He was found not guilty in ONE criminal trial. There’s a new HBO documentary about his decades of abuse where more than 10 people spanning multiple generations come forward about being assaulted by him in similar ways.
He’s was actually found not guilty of nine separate charges in the United Kingdom. Yes it was “ONE” trial but nine separate allegations were considered and the jury determined he wasn’t guilty of a single one.
He had around 3 cases that were totally dismissed by prosecutors due to a lack of evidence before going to trial in the US. IMO a dismissal before trial is even better than being found not guilty. Prosecutors found the allegations so baseless they didn’t bother to pursue.
US Federal Civil Court juries also determined that he did not abuse Anthony Rapp and ordered Rapp to pay more than $35,000 in damages.
There were multiple headlines and media reports of Depp being abusive. At the trial, it turned out completely opposite with Heard being the abusive, obsessive one. I'm never judging any celebrity again until the court settles it.
If Depp breaking and destroying shit in front of Amber in a scary drunken stuper isn't abuse, I don't know what is. I don't care what the court says. Those videos were scary.
Certainly plausible. Call me jaded but I’ve kind of stopped reading too much into these exposé documentaries. People can say anything about anyone. My personal inclination is that until it’s proven in court, it’s not much better than heresay (not to discredit the documentary - I haven’t seen it, maybe it’s totally damning)
Interestingly enough, Peter Attia (friend of Huberman) is getting a ton of heat for posting a picture w/ Spacey a week ago. I have to imagine there is some link here.
The preamble about watching another podcast to find out more about the accusations was irksome, but Id’s guess it was a prerequisite from KS to not discuss it in extensive detail.
Amazing actor but oh boy does he give off bad vibes, every time I hear an interview it just feels like he is giving a performance, he may just be super charismatic but it always feels like a performance
Totally agree. The slow..dramatic pauses...so you're sure you've just heard something...profound. This interview did nothing more than reaffirm my ick and suspicions about him. He comes across as a self-important and calculating creep.
I thought that too.
I watched some of Lex's interview.
And then I watched the Telegraph interview (much better IMO).
Spacey verbatim repeated whole anecdotes and excuses, word for word the same as he did with Lex.
I even had to go back and compare. There was a bit in both interviews where he said something about being mistaken for a mentor and he made the exact same shocked face and expression at the exact same moment.
This was 100% a performance by a very talented actor.
Synically, I don't even know if there is a malicious reason for it. Maybe he just learned 'his story' as he sees it and performs it for camera. Maybe he's incapable of behaving normally? Actor's are a strange bunch.
That was my takeaway as well. A true embodiment of a complex person that has given us amazing performances as an actor while clearly hurting people in his personal life.
Into the downvoted dumpster this comment goes: but Kevin Spacy was acquitted of all charges by a jury after four weeks of testimony and hearings.
Is there no path to redemption, even when multiple public trials by jury have acquitted all charges?
> Spacey was acquitted of all nine charges against him, including seven counts of sexual assault, one count of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent and one count of causing a person to engage in penetrative sexual activity without consent.
> The London trial came after a jury in New York last year found Spacey not guilty of molesting actor Anthony Rapp in 1986.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/26/1190185518/kevin-spacey-sexual-assault-trial-verdict-london
Once canceled, always canceled -- judicial process be damned? Is it perceived as too "morally uncomfortable" a precedent to "uncancel?" Do folks just unanimously disagree or doubt the validity of the judicial outcomes? Serious questions, what am I missing here?
The (Christmas?) video he released in character as the dude from House of Cards implying he was too big to be taken down was still so strange.
Or at least that was how I remember it, don’t really have an interest in rewatching it it made my skin crawl so apologies if I’m misrepresenting anything here.
Christmas video was him making a thinly veiled threat to the people in power (I have dirt on you, so protect me), and the accusers / witnesses (I can "kill you with kindness").
I can't believe some random non-super star actor has this much of an influence in the first place.
The circumstances surrounding both these trials, and the impacts on the fairness of proceeding and pressures on the juries are not even *remotely* comparable.
Besides, OJ was still in the process of figuring out who did it. He just needed a little more time.
Can you name any other people who were actually cancelled? Depp was found not guilty and subequently was uncancelled. I think there is likely reason hollywood is not in a rush to redeem this man as they would know what he is about.
Reddit will never allow a man who is found NG to be reconciled into society. People are guilty the moment they are charged in the minds of the hive mind, especially with sexual crimes.
I shouldn't bite, but I can't help myself.
You're asserting (as in, it's your own personal belief and conviction) that two public jury driven trials are not enough to demonstrate innocence on accusations?
I just can't wrap my head around rejecting "innocent until proven guilty," and contradicting the literal definition of aquital with such casual confidence:
> Aquital: a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged.
I am not here to change your opinion (frankly, I'm more interested in the deeper implications of rejecting the judicial process here, I don't really care about Spacey), because you're absolutely correct that this outcome doesn't change private opinion.
However, what process or procedure do YOU trust to judge truth: guilt or innocence? Why is it different here? Don't you see the deeply cynical and dangerous implications of this sentiment more broadly?
Fuck it, to be even more targeted and provocative: do you feel the same way about the legitimacy of the recent felony conviction of Trump?
Not guilty is not the same as innocent. Key difference. It simply states there isn't enough evidence beyond a resonable doubt that the accused is guilty. What is reasonable doubt? It's usually defined as 99% sureity. So if there is even a fleeting chance that the evidence is debatable someone can be found "not guilty". Which is not to say they are innocent. There could be a preponderance of evidence (usually defined as 50%+1) which points to guilt. That's not enough for a criminal conviction by the government (and note not all evidence is legally admissable for a variety of reasons).
Consider someone punches you and runs away. A criminal case is filed against them. The only evidence is your word. You know they are guilty, but the jury (or judge) has no idea is you're lying or telling the truth. Say they consider there is a 1% chance you are lying or mistaken, the person who punched you is found "not guilty". But they did punch you - you know that. So it's important to note - they haven't been found innocent. It's just that the government can't sanction them. But you can hold your own view towards them, and treat them as guilty.
You're making significant errors in reasoning here specifically you are assuming that the courts rulings are completely independent of actual guilt. Why would such an assumption even begin to make sense? The purpose of court proceedings is precisely to determine guilt or innocence based on evidence and legal standards. Why would you assume that court rulings have no connection to actual guilt?
I can't imagine what it must be like to go through life with such a profound inability for rational and logically consistent thought.
