|
twerking on the railroad posted:What the hell happened to this thread? It got poisoned by the 'healthy skepticism' and 'we can't ruin a man's career' ideas that eventually poison all discussions about sexual assault.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 04:53 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 08:08 |
|
Snowman_McK posted:It got poisoned by the 'healthy skepticism' and 'we can't ruin a man's career' ideas that eventually poison all discussions about sexual assault. Yes, I too make absolute decisions sourced from the celebrity equivalent of topix, and drat anyone for maybe thinking otherwise.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 05:14 |
|
Origami Dali posted:Yes, I too make absolute decisions sourced from the celebrity equivalent of topix, and drat anyone for maybe thinking otherwise. Holy poo poo, can you even read?
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 05:19 |
|
twerking on the railroad posted:What the hell happened to this thread? Hey now, don't you thinking you should have some evidence before you start ruining the reputation of a good thread?
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 05:25 |
|
Snowman_McK posted:It got poisoned by the 'healthy skepticism' and 'we can't ruin a man's career' ideas that eventually poison all discussions about sexual assault. I don't like this construction because it implies that there is some level of skepticism that is unhealthy to apply to 4chan memes ghostwritten by A. Wyatt Mann.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 05:25 |
|
Snowman_McK posted:It got poisoned by the 'healthy skepticism' and 'we can't ruin a man's career' ideas that eventually poison all discussions about sexual assault. There was no reason to try to paint that poster as bad and insinuate or accuse or imply what you were about them when it was not warranted. That's the problem.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 05:30 |
|
Gatts posted:There was no reason to try to paint that poster as bad and insinuate or accuse or imply what you were about them when it was not warranted. That's the problem. Two posters literally compared the Dan Schneider thing to Barack Obama birther poo poo. I didn't imply anything. That is what happened.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 05:32 |
|
Im fine with waiting until someone comes out and says all that about Dan Schneider As it stands though he is quite nasty looking and gives me the creeps regardless. He’s a creepy looking man.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 05:32 |
|
I don't think anyone in this thread has the power to ruin a big name tv producer's reputation.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 05:34 |
|
Conal Cochran posted:I don't think anyone in this thread has the power to ruin a big name tv producer's reputation. Unfortunately.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 05:38 |
|
CelticPredator posted:Im fine with waiting until someone comes out and says all that about Dan Schneider Good. CelticPredator posted:As it stands though he is quite nasty looking and gives me the creeps regardless. He’s a creepy looking man. This is a totally destructive and counterproductive attitude. Actual predators are beloved, socially adept charmers like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, John Lasseter, or Aziz Ansari. Focusing on who "gives you the creeps" is how you get racist lynch mobs and conspiracy theory nutcases. Focus on the real accusations, not the rumors and not the "creeps".
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 05:41 |
|
Nothin' wrong with thinking someone is creepy looking.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 05:43 |
|
CelticPredator posted:Im fine with waiting until someone comes out and says all that about Dan Schneider Nice.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 05:44 |
|
Alright, but Dan Schneider looks exactly like someone who shouldn't have a 30+ year long career grooming children.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 05:48 |
|
I thought Weinstein, and Spacey to a lesser extent, were pretty widely regarded as rather unpleasant people. The impression I always had of Weinstein before all this stuff came out was that he was a majorly petty rear end in a top hat who also happened to be a powerful figure in Hollywood. I mean this is all stuff from gossip rags and Hollywood Reporter, so not exactly airtight evidence here, but I certainly did not get the impression he was a “beloved” figure, just a very influential one.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 05:59 |
|
Weinstein was in no way beloved. He was a strong arming lunatic who was pretty good at getting results. He was the sort of guy who'd run a campaign saying Saving Private Ryan was historically inaccurate to make sure Shakespeare in love won the Oscar. He was a lovely person, it just so happens that his style of shittiness is extremely valuable in hollywood.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 06:11 |
|
Gatts posted:There was no reason to try to paint that poster as bad and insinuate or accuse or imply what you were about them when it was not warranted. That's the problem. He, or she, is hell-bent on both missing my point and proving it at the same time.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 06:14 |
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:He, or she, is hell-bent on both missing my point and proving it at the same time. What the gently caress was your point? You forgot to say. You were too busy invoking birther conspiracies. Unless those were your point, in which case I got you.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 06:18 |
|
esperterra posted:Nothin' wrong with thinking someone is creepy looking. Plus I think what all, or most, posters have been saying is that the way he poses with other people, and the way they appear to react to it, is creepy. Yeah it's dumb to look at a picture of him by himself and immediately go "he's definitely raped children", but it's not really dumb to look at a middle aged man embracing his young, hypersexualized employees who look terrified and think "this seems odd". It's also kinda dumb to imply that being skeptical is unhealthy. "Retractions aren't front page news" and all. If and when a false accusation becomes a big story - or a blogger just invents a source out of whole cloth - it will do at least some irreparable damage to the man or woman's career because a large number of people may not ever hear about an eventual debunking, and that's assuming it even occurs. So it's on us to, as Welles said, "[not] believe everything you hear on the radio".
