Lessons On Truly Listening to People: How THE VIEWS’ RAVEN SYMONE & WHOOPI GOLDBERG’s Views on BILL COSBY Are Lessons in Principalities And Why You Should Steer Clear of People Like Them

While many where up in arms and ringing the alarm yesterday with Bill Cosby’s 2005 deposition having been made public where (on legal paper and by his willingness to answer “Yes” or “No”) Cosby copped to admitting that he has (indeed) administered Quaaludes in with the intent on copulating with a/one woman and possibly more…that still doesn’t prove his guilt (as per Whoopi Goldberg).

While everyone has a right to their opinion (and judgment), the only problem when holding on to one’s right to their opinion or judgment (when facts come into play) is that at this point, if anything is held onto; it’s your emotion. And therein lies (or can become) a problem.

Well that may be true in the case of The View ’s Whoopi Goldberg as, that legal admission is not good enough for her because she feels what the law says: “innocent until proven guilty.”

Although Cosby elected to say “Yes” when asked if he had administered drugs to any women with the intent to have sex with them, Whoopi asserts that until due process of the law is held i.e.: convicted in the court of law versus public opinion—(regardless of a key fact being presented and made public in a 2005 deposition) she’s still down for the Cos.

Whoopi Goldberg stated:


“I’m sorry the ‘80s, they weren’t fun for everybody, clearly. I think it is again, we’ll see what happens as more information comes out. I don’t like snap judgments because I’ve had snap judgments made on me so I’m very very careful. Save your texts, save your nasty comments, I don’t care. And I say this because this is my opinion and in America, still, I know it’s a shock, we’re actually innocent until proven guilty. He has not been proven.”

Raven Symone continued with:

“It’s about the information, it’s about the actual court going on. I don’t really like to talk about it that much because he’s the reason I’m on this panel in the first place. He gave me my first job. But at the same time, you need the proof and then I’ll be able to give my judgment here or there.”



…While I get what she (and Raven) are saying…(because I too, have a near violent aversion to people who make snap judgments and make mountains out of molehills out of situations that could very well ruin a person’s life or reputation without facts and based off emotion or their personal slight. I too, have had that happen to me enough to write the book on it. So I get it (and I talk about my disdain for it here and here: One regarding something that happened with president Obama and the other that happened with Dame Dash v. Jay Z).

All that being said and explained. Herein lies my problem with Whoopi (and Raven):

“Truth” is relative. What’s true for one person isn’t for another (whether judging or living it).

But what you CAN’T do is fight “facts.” Facts aren’t relative and arguable-they just: ARE.

Whoopi and Raven are both hanging onto the word “proof” when firstly [considering all these accusations happened years ago-not to mention…the ENTIRE point]: These women were under the influence of the drug he administered and didn’t know! That being so, there was not and will not be any “rape kits” to serve as “proof” that he raped them!

At this point (in the decades now past), it’s: he-say, she-say.

But with this admission of “Yes”—that he did indeed administer Quaaludes to one or more women with the intent of having sex with them-THAT is proof…that it’s safe to say the probability of these other women’s claims is true BECAUSE….his admitting on a legal deposition that “Yes” (he gave Quaaludes to one or more women) gives way to “probable cause.” So the probability of his doing this to the other women (outside of the one he did FACTUALLY do this to) is highly likely, highly likely…

But that’s not my entire point about my issue with Raven and Whoopi:


My issue with Whoopi and Raven is, they are right (if in my reading between their lines of saying “we need proof”/“he is innocent until proven guilty”)…they’re right—in that (although highly likely and probable) we cannot say for a fact that those “other women” that lined up accusing him of rape did indeed get raped by him.

But with the fact of the deposition and his admitting that he did indeed/without a doubt drug at least one woman and had sex with her, now “Jumping Jack Flash” jumps over to the need of due process of the law (innocent until proven guilty), and Raven Symone replies with the dumbest comment ever (in addition to her needing “proof” as reason to withhold judgment): “He gave me my first job/is the reason I am on this panel.” What in the entire hell!!?


The fact is the fact: He acknowledged and admitted administering the drug to at least “one or more women.”

My problem with Raven is that she didn’t even acknowledge or consider that in her reply (as quoted above).

Whoopi acknowledged it in the video-[the woman in 1976 he did indeed administer the drug to] and then threw it up in the air as if to say it was the norm-so in so many words, that women being given a Quaalude was nothing as, she did say [quote]: ‘in the 80s, Quaaludes and such were the thing to do-so, so what?’ [unquote].

Are you SERIOUS Whoopi!?

I don’t care what era you are in, or whatever drug is the norm, at no time at any time in life should any woman be given a drug that impairs her thinking and locust of control and be had by a man she did not give consent to having sex with-even if she was in his company and so much as TALKED about having sex with him. The point at which he administers a drug that impairs her ability to change her mind at any time is a PROBLEM Whoopi and you are wrong!

images (4)


The thing to consider is this: Whether you are Whoopi or Raven (or anybody reading these words):

When you are talking about making a judgment, (or even withholding judgment) on or about a person or situation, what you DON’T say (or judge) can make you look just as bad (or unfair) as snap judgment or judging without “proof.”