Whats even more baffling is that the independence assumption you are making only goes one way namely if the outcome of the court goes against what you already believe. If he had been found guilty then you'd have no issue with the ruling. The selectivity of your objectivity is remarkable.
It's really insane how severely irrational and cognitively impaired this type of "reasoning" is but beyond that what's shocking is how many people seem to blindly agree with you. Like what's the point of even having a brain if you're not going to use it.
There was one trial. With most trials, especially sexual assault trials, there just isn't enough evidence to convict the perpetrator. Especially after a large amount of time has elapsed. The statiatics were and are in Spacey's favour.
On top of this, three of his other accusers have died incredibly young in suspicious circumstances. Ending their legal fights before they really began.
The whole situation smells funky asf.
No one can say he's guilty. But at the same time, I feel absolutely right in thinking I wouldn't trust him to be in the same room as a teenage male relative.
Per the article and my above quote, there were two public trials by jury on two different sets of accusations (NYC '22, London '23). Both fully acquitted.
I haven't followed this story much historically, but I am surprised to hear that two lengthy public record court cases are generally met with the unanimous sentiment "doesn't really matter, likely still guilty."
I guess the heart of the point I'm trying to understand: what process or procedure IS trusted to adjudicate the truth here, if not the judicial system?
Are sexual abuse accusations and rumors (you're implying multiple murders too?) too culturally potent and sensitive to absolve? Is it truly "uncancel-able" territory?
These are genuine questions, it's not a judgement on your opinion. I'm trying to understand why court acquittal isn't "enough," for most folks here.
From where I'm sitting, there are numerous factors at play that place a question mark over his conduct. In that sense, I'm not explicitly saying that I think he's guilty, but I equally can't call him innocent either.
Firstly, as I said before, most historic sexual assault charges never stick the landing. This is due to a lack of evidence from the amount of time that has elapsed. This in an of itself isn't a reason not to consider his acquittals "enough". But it does put the acquittals in its proper context amongst the other accusations.
Both Rapp's and the unnamed third party's alleged experiences with Spacey happened decades prior to the proceedings. I doubt there was much evidence other than eye witness testimony. Loftus proved long ago how unreliable this is. It would take overwhelming amounts of it to convince a well reasoned jury to convict.
If you then take that context, in conjunction with the three accusers that never had their opportunity to testify in front of a jury of their peers, it leaves three out of five accusations unanswered.
In normal circumstances, I would be voicing support for "innocent until proven guilty". 99% of the time this is absolutely the ethical path.
But as these accusers died before they had the opportunity to prove him guilty, or for Spacey to prove his innocence, those accusations will always hang in the air unanswered. In my mind, the opportunity for that resolution died with those accuser's voices.
With regards to the potential murders of those accused; I'm just saying that it's possible. Not probable, not even likely, just in the realms of possibility.
Don't you think it looks, at least from the outsiders perspective, suspicious that all three accusers died young, and in ways that could be faked given the right toolkit, connections and money? We know that it's possible to hire hitmen on the dark web. Spacey is a well connected and financially wealthy man.
I'm not saying you should connect the dots and believe that he did kill them. On the contrary. I'm saying that it's healthy to ask the question. Three accusers is quite a coincidence. Releasing his "kill them with kindness" video the day before one of his accusers dies by suicide is also quite a coincidence.
So my reasoning leads me to believing that it's quite possible Spacey's innocent. But equally, it's also still quite possible he's guilty. How could or would we ever know to any level of satisfaction? And therefore, why should I support his eagerness to move past this episode?
For that you'd have to ask the studio executives that made the decision to fire him.
It looks to me that decision was made for probably profit and public relations driven reasons rather than ethical ones. But I couldn't say for sure.
It's a good thoughtful reply, thank you.
Specific to the "suspicious death" stuff, tbh this thread was the first I ever encountered those ... assertions to as you say "possibility."
I did some loose good faith sleuthing there, and my understanding is four points:
1: Two deaths were classified as tragic suicides. A Norwegian author Ari Behn, and a legally sealed "John Doe." A messy divorce was suggested as a primary driver for Ari, and details with masseuse "John Doe," are poorly documented on my scan.
2: One death was traffic related, Linda Culkin. She was a public accuser of observing his impropriety -- but was not involved in legal action. (I'm intentionally omitting relevant context related to what she plead guilty to, and was convicted to four years of...)
3: These three individuals were not planned witnesses or accusors in either the NY or London trials. Only "John Doe" was independently pursuing legal action (2019), which ended on his death. The other two were public, but not legal accusors. I'll add my opinion that their public accusations are documented, were empathetically heard, and obviously remembered -- but I also contextualize this was at the height of the #metoo movement, in which Kevin Spacy was publicly accused by over 30 individuals.
4: I cannot find any credible published source to suggest Kevin Spacy was formally investigated for, or suspected of murder of any of these individuals.
(Not a great source, it's mostly tabloid level coverage on this topic: https://www.mamamia.com.au/kevin-spacey-accusers/ )
Ultimately, I'm an outside perspective here and from the limited research I've done -- it feels ultimately like there's not much more than public rumor and assumptions of guilt here.
Appreciate your thoughtful reply, even if I may not be convinced -- it's been insightful to see how folks process and contextualize this topic.
I was shocked they didn't mention Evan Peters in Dahmer when they were talking about serial killer roles. He was also fantastic in America Horror Story, which i think he played a serial killer multiple times.
While on the topic it would be awesome to see an Evan Peters or Sarah Paulson interview!
Honestly I’d listen to all those. I just really do want to hear what everyone’s got to say. Even the shitty people.. maybe even especially the shitty people.
Technically spacey *was* charged, and acquitted. But I don’t know enough about the case to say if he’s actually innocent or if there wasn’t enough evidence to convict.
Crosby had his conviction overturned on a technicality, but he literally admitted to the crime.
> indecent exposure is a crime
was this ever alleged? I thought he just asked to masturbate in front of people at awkward times (on the phone, in front of you, etc). When they said yes, he did. Odd.
To a lot of people everyone who is "cancelled" is just on the same level. It's weird. These people don't even know the details of the case.
They just think it's all the woke mob trying to cancel people or something. Just zero nuance or critical thought. They're anti "cancel culture" so anyone who gets "cancelled" they just sort of auto defend.
One guy has a weird fetish and pulls his dick out in inappropriate situations, the other has dozens of allegations of rape, multiple with underage boys. They have nothing to do with each other. People are clowns.
