key thing here is the timing of the allegations. his career is over and never returning. at worst he fucked some chicks that didn't want it but just let it happen, and who choose not to do anything because he was a star. i very much doubt that he any of these woman were like "serious, no, don't!" and he pressed ahead. at worst from his POV it was rough sex and considering they didn't run out of the room screaming and call the cops after he probably assumed they felt the same.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46814137)

media fucktarded as usual for fixating on said nobody

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46814102)

steven crowder

ben shapiro

milo

etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46814132)

“Rape” as redefined by feminists to include regretted sex? Sure. I’m sure plenty of the women he pumped and dumped were upset afterwards.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46814124)

he's been famous since years before peak me too but this just happens to all come out now as he criticizes the establishment t

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46814138)

-you’re very beautiful. Do you have a boyfriend?

That’s it. That’s the whole line.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46814146)

So no

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46814166)

This is the apparat striking him for his effective dissent

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46814187)

sometimes, the man is more attractive, so he doesn't have to push as hard. sometimes, the man is less attractive, and the woman is less in the mood, so he has to push harder than he'd otherwise like to. but this is how it always works

the actual issue/problem is society treating women as having "agency" to select males for casual sex and being able to "consent" to casual sex. women don't actually have sexual agency and aren't cognitively capable of "consent" to casual sex. they are sex objects that are acted upon by men. they cannot abstractly extrapolate or evaluate consequences and they don't have the emotional detachment and control needed to make their own decisions about casual sex

i made a thread recently about how the real issue with incels and "the right" is that they are not misogynistic *enough.* and it's very true. however misogynistic you are, you are almost certainly not misogynistic enough. if you still think that women should be allowed to choose their sex partners, or have the same "legal" rights and responsibilities as men, you are still clueless about women and about sex

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46814213)

that is how it always worked up until the past 0.1% of human history. fathers chose suitors for their daughters and their daughters were virgins until marriage. wives were kept in the home and not allowed to go out and get seduced/"raped" by other men. women were treated as property, because that is what they are: sexual objects who are the property of some man, somewhere, either her father, her brother(s) if the father is dead, or her husband

there is a reason why every single culture, everywhere, used this same system for all of history. because it works. and because the alternative (women being given fake "independent" "agency") is a totally insane disaster

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46814401)

As to whether he is guilty or innocent of a crime, he is 100% innocent. There is no enforceable criminal conduct, here, nor should there be. The statue of limitations should exclude any and all evidence against him and he should face no criminal charges. The law needs to uphold the fact that there will never be any admissible evidence in this case, and any attempt to prosecute him should be viewed as the state's abuse of power against an incontrovertibly innocent citizen.

There is zero sufficient evidence against him to indict, in any jurisdiction, anywhere in the world, for unprovable crimes from long ago. This is also true of Danny Masterson. The statue of limitations is a necessary legal tool that exists for good reason. Anyone who claims to be a victim of a sexual crime who comes forward and accusing someone else of a heinous crime must do so within a certain time frame. After this time all evidence is moot. If you don't see how this is necessary for society to function, you are insane. The State of California once again has opened up Pandora's Box of total chaos communism to jail the enemies of the liberal menace in a show trial. The State in this case is the enemy of the People.

As for the court of public opinion, I think he will do absolutely fine. He has a ton of fans that know this is a thinly veiled character assassination by the deep state. As to anyone he may of personally wronged, put up or shut up, sugar, you had your moment. The fact this is happening now only reflects that these women are completely and totally morally corrupt and irredeemable. Sadly, such terrible people exist.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46814472)

The thing about murder having no limit is that you have to have hard evidence to prove a murder. You have to have a body, you have to have DNA usually, or extremely strong circumstantial evidence.

Rape is always subjective, even the most brutal, violent sex can be consensual. It's the introduction of these long periods of time where feelings are subject to change. So disturbing from a legal perspective. Voters should be outraged.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46819104)

But he’s said some stuff on a podcast the last few years that xo pos like so they can’t imagine any way he’d do something bad.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46814486)

The one thing to add is that these reports always come out when the guy has lost value. Russell's celeb status has faded and his looks have faded. Weinstein was on a similar trajectory when his news came out.

The point is that the "rape" from an attractive or powerful man is not rape, but the same action from an ugly or non-alpha man is rape. And women can backwards rationalize the same action as being different things depending on where the man is at a given point in time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46815133)

its always lolzy that most of these involve the whore woman goin back to the celeb's hotel room or something, then 20 years later saying they were raped

wow odd case, bitches in hollywood are furking whores who spread their legs for jerbs and shit, that story is as old as time, now feminazis and jews want to criminilize it cause they hate men, esp powerful rich birdshit men

#metoo was a bunch of bullshit, the actual cases of real "rape" are rare and mostly done by furking niggas like this one recently against a 20yo student in wisconsin but since it was done by a SAINTLY GODLY NIGGA the shitlib kike media wont dare report it nationally: https://spectrumnews1.com/wi/milwaukee/news/2023/09/06/arrest-uw-student-sexual-assault

FURK JEWS HITLER WAS RIGHT

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46815137)

But like I said above, my guess is that he's a dom into BDSM and he got too comfortable with a girl he'd dominated before when she didn't want it. That's still rapey, but it's not comparable to forcible stranger rape rape or anything.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5408299&forum_id=2#46818704)