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 06:21 |
|
Netflix reportedly lost $39 million dollars on unreleased Kevin Spacey content. That's a pretty loving bonkers figure for one bad dude to be responsible for. I suppose a good chunk of it must be coming from Gore never being released, but Netflix's earnings are so nebulous it's kind of hard to figure out where the actual loss is sourced from. Still, it feels like this is going to be the potentially interesting other side of how Hollywood might reshape itself after this cultural moment. No studio would want to be on the hook for that kind of bank because of one maniac sex pest. I've got to believe that not having a morality clause in a contract is pretty much going to be a thing of the past going forward.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 06:26 |
|
With any luck, this will get Hollywood to do some investigative due diligence before pouring tens of millions into a picture. Nearly all big businesses do it; Hollywood is just being sloppy.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 06:51 |
|
21 Muns posted:Good. On the other hand, Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 07:47 |
|
DC Murderverse posted:On the other hand, Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile. Jimmy Savile was literally loving knighted.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 07:57 |
|
21 Muns posted:Jimmy Savile was literally loving knighted. While looking like this Maybe the queen didn't want to judge him based on his looks or vibe.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 08:10 |
|
The queen is dumb then.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 09:28 |
|
He's one of a series of BBC personalities that rose to prominence on the radio, then for whatever reason wasn't forcibly prevented from transitioning to television by someone with eyes. e: also, I've seen that Michelle Obama picture once before, and the expressions are so exaggerated on both sides that I just assumed it was part of a sketch or something. Like, it was frame one of a video where the dude got slapped or fake arrested or something. Not Operator fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Jan 23, 2018 |
# ? Jan 23, 2018 10:27 |
|
Snowman_McK posted:What the gently caress was your point? You forgot to say. You were too busy invoking birther conspiracies. Unless those were your point, in which case I got you. My point, which I feel I have belaboured pretty loving heavily, is that allowing yourself to be abjectly credulous may make you feel good and righteous, but throwing away reason leads to a dark place where the truth doesn't really matter and people get harmed. Then because I don't agree with you, you started to insinuate that I don't want actual Hollywood sexual assaults investigated. Funny that. DC Murderverse posted:On the other hand, Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile. As a kid I met and spoke briefly with Rolf Harris. In hindsight he's a creepy fucker, but at the time neither I nor the other hundred odd people present thought him creepy at all. The idea that monsters can be spotted visually is some phrenology poo poo. That said, Saville was so... off that people found him repulsive in person without specific suspicions, and rumours went round that he was a necrophiliac. In conclusion, a land of contrasts. Lovely Joe Stalin fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Jan 23, 2018 |
# ? Jan 23, 2018 14:32 |
|
Not Operator posted:He's one of a series of BBC personalities that rose to prominence on the radio, then for whatever reason wasn't forcibly prevented from transitioning to television by someone with eyes. It looks like he cast himself as a Secret Service agent, and that's a frame from a moment when he leaned in to whisper something in her ear, which is a pretty common TV cliche edit: yep https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWEshHOR3A8&t=103s
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 16:06 |
|
That's a perfect example of why you can't just accept things out of context. Thank you.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 16:21 |
|
Snowman_McK posted:What the gently caress was your point? You forgot to say. You were too busy invoking birther conspiracies. Unless those were your point, in which case I got you. People get lost in the "believe women" thing as a set rule that actually means believe women by default as opposed to what it *does* mean, which is don't think women are lying when they make allegations (and this is stretched to anyone who claims to be a victim, male or female). Any allegation should be seen in its own context and situation and judged individually based on multiple factors. An allegation does not default=true, and false allegations against famous people are made for multiple reasons (there is a large difference between a public allegation of misconduct and a legal allegation of assault/rape). Defaulting to allegation=truth is hugely dangerous and problematic mentality.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 16:38 |
|
ALFbrot posted:It looks like he cast himself as a Secret Service agent, and that's a frame from a moment when he leaned in to whisper something in her ear, which is a pretty common TV cliche
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 17:39 |
|
Again what's creepy about Schneider's appearance is not that he's a beady-eyed fat guy, but that he is a "child star guru" or whatever who conspicuously dresses and styles himself in real life to be appealing and friendly (and harmless) to impressionable kids.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 18:42 |
|
Which are also things someone might do if their job revolved around working with children. I'm not saying that behaving like that doesn't come across as creepy, but a man working with children now carries a baseline 'creepiness' for a lot of people. There is a very real reason male teachers, generally, choose not to work in primary schools any more.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 18:59 |
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:Which are also things someone might do if their job revolved around working with children. I'm not saying that behaving like that doesn't come across as creepy, but a man working with children now carries a baseline 'creepiness' for a lot of people. There is a very real reason male teachers, generally, choose not to work in primary schools any more. Yeah, none of my primary school teachers, male or female, dressed or acted like teenagers. In fact they did the exact opposite because there was a code of conduct and like, oversight.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 19:03 |
|
You should already hate Dan Schneider because he's a rich rear end in a top hat who worships the god of Mammon, what other reason do you need.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 19:15 |
|
exquisite tea posted:You should already hate Dan Schneider because he's a rich rear end in a top hat who worships the god of Mammon, what other reason do you need. Really helping your case here.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 19:21 |
|
my take is: gently caress Dan Schneider's creepy rear end and I hope he falls down a manhole
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 19:21 |
|
21 Muns posted:Really helping your case here. What case.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 19:22 |
|
exquisite tea posted:You should already hate Dan Schneider because he's a rich rear end in a top hat who worships the god of Mammon, what other reason do you need. Separate issue but no less important.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 19:35 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 08:08 |
|
regardless of the veracity of the Dan Schneider rumors, this much (as follows) is all straight-up 100% verifiable: - there is a loving bizarre amount of sexualization of underage girls in his shows, including weird foot fetish poo poo all over the place - there is a huge correlation between "working with Dan Schneider as a teen girl" and "going utterly bugfuck bonkers as an adult" that is 100% in line with how a lot of people who've experienced horrible trauma develop - most of the publicly available pictures of the man are of him grabbing onto terrified-looking teen girls while making a face at the camera like, with the above in mind, I'll take Alex Jones and etc railing against him as "stopped clock, right twice a day" and not a sign that he's actually secretly okay. BARE loving minimum, the guy's a huge creep that nobody actually likes.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2018 19:42 |