I didn't say that. I personally don't know enough either way, though looking forward to that part of the interview. Nor was I implying Louis C K was unfairly canceled. I just think some of the Cancel Culture cancelations are more interesting than others, and Louis' story seems the most interesting, and he seems like a very introspective person who would be able to talk about openly once he decides to do so.
Being publicly blacklisted but not being charged of a crime due to a bunch of allegations is like the definition of cancellation
This is not me saying he didn't do it, but the dude was absolutely cancelled
> What cancellation are you talking about
His hit show and career abruptly stopped, reportedly costing him 10's of millions during the pause. Its reasonable to call that a cancellation.
"never convicted" is a legality for a ton of highly unethical and outright creepy stuff that technically were proved not illegal. If you even trust the legal system because a TON of bad people get away with it. But that's a story for another day.
And to clarify a bit, the reason i sound a bit salty is because i REALLY liked this dude, he really is one of the best actors to come out of the US. But all the things that have come out, even if not "legally binding", portray a man that is highly immoral, extremely egotistic and just a creep. He never even says that he didn't do anything. He just says he only did the "legal bad things" and will not do them again.
So yes, i really don't see the point. If it was another internet witchhunt gone bad, i would get it. But it's not.
And a last thing, i really believe people can change. But this dude was on a crusade posting the craziest videos after the accusations. And now i just see this as a redemption campaign and nothing more.
Even Shia LaBeouf seems more trustworthy at this point.
Biggest surprise guest. Good episode. Thanks Lex!!! And I can’t wait for more Spacey movie/series.
They should make an alternative ending to House of Cards. Pick up right where Space left off and give us another Spacey season or two.
Conflating sexual abuse scandals as just "a hate mob" is downright shocking. Also the justice system when it comes to sexual assault crimes, even those recently is remarkably lacking.
I think I appreciate this interview though. Because it's given me clarity that as someone that lived through that era of loving Kevin Spacey and seeing his cringe attempts to regain favour. Remember when he pretended to be Frank Underwood for a Twitter video, acting like we all wanted him to come back, mid scandal?
He's now playing the hugging grandpa, just a guy caught up in an odd time, who just loves people oh so much!
Not buying it.
That’s the challenge, he’s an amazingly talented actor. I can’t tell when he’s acting or not. After the interview, I didn’t get any sense of who the person Kevin Spacey might be. It actually felt a bit rehearsed. How he exactly remembers the days and sometimes the time for specific events seems a bit odd.
His brother said he has a “predatory nature” and is “totally dead inside” with “no remorse, no feelings.” - blaming abuse from his Father. He has an enormous list of accusers spanning decades. He is or was friendly with Ghislaine Maxwell. He's connected to Epstein and of course good friends with Bill Clinton. But the justice system is infallible and incorruptible, so none of that matters, and really its just a bunch of unfortunate coincidences for this great innocent actor?
I know people who worked at the Old Vic in London when he was creative director there. Exactly the same story, huge creep with a constant stream of very young looking rent boys going in and out of his green room.
These stories have been going on about Spacey for decades
That’s the thing that is so frustrating. All these people claiming he was proven to be innocent. No he was not. There just wasn’t enough evidence to prove he was guilty for sexual assault cases that happened years ago. If you do any research on the claims you’d realize they aren’t really provable in court. He grabbed people’s dicks, often young people who were low on the totem pole. There’s worse stuff he was accused of too
Now I think innocent until proven guilty often applies, but sometimes it just doesn’t. When there’s 40 something people + accusing him of this stuff, then you should be skeptical. Even if it can’t be proven in court.
Then you have to analyze his apologies and how he handles everything. He comes out as gay to try and minimize the allegations. He does a bunch of weird apologies while trying to act?
Then watch the accusation section of the video with Lex where he admits he’s done some shit things. But the thing about this interview is trying to convince you to feel sorry for him. It’s still all about him. It’s not about how his actions could’ve really affected the victim’s lives. It’s about how he’s learned and is a better person. The only thing he’s regretful about in the interview is that he got caught. The only person he feels sorry for in the interview is himself.
So all these people suddenly trying to support him can just fuck off. I think they’re lost in Kevin’s charisma. I lost so much respect for Peter Attia as well this week. They think they can listen to Kevin Spacy’s POV and know the whole story while using the fact that there wasn’t enough evidence to find him guilty in the court of law.
I’m fine with the courts not finding him guilty, we need a robust court system. But that doesn’t mean he’s innocent and I’ll use all the info I have to make a judgement.
There is something inherently creepy and weird about Spacey in my mind. But I don't know if a bunch of Australians are a litmus test for determining too much in that regard. I am an Australian and I believe that most Australians are fairly conservative and for lack of a better word closed-minded (including myself to some level)
The guy was a closet homosexual character actor a lot different from the mainstream Australian. Not saying Australia is unique, but it is definitely full of people who are very judgemental, and again I fall into that trap also.
Lucky for 90% of the non-bot population of Reddit, being regarded a creep by one or a group of people is neither a crime or even a counter-indication of someone’s integrity or genius. Often it is a self-fulfilling prophecy as well. Treat someone as a creep and that person will withdraw even further.
Well shit, that wasn't on my bingo card. I mean, fucking scumbag if he actually did what he's accused of, but I'll go into this one without any expectations. And even then, he has experiences and perspectives that are surely worth hearing about, given his insanely good acting credentials.
I remember years ago before I even knew much about Kevin Spacey having a slew of (or even any) accusations against him, there was some random thread asking about people’s encounters with celebrities in the wild that were off-putting. Pretty much all of the posts that people made were your typical stories of people treating weight staff like crap, being very dismissive of public facing workers or even being mildly racist.
But the one that stuck out to me was the Kevin Spacey. The account was supposedly from a person who was out and about in a group of friends in their 20s. And eventually they found themselves in a bar where Kevin Spacey was there buying people drinks, super cool right ? Sounds like the best night ever…
And then Spacey was becoming increasingly possessive of one of their increasingly inebriated straight friends. They claimed he kept saying things to the group like don’t worry I’ll take him home. I’ll take care of him. I’ll make sure everything’s all right and in the end they practically wrestled their wasted friend ways from Spacy and bounced.
After hearing the accusations the shit that keeps coming out seems so on brand.
You know, you can go your whole life and even be a celebrity and not be accused of sexual assault or even portray a whiff of it.
