Stan Lee faces sexual misconduct allegations

there wouldn't be this whole exploitative witchunt dynamic if , instead of calling it #metoo, it was instead called #GTFoffme.... i mean, everyone, man or woman, young and old, straight or not, can relate to saying "get the Fuuck off me" to someone else once in their life. Like when playing bball, and some sweaty fatfuk cant play d for shit, and he is drenching and tripping and losing his balance all over....u cant help but say GTFO....... or better yet like, the same way no one would want someone to sneeze at their direction, obviously u don't want filthy hands grabbing/fondling at u or worse.

@drrollinstein:

so, if u love this game, is it just like other games called Flower and Journey?? I played a demo of them, and I was like , this is something that is more of soothing thing, like it would be ideal to be in spectate mode and let someone else to play...if so yet another reason to go PC/Swith/PS4 hybrid gamer, damn it not enough hours in the day

@multiplat: Flower/Journey have nothing to do with Okami. Okami is a full length adventure game.

Another movement created by butthurt liberals which they have completely ruined.

Those are both great games too, but I'd say the gameplay within Okami is totally different, unique even! It's certainly something you have to try out for yourself if you get the chance. Well yeah it is a soothing game to play too, but it's more story driven than Flower, which with all respect of course seemed more like a tech demo for what the PS3 could do. Journey is perhaps comparable in terms of artistry, but I'd still put Okami above it. Heck, Okami out-Zelda's a lot of Zelda games it's that good! Haha yeah I know the feeling, there should definitely be one or two public holidays throughout the year just for gaming.

I had hoped by 2018 we'd be above making excuses for sexual predators.......but for some....I guess not. smh

Most of us just have the decency to question such extreme accusations rather than accepting them wholeheartedly.

No most of you just worship the individual accused and refuse to believe.

I recognize Stan Lee as a legendary figure historically, but i hardly have anything to do with superheros. Try again.

Most of his material was a rip off of DC. Anyway superheroes have nothing to do with my comment. Legendary in your post however does. Congrats on the proof.

@LJS9502_basic: @drrollinstein: u see , both of u, this is EXACTLY what happens, like clockwork, like a broken record.... take ur respective polarizing sides..... i was saying that

1) Sexual Predators do indeed exist and deserve to rot

2) Malingerers do indeed exist and deserve to pay for their scams. In fact malingerers are an extra slap in the face to the true victims.

3) All people indeed have a basic right to not be touched (or worse) by disgusting pervs

Stan Lee stuff is pending. Louis CK, Spacy, etc are admitted. why is this so hard to grasp?

Yeah I would go with this; my grandfolks were in assisted living for quite some time, and then whats-it-called (where you essentially go when you're old, sick, and on your way out) and the stories I heard and some of things I've seen.

It'd make a good defense, at least.

I don't want to come down hard on the nurses and the company that provided care, but I would think they'd see that kind of stuff at this point. I mean maybe it was legitimate harassment, I don't know, but at 95 the guy is basically an infant, a toddler.

It seems like everybody is being accused.

Actually, the vast majority of people (and celebrities, if we want to restrict the topic to stories that make headlines) aren't being accused of any kind of sexual misconduct.

Don't try to normalize this stuff. I'm not saying that false accusations never happen, but most people are definitely not being accused of sexual harassment or sexual assault.

@MrGeezer: lol, ok not trying to normalize anything.

It's a shame these people are quickly considered guilty in the court of public opinion and even lose their jobs before they are ever even allowed to have their say in court. Take it to court and let's see.

I don't have any doubts some are guilty and deserve to be punished, but I'm willing to bet others are being falsely accused.

I have no idea if this will tank his reputation or not, but my guess is that being 95 will protect him, and also the #metoo crowd is currently (finally) getting some pushback to create clear definitions of what they consider assualt so they can't use it against just anyone and that sort of discord has to potential to be utilized by some slick PR experts. Also, did anyone really look at Stan Lee and think he wasn't at times a pervy old man? I know it's just a movie, but his cameo in Deadpool being a DJ at a strip club helped play up being a womanizing old stud. I don't know, I just think that a majority of people are going to look at this like they did with George Bush Sr., and simply shrug it off. Or maybe not, we'll find out.

