in your distaste, you can ditch the show.
As an aside, I wonder what Scott Bakula has done to make DB refuse to put him in an event?
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
He was too good of a person and DB felt they weren't worth enough to make an event for him.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
I hope not. I'd like to think that we're adult enough and mature enough to discuss serious matters like this.
I gotcha, no hard feelings.
Me too, but the history of the internet says otherwise
Yeah, but despite age and experience telling me otherwise, I particularly like to believe Trek fans are a cut above the masses and aren't just fans of blinking lights and 'splosions in space. I'm very often wrong but I still like thinking it.
The only thing that Dwight Schultz is guilty of is being a conservative. Everybody always speaks very highly of him. The bogus claim that he is a mysogynist comes from a story that Melinda Culea tells (that no one else has ever confirmed, and has been denied by everyone else who was present) that George Peppard told her once that she wasn't wanted on the show and her character was ruining the show. The implication being that it was because she was a woman.
For arguments sake, let us assume the story is true, and that George Peppard was being a mysogynist (and this just isn't an actress pissed off she was fired, or an actress who read way to much into a conversation with someone trying to let her know it wasn't working out). All Dwight Schultz is guilty of is being friends with a mysogynist.
It damn sure happened, though.
Am I "sensitive" to things like sexual abuse? Yeah, I am. Experience has shown me time and again that people who are quick to scoff at accusations being taken seriously without a court conviction, or who discount to qualms of a survivor as being "compromised", as though we're incapable of still having rational thoughts along with our emotion turmoil, then the people making such specious arguments have absolutely no goddamn idea how fortunate they are to be that oblivious.
After I heard about George Takei last year, I vaulted both of the immortalized Sulus I had in my crew. I couldn't dismiss them entirely, because they were already immortalized. They're never coming out of that freezer.
Because whenever I see that face now, I don't see Hikaru Sulu, the noble and entirely fictitious hero. I see the face of someone who has been accused of hurting people the way I was hurt--and who has escaped answering for it, just as the person who hurt me has.
I'm in no mood to let people for whom these things are merely abstract ideas play gatekeeper of reason or "objectivity", and I'm not even going to look at anything else posted in this thread because, no, I can't handle it. I can't handle a community that I've come to expect to make me feel welcomed and comfortable taking such a deeply personal matter as this and turning it into a pseudo-philosophical exercise.
But I couldn't, for reasons I should hope by now are self-evident, allow this...discussion...to go without saying what I had to say.
And if anything in what I've said has resonated with you and you'd like to talk about it privately with me, you're welcome to message me. I know how hard it can be to carry something like that, and how freeing it can be to open up to someone about it.
Thanks for sharing your story. It must have been very difficult.
I'm a scientist and a cynic so I don't take my point of view on some of these matters to hurt the feelings of people like yourself. I look at the facts and make the most logical assumption.
When I see someone make a claim against George Takei without a shred of evidence, I really have no reason to believe that it is true or untrue. There are no facts in the case and one witness is not more credible than the other, at least to my knowledge. My moral compass tells me that is wrong to cast judgement on people who are not proven (or even likely) to have done anything wrong and most importantly, cannot effectively defend themselves. Perhaps if I had an experience like yours, my moral compass would point in a different direction, but I must be who I am. Don't criticize people too harshly for not sharing the same viewpoint as yourself. We're all trying to be good people in our own way.
I therefore assume that there may be some type of compensation for said use.
Therefore, creating a new crew in the game could result in the actor/actress making money through the game.
Therefore, consideration of the actor's behavior is appropriate, but should be on a case-by-case basis.