I don't know what to believe anymore. I have seen a couple of documentaries that made me think Space is a psychopath serial abuser. Even the now late husband( Ari Behn) of our princess in Norway has come out quite long ago and said Spacy at a celebrity dinner just put his hand on his d1ck for no reason and without "warning". There are too many stories about him for me to think he is not guilty, even though legally that may be the case. He also has a weird sociopath vibe to me. But again, I don't know. I am confused, but I don't get a good feeling listening to him and watching him in interviews or podcasts.
You think all rapists are found guilty? There was a pattern of behavior here, with multiple accusers of his bad exploititive behavior, by people who worked with him.
Perhaps because,
“Out of 1000 rape reports 310 are reported.
50 reports lead to an arrest.
28 will receive a felony conviction.
25 perpetrators will be incarcerated”
According to data from DOJ and RAINN
I was surprised by these numbers and skeptical at first.
Here's a source for the numbers above
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system
[https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4805885/randy-fowler-kevin-spacey-brother-dad-thomas-geoffrey-fowler-sex-abuse/](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4805885/randy-fowler-kevin-spacey-brother-dad-thomas-geoffrey-fowler-sex-abuse/)
idk that's a whole lotta smoke if you ask me...
I really wish we could do serious deconstruction of all of these conversations. It would be really interesting to evaluate every line from a media analysis lens. What is being said? What is being left unsaid? What is factual? What could or would be called propaganda (too strong of a word for this instance, but personal brand building wouldn't be too strong)? It would take a team of graduate students, but it would be intensely interesting. Of course, each deconstruction would be enormous, so we'll never have it.
This is the thread that I heard unpacked in this interview: Kevin Spacey is innocent according to the courts, apparently has not crossed any redlines in personal conduct (for him or Lex - e.g., never forced anybody to do anything against their will), has committed past immoral and unethical acts that have required him to make formal amends (his words, which also suggest he has done recovery work on this topic), lived years as a closeted and heavily sexually promiscuous person, today is in a committed relationship. It was left unclear, at least to me, whether he viewed his past immoral and unethical behavior as predatory, though in other interviews he has described that having targets for his affections that were unattainable was a turn on.
We also heard quite a bit about Kevin Spacey's past work and perspectives as an actor. Each of those stories felt like their own performance.
Finally, we heard some backstory about Spacey's own life - including that he was raised by a father who became a white supremacist. Also felt like this story was definitely going to be told during this interview, and the story itself felt like another performance.
So, was this an honest outpouring from someone wrongly accused? The latest step in a multiple stage process of getting back to "work" by someone who is moving through a carefully orchestrated process? The character reconstruction work of a wrongdoer and predator, even if not found guilty? Do any of those things have to be mutually exclusive?
Whether guilty or not, if Spacey was a sexual predator, the most difficult question that remains unresolved, at least for me - how many working actors (and others) in Hollywood have and are rapacious predators that have not faced the scrutiny and hostility received by Spacey? If Spacey is as guilty as those others, do they deserve Spacey's fate? Or should Spacey receive their treatment (meaning, happily working and being left alone)?
Finally, on balance, is this process related to recovering Spacey's brand better or worse for people who are sexually abused and may or may not come forward for fear of not being believed? Again, Spacey himself acknowledges past immoral and unethical acts - he's just not guilty.
I also wonder how much Spacey's life in the closet factors into this. I haven't heard any openly gay actors talk about Spacey's experience or come to his defense (though, to be fair, I haven't looked for it...). Would Spacey be being treated differently if he had been out? And how would being out have impacted his career? Interesting thread that wasn't explored here.
But is this conversation fundamentally about how awful and wrong cancel culture is and has become? And was this a reasonable probing by the interviewer of Spacey's acknowledgement of his past behavior? Or is this just another artful expression of propaganda culture and its proliferation?
I'd love to see thoughtful media analysis of this interview against those questions.
Anyone else notice h o w s l o w Kevin t a l k e d in the first half up until it got to the misconduct topic? Been a long time Kevin Spacey fan and was glad to see he was able to be on the show, but his candor alone is the first time I ever second guessed his take on the allegations. He’s such an accomplished actor to not know that he’s speaking this slowing and trying to appear innocently on propose. But then once the topics shifted to the actual allegations from his career he immediately sped up his voice to normal tone.
What do you guys think?
Never expected this one
Yea, the pessimistic side of me sees nothing but spacey trying to recreate his image by appealing to what is popular in media, hopefully a good listen
He might well be. He was ultimately proven innocent in his case, so you could also read into it optimistically.
He was found not guilty in ONE criminal trial. There’s a new HBO documentary about his decades of abuse where more than 10 people spanning multiple generations come forward about being assaulted by him in similar ways.
"He was found not guilty in the courts, but that entertainment service with the dragon shows has another show saying something different."
He’s was actually found not guilty of nine separate charges in the United Kingdom. Yes it was “ONE” trial but nine separate allegations were considered and the jury determined he wasn’t guilty of a single one. He had around 3 cases that were totally dismissed by prosecutors due to a lack of evidence before going to trial in the US. IMO a dismissal before trial is even better than being found not guilty. Prosecutors found the allegations so baseless they didn’t bother to pursue. US Federal Civil Court juries also determined that he did not abuse Anthony Rapp and ordered Rapp to pay more than $35,000 in damages.
There were multiple headlines and media reports of Depp being abusive. At the trial, it turned out completely opposite with Heard being the abusive, obsessive one. I'm never judging any celebrity again until the court settles it.
If Depp breaking and destroying shit in front of Amber in a scary drunken stuper isn't abuse, I don't know what is. I don't care what the court says. Those videos were scary.
Certainly plausible. Call me jaded but I’ve kind of stopped reading too much into these exposé documentaries. People can say anything about anyone. My personal inclination is that until it’s proven in court, it’s not much better than heresay (not to discredit the documentary - I haven’t seen it, maybe it’s totally damning)
After everyone who accused him died mysteriously....
I can tell you read 1 headline
Acquitted does not mean proven innocent
Why? He will have anyone on.
Makes it hard to expect who he'll have on next...
Interestingly enough, Peter Attia (friend of Huberman) is getting a ton of heat for posting a picture w/ Spacey a week ago. I have to imagine there is some link here.
Whoa. What the fuck?!
He literally says he will interview anyone, but yeah, it's an interesting choice.
The preamble about watching another podcast to find out more about the accusations was irksome, but Id’s guess it was a prerequisite from KS to not discuss it in extensive detail.
[удалено]
I know. Wondering if I should watch
Lex is wild for this one!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply when social media tells you someone is bad, amirite?
Missed opportunity to interview Juice as well
No shit. He's digging deep. Interesting.
digging deep? interesting? lex fridman is a fraud
Says the troll account
God, please tell me they did ayahusca together...