No, there's no real way to wage a social movement without upsetting some people. You will always recieve a backlash.

I think when you are 95 yo and likely suffering from some form of dementia, you can get a pass on groping.

Right....he's 95 so victims have to shut up and deal with it. smh

ya ,sonicare, what the hell?? give him a pass? u forget, Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz diagnosed his 95 year old fingers with onychomycosis vulgaris, I want to see you give him a pass after he smears all that good stuff on your pants.

Ummm...how is that supposed to work, exactly? If you're hanging out with your pals and they all tell you how much Subway sucks, does Subway have to be taken to court and convicted of sucking before you decide to not give them your money?

If someone tells me that the Justice League movie is a big old pile of crap and that Zack Snyder did a horrible job directing, do WB and Zack Snyder have to be convicted in court before I take public opinion into account and decide to not watch the movie?

When you're in the business of "public opinion", it kind of goes both ways. I don't know shit about celebrities other than the kinds of hearsay and gossip that shows up on the TV or the internet. This applies to both the good AND the bad. If I'm gonna support a Tom Hanks movie because he seems like a fine upstanding dude, then I think I'm allowed to judge another celebrity negatively without that guy having been convicted in court. Good or bad, I'm still just operating on APPEARANCES. Neither the good-looking nor the bad-looking celebrity has been proven to be good or bad in court.

Sorry, but that's how it works. It might not be "fair" to the celebrities being accused (and I have to remind you that they MIGHT actually be guilty). But on the other hand, no one is obligated to give these celebrities a single penny when it comes to sales. So even if this somehow hurts Stan Lee by cutting off sales and reducing the amount of the royalty checks that he recieves, that crap just comes with the business. When you make your living by appealing to the public opinion, then public opinion either makes or breaks you. it doesn't just go one way. You can't just take the benefits of being a public celebrity icon and then be immune from the fact that a lot of public opinion isn't positive.

Yes, let's start raiding nursing homes and dragging out senile, demented people into the streets because they patted someone on the rear. Who cares if they are starting to lack the insight or judgement into those actions? Those criminals! Hang them!

Is the me too thing going to far?

@sonicare By that logic, why do you care about giving them a pass anyway? They are 95 and demented. a pass on what, jail time? He'll be dead before the proceedings start. A senile demented 95 yr old is exactly that ,..... a person who is too senile and demented to care about his legacy or reputation.

So if a 2 year old, pats you on the behind, you should file charges? Of course not, because they lack the judgement and cognition to determine that action is inappropriate. But do we hold senile and demented people accountable for actions they may not fully comprehend? I guarantee if you get an MRI scan of any 95 year old person, you are going to see an immense amount of brain atrophy - these people's cognitive skills and judgement is signficantly impaired. There's a huge difference between a knowledgeable 40 year old man groping a woman, and a senile 95 year old person patting someone on the rear. I dont hold the two to the same standard.

no one is talking about 2 yr olds, ... but of course 2 yr olds AND 95 yr olds lack judgement and cognition. my point was simply that 95 years olds are going to croak soon so who cares whether or not they get a pass? the 95 yo will prob be dead before a case can even get underway. A 2 yr old has his whole life ahead of him.

I'd also like to add that no one's even talking about starting a case against him anyway. The article in question was about the company refusing to deal with him because of allegations. And...that's their right. I'll buy the argument that some senile guy in his 90's shouldn't face criminal charges for that kind of sexual misconduct, but that still doesn't mean that everyone else is obligated to put up with his crap. Him "getting a pass" doesn't mean that care workers should be FORCED to put up with that crap. They're certainly free to stop doing business with him, and if Stan Lee doesn't like it then he's free to hire a company that will.

In general, getting a pass means they are not held responsible for their actions. How do you twist the phrase into the silliness above?

Um, mostly because people keep bringing up shit like him not being convicted or him being innocent until proven guilty and dragging demented people out into the streets. Did you even bother to read the article? NO ONE IS TRYING TO DO ANY OF THAT STUFF.

