I'm assuming that the timing is determined by the attorneys, and thus doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the plaintiff's story is true.

I've learned many things through your post. 1) Sex abuse victims cannot go public about their abuse years after the fact. It means they're probably lying. 2) Accusers who are professionally unsuccessful are probably lying. 3) Accusations targeting famous people are probably false.
Got it.

I doubt there will ever be concrete evidence, because sex abuse is notoriously difficult to prove concretely, especially after decades. This will likely never be proven either way. I just hope people won't take the lack of concrete evidence as "evidence" that the accuser is lying.

You seem fun.

That's a good way to say it. Chappelle went viral before viral was a thing.

Meh. In my experience (as a white person) racism has to be extremely egregious (like, codified or clearly shown in a double-blind scientifc study or something) for us to actually consider it racist. As a group, we're not the best judges of what constitutes racism, which makes sense.

Maybe it doesn't happen to Dane Cook or Louis CK because they don't have the kind of wildly successful and memorable tv show moments that Chappelle has? I mean, neither of them have skits or segments that are as stuck in the public memory as the Rick James sketch.

Christ, these guys really attacked you. I guess I shouldn't be surprised; the AV club seems very dudebro. Good luck.