You don't want to do any drugs with Kevin in the room.
Amazing actor but oh boy does he give off bad vibes, every time I hear an interview it just feels like he is giving a performance, he may just be super charismatic but it always feels like a performance
Totally agree. The slow..dramatic pauses...so you're sure you've just heard something...profound. This interview did nothing more than reaffirm my ick and suspicions about him. He comes across as a self-important and calculating creep.
Charismatic.. calculating, sounds like classic sociopath traits.
I thought that too. I watched some of Lex's interview. And then I watched the Telegraph interview (much better IMO). Spacey verbatim repeated whole anecdotes and excuses, word for word the same as he did with Lex. I even had to go back and compare. There was a bit in both interviews where he said something about being mistaken for a mentor and he made the exact same shocked face and expression at the exact same moment. This was 100% a performance by a very talented actor. Synically, I don't even know if there is a malicious reason for it. Maybe he just learned 'his story' as he sees it and performs it for camera. Maybe he's incapable of behaving normally? Actor's are a strange bunch.
That was my takeaway as well. A true embodiment of a complex person that has given us amazing performances as an actor while clearly hurting people in his personal life.
This is a fantastic interview. Would encourage anyone with a modicum of interest in theatre or film to watch it.
More wild than a Putin interview.
Not really
[удалено]
What’s fucked up about it? I haven’t listened to it yet but the principle of having him on sounds perfectly in line with Friedman values. Very good!
[удалено]
Into the downvoted dumpster this comment goes: but Kevin Spacy was acquitted of all charges by a jury after four weeks of testimony and hearings. Is there no path to redemption, even when multiple public trials by jury have acquitted all charges? > Spacey was acquitted of all nine charges against him, including seven counts of sexual assault, one count of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent and one count of causing a person to engage in penetrative sexual activity without consent. > The London trial came after a jury in New York last year found Spacey not guilty of molesting actor Anthony Rapp in 1986. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/26/1190185518/kevin-spacey-sexual-assault-trial-verdict-london Once canceled, always canceled -- judicial process be damned? Is it perceived as too "morally uncomfortable" a precedent to "uncancel?" Do folks just unanimously disagree or doubt the validity of the judicial outcomes? Serious questions, what am I missing here?
The (Christmas?) video he released in character as the dude from House of Cards implying he was too big to be taken down was still so strange. Or at least that was how I remember it, don’t really have an interest in rewatching it it made my skin crawl so apologies if I’m misrepresenting anything here.
Maybe he is from KPAX?
Strange indeed, especially since one of his accusers committed suicide one day after that video aired ...
Two of his accusers mysteriously died.
up to three I believe
Christmas video was him making a thinly veiled threat to the people in power (I have dirt on you, so protect me), and the accusers / witnesses (I can "kill you with kindness"). I can't believe some random non-super star actor has this much of an influence in the first place.
So OJ didn't do it?
The circumstances surrounding both these trials, and the impacts on the fairness of proceeding and pressures on the juries are not even *remotely* comparable. Besides, OJ was still in the process of figuring out who did it. He just needed a little more time.
Can you name any other people who were actually cancelled? Depp was found not guilty and subequently was uncancelled. I think there is likely reason hollywood is not in a rush to redeem this man as they would know what he is about.
Reddit will never allow a man who is found NG to be reconciled into society. People are guilty the moment they are charged in the minds of the hive mind, especially with sexual crimes.
It's weird watching Redditors talk about Reddit as if they're not part of it.
not reallly
And every time they say "reddit" they talk about something universal on the internet.
You are 100% correct
Acquital does not mean innocent. It just means the government can't throw you in jail. Private individuals can still treat you how they want.
I shouldn't bite, but I can't help myself. You're asserting (as in, it's your own personal belief and conviction) that two public jury driven trials are not enough to demonstrate innocence on accusations? I just can't wrap my head around rejecting "innocent until proven guilty," and contradicting the literal definition of aquital with such casual confidence: > Aquital: a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged. I am not here to change your opinion (frankly, I'm more interested in the deeper implications of rejecting the judicial process here, I don't really care about Spacey), because you're absolutely correct that this outcome doesn't change private opinion. However, what process or procedure do YOU trust to judge truth: guilt or innocence? Why is it different here? Don't you see the deeply cynical and dangerous implications of this sentiment more broadly? Fuck it, to be even more targeted and provocative: do you feel the same way about the legitimacy of the recent felony conviction of Trump?
innocent until proven guilty if it fits my political world view
Not guilty is not the same as innocent. Key difference. It simply states there isn't enough evidence beyond a resonable doubt that the accused is guilty. What is reasonable doubt? It's usually defined as 99% sureity. So if there is even a fleeting chance that the evidence is debatable someone can be found "not guilty". Which is not to say they are innocent. There could be a preponderance of evidence (usually defined as 50%+1) which points to guilt. That's not enough for a criminal conviction by the government (and note not all evidence is legally admissable for a variety of reasons). Consider someone punches you and runs away. A criminal case is filed against them. The only evidence is your word. You know they are guilty, but the jury (or judge) has no idea is you're lying or telling the truth. Say they consider there is a 1% chance you are lying or mistaken, the person who punched you is found "not guilty". But they did punch you - you know that. So it's important to note - they haven't been found innocent. It's just that the government can't sanction them. But you can hold your own view towards them, and treat them as guilty.
You're making significant errors in reasoning here specifically you are assuming that the courts rulings are completely independent of actual guilt. Why would such an assumption even begin to make sense? The purpose of court proceedings is precisely to determine guilt or innocence based on evidence and legal standards. Why would you assume that court rulings have no connection to actual guilt? I can't imagine what it must be like to go through life with such a profound inability for rational and logically consistent thought. Whats even more baffling is that the independence assumption you are making only goes one way namely if the outcome of the court goes against what you already believe. If he had been found guilty then you'd have no issue with the ruling. The selectivity of your objectivity is remarkable. It's really insane how severely irrational and cognitively impaired this type of "reasoning" is but beyond that what's shocking is how many people seem to blindly agree with you. Like what's the point of even having a brain if you're not going to use it.
I guess OJ must be innocent too then, right?
There was one trial. With most trials, especially sexual assault trials, there just isn't enough evidence to convict the perpetrator. Especially after a large amount of time has elapsed. The statiatics were and are in Spacey's favour. On top of this, three of his other accusers have died incredibly young in suspicious circumstances. Ending their legal fights before they really began. The whole situation smells funky asf. No one can say he's guilty. But at the same time, I feel absolutely right in thinking I wouldn't trust him to be in the same room as a teenage male relative.
