this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
831 points (98.5% liked)
Not The Onion
17363 readers
1304 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So Lemmy which is it? Because Trump is a convicted rapist... Spacy was aquitted. Y'all can't have both. Because if you still believe spacy did it then you have to by default doubt that Trump didn't.
Unless you just believe whatever the hell you want to for the sake of convenience but then you guys would just be... Hypocrites.
Incorrect, it's entirely possible for two paedos to exist at once.
guy believes that being a pedo is like the brain cell for orange cats. only one pedo cell can exist at a time and all the pedos have to share it.
Conservatives are just genuinely fucking stupid, we need to let it stop surprising us.
I'm not a conservative first of all and I absolutely despise Trump as a human being and especially the president of the United States.
I'm just saying you can't have both you can't trust the legal system to convict Trump and then not trust it to aquitt Spacy.
It's just double think, hypocrisy.
Agreed.
My comment is on the hypocrisy of the comment section under this post.
I'm simply pointing out you can't have it both ways, you can't trust the legal system to convict Trump who I sincerely believe committed those crimes. And then not trust it to acquit Kevin Spacey.
There has to be some kind of standard here right?
Either you distrust the legal system entirely or you take it at face value because it's all we have in the United States.
But simply agreeing with something because it conveniently fits your narrative be it true or not is not a helpful position to be in.
Moreover Trump being one of the most powerful and Rich individuals in the world was convicted of rape in the United States Court and Kevin Spacey who's just an actor was acquitted doesn't that lend more Credence to Kevin spacey's innocence?
Kevin spacey is the last person I'd call innocent, what with the distinct number of people that go against him get involved in mysterious fatal...accidents
And his 'I'm back' and 'kill them with kindness' videos
Its also a false dichotomy to say that a legal system such as America's is going to treat trump and spacey the same way and 'they can't acquit one and convict the other when they both did the same crime' They went up against VERY different courts under distinctly different circumstances (despite both of them diddling kids)
Mostly incorrect. Trump is not a convicted rapist. He had been accused of rape and sexual assault numerous times, but has never faced trial. He was found civilly liable of raping Jean E. Carroll after the criminal statute of limitations expired.
Kevin Spacey was aquitted of legal charges in England and found not civilly liable in New York, but in Los Angeles he could not be charged because of the statute of limitations. In Nantucket, the prosecutor dropped the charges against Spacey after the main accuser refused to testify. In 2019, three Spacey accusers abruptly died, one of whom was in the middle of a civil trial against Spacey.
Ok. Great. Legal nuance aside Kevin Spacey was acquitted and Trump was convicted.
My comment was pointing out the hypocrisy in the comment section.
People absolutely trust that Trump is a rapist and absolutely disagree with the acquittal of Kevin Spacey. Which is a hypocritical stance concerning the courts. Either you believe the courts or you don't.
That's the false dichotomy im talking about, while it is entirely possible for more than one pedo to exist, it is entirely possible for someone to not trust the courts and still for a court case they agree with to convict someone (a stopped clock is right twice a day kinda bullshit)
Yeah, and my point is that's a stupid fucking point. Sexual assault charges are notoriously difficult to get convictions on, even when they're not against wealthy, powerful celebrities. 15 young men accused Spacey, and he was aquitted of assaulting less than half of them in the London trial. 25 women accused Trump, none of them even got a criminal trail, and only one of them was able to get a civil verdict in her favor. You're comparing two men who were both accused by dozens of people of sexual assault and both faced almost no consequences under the justice system, and then saying, "tHeSe ArE tHe oPpOsItE, dOuBlE sTaNdArD mUcH???????"
They can both be shitty people.
O I'm sure they are. I have no great love for either of them.
Don't his victims die before he can be charged?
The actual facts of the case are relevant I'm just pointing out hypocrisy in the comment section.
I have no great love for Trump nor for Kevin Spacey. I'm just saying you can't be 100% convinced that Trump did it while being unconvinced of Kevin space is acquittal.
Either you trust the legal system or you don't.
Therefore if you doubt Kevin spacey's acquittal then you must also doubt Donald Trump's conviction.
The logic here is flawed. For example:
I can trust that there is corruption in the court system for the rich and powerful. Therefore a trial for Trump that seems clearly biased and poorly handled may go in his favor. A trial for some actor may be biased as well, but less in his favor. Additionally if the evidence is strong for one trial and week for another, I'm taking that into account!
The logic is sound. The courts can convict someone as powerful and well connected as Trump, the current (unfortunately) president of the United States that should lend more Credence to spaces acquittal.
How does that not make sense?
Maybe a slightly different example will help understand the logic?
Let's say NewsCorpA likes Trump and Spacey.
NewsCorpA publishes their usual stuff saying they're both cool and good, but one day they post an article saying Trump did something bad. Because they have every reason to like Trump it seems more likely to me that the article has a genuine criticism (not to say their reasoning is good. E.g. He's not racist enough), but that doesn't have any bearing on the other, usual, articles about Spacey.
In other words it's kinda the inverse of "if someone hates someone and says something nice about them, it's probably genuine" so kinda "if someone likes someone and says something bad about them, it's probably genuine"
Of course hypocrisy is almost always present when discussing politics.
I think the main problem here is false equivalence. Separate people, separate cases and in some cases separate legal systems.
I will concede to this there's definitely false equivalency here you're absolutely correct.
Kudos for admitting this reflection.