This is nothing more than a case of Lee hiring a company, one or more employees of that company complaining about lee's behavior, the company then refusing to deal with Lee, and Lee then fighting back against the accusations. NOTHING about this has ****-all to do with dragging Lee out into the streets or putting him on trial. The truly mind-boggling thing here is people actually WANTING him put on trial just so he can clear his name, even though a "not guilty" verdict in no way means "innocent" and that would actually mean DRAGGING A SUPPOSEDLY DEMENTED MAN TO TRIAL.

Anyway, wtf do you not understand about "not being responsible for one's actions" not being the same thing as "people having to deal with the guy"? I see some bums on the street and yes, I'm sure that some of them are mentally ill and "not responsible for their actions." That doesn't mean that I personally have to put up with their shit when they approach me acting crazy, and it doesn't mean that business owners aren't allowed to eject their asses for acting crazy. if it's a ****ing problem (as in, to the extent of the company's workers being subjected to sexual harassment in order to serve the guy), then YES...many companies will absolutely say, "we're no longer doing business with this person."

Read more carefully? Someone questioned the justification for giving a free pass in post 76. What do you think the consequences are for sexual harassment and assault, having to go to bed early?

That however still doesn't explain the logic behind claiming that 'getting a free pass' means forcing women to serve him. When has refusing to hold someone accountable for their actions ever translated to forcing a third party to work a gig they don't wish to work? Who do you think made such a demand?

@kittennose:

I think that YOU need to read more closely. Has that person (in post 76) actually clarified what they mean by "getting a free pass"?

Bonus: can you explain how the "punishment" here is too harsh compared to the crime, even though Stan Lee isn't on trial for any crime and hasn't been convicted or sentenced?

Again, have you even attempted to read this thread?

When did I say sonic had clarified? I provided the common definition, not being held accountable for one's actions, and asked why you think anyone is implying the women should be forced to do anything. A question you continue to avoid by the way. Has been quite a few posts...

Should I take this to mean you just are not going to answer?

Let me reiterate on this article. The guy is 95 years old and lives in a NURSING HOME. He lacks the independence to live alone. When people become older they often lose their cognitive faculties and behave in disinhibited fashions. It's sad but often the first signs of dementia are a lack of impulse control. There is a huge difference between a 90+ year old person who lacks the critical judgement, cognition, and mental faculties to understand the intricacies of sexual harassment and a younger person who does not. Comparing him to a dirtbag like Harvey Weinstein or Bill Clinton who knowingly assaults a woman, is unfair. Those men should know better. Stan Lee is probably lucky if he knows his name. srsly ppl.

Are you going to answer the question of WHAT PEOPLE MEAN by "getting a free pass"? He's not going to prison, he's not being put on trial, so far all that's happened is that the company is stopping doing business with him due to complaints. If that's not already "a free pass", then what would be "a free pass" in YOUR opinion?

I believe the article said that Stan Lee receives nursing care in his own home. In any case, I'd be more inclined to buy this argument if the publicly released statement had actually acknowledged that the events happened (or may have happened) and that Lee's dementia is the cause. Instead, it's sort of vilifying the accuser(s) and saying that they're just gold-diggers out for Stan Lee's money. Which may be the case, I don't know. But if that's not the case, then I think the dementia excuse is out the window. If he's acting inappropriately because he's old and demented and doesn't know any better, then the people in charge of maintaining his public image ought to be honest about that.

I already did you doof. It was my first reply to you. I am going to assume now that you are still not going to answer my question, so I guess have fun being all crazy.

@sonicare: @MrGeezer: @kittennose:

Please look at the big picture... I am the poster of post 76 actually.. but besides that, it is irrelevant what a "free pass" is specifically defined as. As I have implied, in this particular case, a 95 yr old nearvegetable is worrying more about who is going to clean up his feces smears stuck on his flanks, rather than getting "a pass", whether that be a pass by his fans, or by a company agreeing to work with him, or by avoiding a case, or preserving his good name, etc etc etc.