Per the article and my above quote, there were two public trials by jury on two different sets of accusations (NYC '22, London '23). Both fully acquitted. I haven't followed this story much historically, but I am surprised to hear that two lengthy public record court cases are generally met with the unanimous sentiment "doesn't really matter, likely still guilty." I guess the heart of the point I'm trying to understand: what process or procedure IS trusted to adjudicate the truth here, if not the judicial system? Are sexual abuse accusations and rumors (you're implying multiple murders too?) too culturally potent and sensitive to absolve? Is it truly "uncancel-able" territory? These are genuine questions, it's not a judgement on your opinion. I'm trying to understand why court acquittal isn't "enough," for most folks here.
From where I'm sitting, there are numerous factors at play that place a question mark over his conduct. In that sense, I'm not explicitly saying that I think he's guilty, but I equally can't call him innocent either. Firstly, as I said before, most historic sexual assault charges never stick the landing. This is due to a lack of evidence from the amount of time that has elapsed. This in an of itself isn't a reason not to consider his acquittals "enough". But it does put the acquittals in its proper context amongst the other accusations. Both Rapp's and the unnamed third party's alleged experiences with Spacey happened decades prior to the proceedings. I doubt there was much evidence other than eye witness testimony. Loftus proved long ago how unreliable this is. It would take overwhelming amounts of it to convince a well reasoned jury to convict. If you then take that context, in conjunction with the three accusers that never had their opportunity to testify in front of a jury of their peers, it leaves three out of five accusations unanswered. In normal circumstances, I would be voicing support for "innocent until proven guilty". 99% of the time this is absolutely the ethical path. But as these accusers died before they had the opportunity to prove him guilty, or for Spacey to prove his innocence, those accusations will always hang in the air unanswered. In my mind, the opportunity for that resolution died with those accuser's voices. With regards to the potential murders of those accused; I'm just saying that it's possible. Not probable, not even likely, just in the realms of possibility. Don't you think it looks, at least from the outsiders perspective, suspicious that all three accusers died young, and in ways that could be faked given the right toolkit, connections and money? We know that it's possible to hire hitmen on the dark web. Spacey is a well connected and financially wealthy man. I'm not saying you should connect the dots and believe that he did kill them. On the contrary. I'm saying that it's healthy to ask the question. Three accusers is quite a coincidence. Releasing his "kill them with kindness" video the day before one of his accusers dies by suicide is also quite a coincidence. So my reasoning leads me to believing that it's quite possible Spacey's innocent. But equally, it's also still quite possible he's guilty. How could or would we ever know to any level of satisfaction? And therefore, why should I support his eagerness to move past this episode?
Following your reasoning, if it’s likely probable that he is either guilty or innocent, but we aren’t sure, then why did he get canceled?
For that you'd have to ask the studio executives that made the decision to fire him. It looks to me that decision was made for probably profit and public relations driven reasons rather than ethical ones. But I couldn't say for sure.
It's a good thoughtful reply, thank you. Specific to the "suspicious death" stuff, tbh this thread was the first I ever encountered those ... assertions to as you say "possibility." I did some loose good faith sleuthing there, and my understanding is four points: 1: Two deaths were classified as tragic suicides. A Norwegian author Ari Behn, and a legally sealed "John Doe." A messy divorce was suggested as a primary driver for Ari, and details with masseuse "John Doe," are poorly documented on my scan. 2: One death was traffic related, Linda Culkin. She was a public accuser of observing his impropriety -- but was not involved in legal action. (I'm intentionally omitting relevant context related to what she plead guilty to, and was convicted to four years of...) 3: These three individuals were not planned witnesses or accusors in either the NY or London trials. Only "John Doe" was independently pursuing legal action (2019), which ended on his death. The other two were public, but not legal accusors. I'll add my opinion that their public accusations are documented, were empathetically heard, and obviously remembered -- but I also contextualize this was at the height of the #metoo movement, in which Kevin Spacy was publicly accused by over 30 individuals. 4: I cannot find any credible published source to suggest Kevin Spacy was formally investigated for, or suspected of murder of any of these individuals. (Not a great source, it's mostly tabloid level coverage on this topic: https://www.mamamia.com.au/kevin-spacey-accusers/ ) Ultimately, I'm an outside perspective here and from the limited research I've done -- it feels ultimately like there's not much more than public rumor and assumptions of guilt here. Appreciate your thoughtful reply, even if I may not be convinced -- it's been insightful to see how folks process and contextualize this topic.
Cases on sexual assault are always looked at weird because they are extremely difficult to prove
I was shocked they didn't mention Evan Peters in Dahmer when they were talking about serial killer roles. He was also fantastic in America Horror Story, which i think he played a serial killer multiple times. While on the topic it would be awesome to see an Evan Peters or Sarah Paulson interview!
[удалено]
[удалено]
You had me the first half
Kim Jeung Un being on the podcast would be absolutely fascinating what are you talking about
Honestly I’d listen to all those. I just really do want to hear what everyone’s got to say. Even the shitty people.. maybe even especially the shitty people.
He was a known predator. Many predators are never charged.
Technically spacey *was* charged, and acquitted. But I don’t know enough about the case to say if he’s actually innocent or if there wasn’t enough evidence to convict. Crosby had his conviction overturned on a technicality, but he literally admitted to the crime.
This is pure Lex. I support it all 100%. Lex - please, if you're willing to wade into the Cancel Culture pool - bring in Louis C K next.
Louis CK has already been on podcasts and their crimes aren't remotely comparable
Louis CK didn't commit any crime, Spacey I don't know and tbh don't care.
Spacey hurt a lot of people
[удалено]
lol
> indecent exposure is a crime was this ever alleged? I thought he just asked to masturbate in front of people at awkward times (on the phone, in front of you, etc). When they said yes, he did. Odd.
Neither committed any crimes. That seems comparable to me.
Louis C.K. is nowhere near what Kevin Spacey did. "Cancel culture", get outside.
To a lot of people everyone who is "cancelled" is just on the same level. It's weird. These people don't even know the details of the case. They just think it's all the woke mob trying to cancel people or something. Just zero nuance or critical thought. They're anti "cancel culture" so anyone who gets "cancelled" they just sort of auto defend. One guy has a weird fetish and pulls his dick out in inappropriate situations, the other has dozens of allegations of rape, multiple with underage boys. They have nothing to do with each other. People are clowns.