It tells aLOT about YOUR own person and individual thinking and thought processes.

With FACTS on the table that he did INDEED do this to at least one woman, and you not acknowledging that, that says more about YOUR personal character and inability to separate your personal feelings from fact.

You are JUST as much of a problem as a person who makes snap judgment.

Anybody has a right to straddle the fence on/about any person or situation.

Being indecisive is not a problem when you don’t have facts. It is fair and only right to straddle at that point.

But being indecisive when you DO have facts that lead to probable cause is INDEED a problem!

And it’s people like Whoopi and Raven (attached to, and sitting on their personal feelings) that ruin peoples LIVES and abilities to eat, sleep, and pay their bills and have their quality of life compromised every day in regular life over irrational thinking people sitting on their invalid personal feelings and attachments (like that of Raven and Whoopi’s).

Trust me. I know this to be true.

In her quote (on page 1), just like Whoopi claims she’s been the fall guy for snap judgments, I too, have been the fall guy and in situations like that (professionally and personally) where facts were on the table but people like Whoopi and Raven sat on their personal bullshit and others around them did not speak up for me for fear of rocking the boat or causing problems for themselves down the line, and so went bust my situation, or my quality of life, or reputation over some silly (in my case-envious) broads and their INVALID silly a$$ emotions!


People like Whoopi and Raven are dangerous. And the types you do NOT want:

  • On your jury pool (deciding on your life and freedoms)
  • As a colleague in close proximity past “good morning”
  • On your dream team (of your creative /professional life/project)
  • Or in your life anywhere (even as friend)

…Why not? Because (even with their personal attachments, therefore stubbornness of the situation) what they are doing is not necessarily that of the “loyalty” that benefits a friend (or even Bill Cosby). Because the entry of a key fact (in Cosby’s case-his admission) serves as THEE thing that should have dissolved any indecision, yet, it only forced both Raven and Whoopi fall back on emotion—and use the EXCUSE of needing “due process” and “proof.”

It’s like I explained here (about principles and principled people). Even a “friend” with that kind of thinking [like Raven and Whoopi’s]…, if at any moment they decided they had a problem with, or was not friends with a friend anymore (that at one time they may have had “loyalty” to, or allegiance with), should a situation arise where that old friend’s reputation or that colleague’s livelihood is at stake-their decision and your life, limb, and property will all hang in the balance of their personal emotion. And if at that moment in time you need their sound judgment (based upon facts given), your outcome will solely depend on their personal feelings about you at the time of this particular moment.

This is the lesson here-for your reading this. And take this lesson with you—I can’t stress it enough:

The ONLY “friend” in this lifetime you have (in a friend, a colleague, a sister, a brother or anybody) is A PRINCIPLED PERSON.

Not that chick you grew up with and got her body count list in your possession she left at your house one night while y’all laughed and kicked it, or that friendly colleague, or that sibling-just because y’all are “family.”

The fact of that matter is: The ONLY real “friend” you have in anybody is a principled person. Because when they “judge,” they judge as disinterested parties, either:

straddled from having not enough to go on


straight at it in your favor (or not) based upon facts presented to them.

A principled person will either save your life or (if you’re true to yourself) position you, or hand you the lesson you never knew you needed (that will save your life later).

Principled people typically have the ability to discern not just “decide” …and discerning and principled people are the ONLY friends in this life you’ve got (and they don’t even have to BE your literal friend or homie). They don’t even have to know (or even like you as person), believe it or not. Via discernment and facts, a principled person can (and will) even make a decision in your favor even if they hate you personally.

That being said, learn to pick your “friends” for your life, people on your team, in, or around your life based upon their ability to discern and how principled they are-not just how long you’ve known or liked them or what they did for your life or career.

Always listen to how a person decides on something about a person or a situation. With facts in yours and their faces and hands, you listening to how they conclude tells you more about THEM than the person or situation they judged or had to decide about.

Don’t just “watch” people. Listen to ‘em. Watch how they move and operate.

When (after experiencing a lot of things with alot of people)  I “grew up” and evolved. In my adult like, I stopped being stupidly-sentimental about calling people “friends” based on how long I’ve known them or because we share the same pain and certain things.

I don’t even think “love” (alone) is enough to be in a relationship with a person any more than knowing someone for a long time is enough to call them a “friend.”

In my adult life, I only consider principled people “friends” of mine and am unapologetically discriminate and uncaring about having anything else in or around my life/close to me otherwise.

I promise you. It will save your life and your reputation. And the loyalty far extends past your hanging out with them currently or not.

In the land of principalities and discerning and principled people, it’s not about you or them. It’s about what’s factually right for the situation or all involved. And they move like that in everything they do as it pertains to other people. They are the BEST friend to have around, not around and in life.