On one side of the spectrum you have a sicko like Dr. Nassar US Gymnastics (who admitted what he did) ......and on the other extreme you have Duke Lacrosse Scandal (malingering to the extreme). This Stan Lee thing is up in the air and involved alleged groping which still qualifies gross as shit.

Certain states (Texas, Georgia) are heavy on TORT REFORM. So if you are going to try to malinger, (eg. I fell and tripped on a spilled hot coffee in McDonalds, and as a result I have new onset arthritis, and while I was unconscious, Ronald Mcdonald, Grimace, and Hamburgler took me to the back room and gang raped me, THUS i will attempt to sue MickyD's for $1 billion) you as a plaintiff will pay a heavy price.

TORT REFORM functions as a weed out mechanism, and equilibrium of sorts, so that monsters like Dr. Nassar rots in jail, and fabricators pay a huge price for their failed scams.

Whether u agree with TORT REFORM or not, in other words, in certain jurisdictions, if you are going to fight legally, you had better be damn sure you can win. That means NO FICTITIOUS cases, NO FRIVOLOUS cases, NO FABRICATED cases.

@multiplat:

Not getting a free pass means not holding someone responsible for their actions. Full stop. It isn't a phrase full of deep nuance. As this is the case, if you ask someone "Well why should we give them a free pass if they are just going to die soon?" people are going to interpret that as an endorsement of holding them responsible for their actions.

The entire point of consequences is so that folks understand or learn what behavior is unacceptable. If there is something wrong with someone that prevents them from understanding why an action is wrong, they at least have the punishment to remind them that such behavior is to be avoided.

We don't hold dementia patients responsible for their actions because no consequence, regardless of how big or small, is going to change their behavior. It doesn't really matter what they do, even if it is intensely violent or uncomfortable. No consequence is going to help them understand why their actions harm others, or mitigate their actions out of fear of punishment. Thus holding them accountable for their actions on any level is usually considered immoral.

Hopefully that helps to explain the reactions to your question. There is however one more thing you should probably understand about dementia patients: It isn't a dementia patient's responsibility to make sure they do not harm anyone, including themselves. They are generally entrusted to full time caregivers who are paid to be entrusted with such responsibilities on their behalf. Just like babysitters and the parents of children, when money changes hands and an agreement is made, responsibility changes hands as well.

This is what makes the idea of a caregiver leveling accusations of harm against a dementia patient an example of putrescent corruption in many people's eyes. If Stan Lee had escaped to play in traffic, thus resulting in a huge accident, it would be the caregivers being sued not Stan Lee. If Stan Lee had gotten hurt who ever was in charge of his affairs would be suing them. Just like a parent of a toddler who's babysitter allowed them to play in traffic. It is sort of assumed that caregivers understand such things, as once again they are paid to accept this responsibility. They are of course allowed to quit if they don't wish to deal with it, but that doesn't change who has responsibility for their patient's actions so long as they are cashing the checks.

If he is not a dementia patient, then he should be publicly (but unfortunately only metaphorically) nailed for a wall for all to see, so that Stand Lee himself any anyone else who thinks like him has a crystal clear example as to why this is a bad idea. We will only find out the truth of this if it goes to trial. If that happens and it turns out he was not in control of his actions, it is the caregivers who need the exact same lesson.

Particularly if the blackmail allegations are true.

Whaaat? Have you actually met the man? I have, twice in comic conventions in the early 90s when I was a kid and he's about the nicest guy. Not arrogant at all. I even have a spectacular spiderman issue 1 signed by him.

I don't know the specifics of this particular case or of Stan Lee's health other than he is 95 and requires nursing care. I have, however, worked with elderly people and patients and can honestly say that this type of behavior is not uncommon. Many people in the later years will suffer a significant decline in the cognitive faculties. They lose critical thinking skills, memory, judgement, and often show personality changes. Some become very docile, but others become aggressive. There are even defined syndromes were some of the elderly become almost hypersexualized - they lose frontal lobe mass and function and become disinhibited. If you look at brain scans of these people - you will see signficant atrophy of their brains - they've lost gray matter and the abilities that come with that. They really aren't the same people they used to be.