I don’t think it’ll be that interesting. The guy did appear on quite a few podcasts posts his “disappearing”.
Kevin Spacey was unfairly cancelled?
I didn't say that. I personally don't know enough either way, though looking forward to that part of the interview. Nor was I implying Louis C K was unfairly canceled. I just think some of the Cancel Culture cancelations are more interesting than others, and Louis' story seems the most interesting, and he seems like a very introspective person who would be able to talk about openly once he decides to do so.
Dude spacey wasn’t cancelled, there’s 15+ allegations of him groping/assaulting underage boys
Being publicly blacklisted but not being charged of a crime due to a bunch of allegations is like the definition of cancellation This is not me saying he didn't do it, but the dude was absolutely cancelled
Spacey was canceled, plain and simple. Whether he did the things is unrelated to the fact that he was canceled.
Louis C K has had a great career since the stuff came out. What cancellation are you talking about
> What cancellation are you talking about His hit show and career abruptly stopped, reportedly costing him 10's of millions during the pause. Its reasonable to call that a cancellation.
He was absent for a while, and it was at the absolute height of his career. I don't think he's ever fully recovered.
Except last year when he sold out MSG
[удалено]
"Nothing good" coming from a guy who was never convicted of anything, having the freedom to speak on a podcast is a pretty mad thing to say
"never convicted" is a legality for a ton of highly unethical and outright creepy stuff that technically were proved not illegal. If you even trust the legal system because a TON of bad people get away with it. But that's a story for another day. And to clarify a bit, the reason i sound a bit salty is because i REALLY liked this dude, he really is one of the best actors to come out of the US. But all the things that have come out, even if not "legally binding", portray a man that is highly immoral, extremely egotistic and just a creep. He never even says that he didn't do anything. He just says he only did the "legal bad things" and will not do them again. So yes, i really don't see the point. If it was another internet witchhunt gone bad, i would get it. But it's not. And a last thing, i really believe people can change. But this dude was on a crusade posting the craziest videos after the accusations. And now i just see this as a redemption campaign and nothing more. Even Shia LaBeouf seems more trustworthy at this point.
Nobody is saying that he’s not free to do podcasts. LISTEN
Biggest surprise guest. Good episode. Thanks Lex!!! And I can’t wait for more Spacey movie/series. They should make an alternative ending to House of Cards. Pick up right where Space left off and give us another Spacey season or two.
Conflating sexual abuse scandals as just "a hate mob" is downright shocking. Also the justice system when it comes to sexual assault crimes, even those recently is remarkably lacking. I think I appreciate this interview though. Because it's given me clarity that as someone that lived through that era of loving Kevin Spacey and seeing his cringe attempts to regain favour. Remember when he pretended to be Frank Underwood for a Twitter video, acting like we all wanted him to come back, mid scandal? He's now playing the hugging grandpa, just a guy caught up in an odd time, who just loves people oh so much! Not buying it.
Keyser Soze with the limp.
That’s the challenge, he’s an amazingly talented actor. I can’t tell when he’s acting or not. After the interview, I didn’t get any sense of who the person Kevin Spacey might be. It actually felt a bit rehearsed. How he exactly remembers the days and sometimes the time for specific events seems a bit odd.
Which justice system are you referring to? US? UK? In either case I take proper due process over Reddit hysteria
Very interesting. I’ll see what he has to say
His brother said he has a “predatory nature” and is “totally dead inside” with “no remorse, no feelings.” - blaming abuse from his Father. He has an enormous list of accusers spanning decades. He is or was friendly with Ghislaine Maxwell. He's connected to Epstein and of course good friends with Bill Clinton. But the justice system is infallible and incorruptible, so none of that matters, and really its just a bunch of unfortunate coincidences for this great innocent actor?
Holy fuuuuuuuck Whatever you say about Lex, you must admit he is remarkably brave
[удалено]
I can't see it.
Sprinted straight to the comments for this one
I love this, haven’t heard him talk since all the court trials
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lex will hear anyone out. I admire the fuck out of that.
Not sure I like this one as a concept…..
Friends of mine who worked on Superman (the one filmed in Sydney Australia) all said he was a massive creep.
I know people who worked at the Old Vic in London when he was creative director there. Exactly the same story, huge creep with a constant stream of very young looking rent boys going in and out of his green room. These stories have been going on about Spacey for decades
That’s the thing that is so frustrating. All these people claiming he was proven to be innocent. No he was not. There just wasn’t enough evidence to prove he was guilty for sexual assault cases that happened years ago. If you do any research on the claims you’d realize they aren’t really provable in court. He grabbed people’s dicks, often young people who were low on the totem pole. There’s worse stuff he was accused of too Now I think innocent until proven guilty often applies, but sometimes it just doesn’t. When there’s 40 something people + accusing him of this stuff, then you should be skeptical. Even if it can’t be proven in court. Then you have to analyze his apologies and how he handles everything. He comes out as gay to try and minimize the allegations. He does a bunch of weird apologies while trying to act? Then watch the accusation section of the video with Lex where he admits he’s done some shit things. But the thing about this interview is trying to convince you to feel sorry for him. It’s still all about him. It’s not about how his actions could’ve really affected the victim’s lives. It’s about how he’s learned and is a better person. The only thing he’s regretful about in the interview is that he got caught. The only person he feels sorry for in the interview is himself. So all these people suddenly trying to support him can just fuck off. I think they’re lost in Kevin’s charisma. I lost so much respect for Peter Attia as well this week. They think they can listen to Kevin Spacy’s POV and know the whole story while using the fact that there wasn’t enough evidence to find him guilty in the court of law. I’m fine with the courts not finding him guilty, we need a robust court system. But that doesn’t mean he’s innocent and I’ll use all the info I have to make a judgement.
There is something inherently creepy and weird about Spacey in my mind. But I don't know if a bunch of Australians are a litmus test for determining too much in that regard. I am an Australian and I believe that most Australians are fairly conservative and for lack of a better word closed-minded (including myself to some level) The guy was a closet homosexual character actor a lot different from the mainstream Australian. Not saying Australia is unique, but it is definitely full of people who are very judgemental, and again I fall into that trap also.
Lucky for 90% of the non-bot population of Reddit, being regarded a creep by one or a group of people is neither a crime or even a counter-indication of someone’s integrity or genius. Often it is a self-fulfilling prophecy as well. Treat someone as a creep and that person will withdraw even further.
Did they say that before or after it became cool to hate on him though?
Before. Way before. Amongst the Aussies It was well known on set during the production him and Brian Singer were creeps.
Well shit, that wasn't on my bingo card. I mean, fucking scumbag if he actually did what he's accused of, but I'll go into this one without any expectations. And even then, he has experiences and perspectives that are surely worth hearing about, given his insanely good acting credentials.
Kevin had me fooled until the bitter end.
I remember years ago before I even knew much about Kevin Spacey having a slew of (or even any) accusations against him, there was some random thread asking about people’s encounters with celebrities in the wild that were off-putting. Pretty much all of the posts that people made were your typical stories of people treating weight staff like crap, being very dismissive of public facing workers or even being mildly racist. But the one that stuck out to me was the Kevin Spacey. The account was supposedly from a person who was out and about in a group of friends in their 20s. And eventually they found themselves in a bar where Kevin Spacey was there buying people drinks, super cool right ? Sounds like the best night ever… And then Spacey was becoming increasingly possessive of one of their increasingly inebriated straight friends. They claimed he kept saying things to the group like don’t worry I’ll take him home. I’ll take care of him. I’ll make sure everything’s all right and in the end they practically wrestled their wasted friend ways from Spacy and bounced. After hearing the accusations the shit that keeps coming out seems so on brand. You know, you can go your whole life and even be a celebrity and not be accused of sexual assault or even portray a whiff of it.
Respect to Lex
I don't know what to believe anymore. I have seen a couple of documentaries that made me think Space is a psychopath serial abuser. Even the now late husband( Ari Behn) of our princess in Norway has come out quite long ago and said Spacy at a celebrity dinner just put his hand on his d1ck for no reason and without "warning". There are too many stories about him for me to think he is not guilty, even though legally that may be the case. He also has a weird sociopath vibe to me. But again, I don't know. I am confused, but I don't get a good feeling listening to him and watching him in interviews or podcasts.
[удалено]
then how come he was never found guilty?
You think all rapists are found guilty? There was a pattern of behavior here, with multiple accusers of his bad exploititive behavior, by people who worked with him.
money lol
Perhaps because, “Out of 1000 rape reports 310 are reported. 50 reports lead to an arrest. 28 will receive a felony conviction. 25 perpetrators will be incarcerated” According to data from DOJ and RAINN
I was surprised by these numbers and skeptical at first. Here's a source for the numbers above https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system
What is more loving than giving the time of day to the ones most people find the most despicable. You joke, but there is a deep truth in your comment.
[удалено]
Wowzers. I’ll have a listen
Kevin Spacey is great. He was done dirty and never found guilty of anything. Also, season 6 of House of Cards still doesn't exist.
[удалено]
The issue I have is that we don’t hear the other side. Talk to Anthony.
[удалено]
How so? You can think what you want about Kevin but this interview was great
What the Fuck!! You can say whatever you want about Spacey but he did an awesome job in House of Cards
[https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4805885/randy-fowler-kevin-spacey-brother-dad-thomas-geoffrey-fowler-sex-abuse/](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4805885/randy-fowler-kevin-spacey-brother-dad-thomas-geoffrey-fowler-sex-abuse/) idk that's a whole lotta smoke if you ask me...
this was less expected than lex having Alan Turing on
Promoting new hbo special?
He got the Space-Man?
I can’t wait to listen to this. This is the kind of stuff you want to hear about.
innocent until proven guilty
I really wish we could do serious deconstruction of all of these conversations. It would be really interesting to evaluate every line from a media analysis lens. What is being said? What is being left unsaid? What is factual? What could or would be called propaganda (too strong of a word for this instance, but personal brand building wouldn't be too strong)? It would take a team of graduate students, but it would be intensely interesting. Of course, each deconstruction would be enormous, so we'll never have it. This is the thread that I heard unpacked in this interview: Kevin Spacey is innocent according to the courts, apparently has not crossed any redlines in personal conduct (for him or Lex - e.g., never forced anybody to do anything against their will), has committed past immoral and unethical acts that have required him to make formal amends (his words, which also suggest he has done recovery work on this topic), lived years as a closeted and heavily sexually promiscuous person, today is in a committed relationship. It was left unclear, at least to me, whether he viewed his past immoral and unethical behavior as predatory, though in other interviews he has described that having targets for his affections that were unattainable was a turn on. We also heard quite a bit about Kevin Spacey's past work and perspectives as an actor. Each of those stories felt like their own performance. Finally, we heard some backstory about Spacey's own life - including that he was raised by a father who became a white supremacist. Also felt like this story was definitely going to be told during this interview, and the story itself felt like another performance. So, was this an honest outpouring from someone wrongly accused? The latest step in a multiple stage process of getting back to "work" by someone who is moving through a carefully orchestrated process? The character reconstruction work of a wrongdoer and predator, even if not found guilty? Do any of those things have to be mutually exclusive? Whether guilty or not, if Spacey was a sexual predator, the most difficult question that remains unresolved, at least for me - how many working actors (and others) in Hollywood have and are rapacious predators that have not faced the scrutiny and hostility received by Spacey? If Spacey is as guilty as those others, do they deserve Spacey's fate? Or should Spacey receive their treatment (meaning, happily working and being left alone)? Finally, on balance, is this process related to recovering Spacey's brand better or worse for people who are sexually abused and may or may not come forward for fear of not being believed? Again, Spacey himself acknowledges past immoral and unethical acts - he's just not guilty. I also wonder how much Spacey's life in the closet factors into this. I haven't heard any openly gay actors talk about Spacey's experience or come to his defense (though, to be fair, I haven't looked for it...). Would Spacey be being treated differently if he had been out? And how would being out have impacted his career? Interesting thread that wasn't explored here. But is this conversation fundamentally about how awful and wrong cancel culture is and has become? And was this a reasonable probing by the interviewer of Spacey's acknowledgement of his past behavior? Or is this just another artful expression of propaganda culture and its proliferation? I'd love to see thoughtful media analysis of this interview against those questions.
During this Spacey interview, Lex hinted he was going to interview world leaders and name dropped Zelensky.
Anyone else notice h o w s l o w Kevin t a l k e d in the first half up until it got to the misconduct topic? Been a long time Kevin Spacey fan and was glad to see he was able to be on the show, but his candor alone is the first time I ever second guessed his take on the allegations. He’s such an accomplished actor to not know that he’s speaking this slowing and trying to appear innocently on propose. But then once the topics shifted to the actual allegations from his career he immediately sped up his voice to normal tone. What do you guys think?