As such, I think it is highly unfair to sit there and attack these people's character. It reeks of incredible self righteousness and ignorance. Nursing home care workers should know these things. They work with the elderly as is their occupation. If this particular patient is too combative or aggressive for them, it's fine for them to refuse the contract - but that sort of personal and health information should be kept confidential. Many of us would consider that unprofessional to do otherwise. I've had a few relatives die of alzheimers disease. They become incredibly confused and agitated at times. They cuss, they strike out at people, and they behave erratically. But I dont sit there and judge them on that behavior. I understand that they really aren't in control anymore and shouldn't be held to the same standards as someone of sound mind. We hold people responsible for their actions, but there do exist people that we can't because they've lost the ability to understand or judge their own actions. If you had a mother or father with alzheimer's disease, would you want the nursing home workers to be publishing all their behavior publicly and shaming them?

Furthermore, if stan lee has a history of groping woman at a younger age, then I'd have no problem with people bashing the guy. Maybe he does, I dont know, but I think if this behavior didnt start until he was in his late 90's, that's not something I would hold against him.

I also forgot to comment on this. While what you says is true also consider this: If you were to MRI brain scan (or do other medical tests) of any 20-40 yr old violent pedophile/rapist/serial killer, you would also see an immense amount of abnormal pathology (not necessarily atrophy, but other abnormalities), and abnormal endocrine results with other tests depending on which category they fall into.

However, regardless of how abnormal a rapist's biologic tests come out, that does NOT play any factor at all as I think we all can agree that a rapist deserves to rot in jail-hell. So what if he is biologically abnormal and judgement impaired? fuk him

No you f***ing didn't. Stop lying. You also have no business answering for other people since THEY were the ones talking about "a free pass" and you're just ASSUMING what they meant by that.

So no...you didn't. You're not going to answer the question? You're just going to keep dodging it? Then have fun being crazy.

Also, I just asked TWO questions. You say that you answered "it". Well, which question is that referring to? Did you not read closely enough to realize that I asked two questions and you only gave one answer? Please start reading more closely. Seriously, it isn't that difficult.

Good point, which makes me bring up another question that I haven't seen anyone mention...did anyone else notice the disconnect between the article and the statement to the media?

The article talks about MULTIPLE accusers and talks about the nursing company stopping doing business with Stan Lee. The statement to the media specifically talks about ONE accuser and mentions trying to squeeze money out of the guy.

So...those are sort of two different versions of events. The former plays more into 'the guy is just a creep", the latter plays more into "someone's trying to squeeze him out for money." Any idea on which version of those events is more accurate? Because the news article doesn't talk about suing the guy, and the prepared statement doesn't mention multiple incidents. There's a BIG disconnect here, which should make anyone question wtf is actually happening. Was it multiple accounts of harassment and then the company just ditching the guy? Or was it one gold-digger looking for a payout and taking the guy to court? We have two conflicting stories here.

That's all fine and well, but people need nursing care for reasons other than having lost their damn minds. Some people have physical disabilities that require nursing care, but they're still entirely cognizant of their actions and are able to control themselves. It could go either way, honestly. Without further knowledge, Stan Lee could be physically unwell enough to require nursing care while his mind is competent, or he may just be so old that he's lost his damn mind.

That's partly why I was saying that IF he's just completely demented, then whoever is in control of maintaining his social presence needs to be honest about this stuff. Like I said, I'd completely buy the argument that he's old as shit and his mind has degraded to the point where he can't control himself. In my mind, that would ABSOLUTELY place him beyond criticism. So if that's the state that he's in, why the hell are his PR people not making a point about this?

You're all worried about North Korea but it's these feminists that threaten life as we know it. It was probably feminists that ended the dinosaurs.

but don't forget, there is a lot of Feminist on Feminist crime these days.... so maybe their numbers will dwindle down?

Stan Lee? lol

We are up to the point where every male is going to be accused of Sexual stuff. lol lmao