Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!



Fair enough.

Singer will be like the American Jimmy Savile once the seeds are spilled.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

syscall girl
Nov 6, 2009

by FactsAreUseless


Fun Shoe

Fart City posted:

Fair enough.

Singer will be like the American Jimmy Savile once the seeds are spilled.

I dunno, if that's an apt comparison, fuuuuuuuck

Jimmy Savile I mean, that's a curse

Deadguy2322
Dec 16, 2017

Greatness Awaits


Fart City posted:

Fair enough.

Singer will be like the American Jimmy Savile once the seeds are spilled.

Yup. It will be quite the money shot when Bryan Singer goes down!



You almost have to wonder if Brandon Routhís career failed to take off due to him rebuffing unwanted advances behind the scenes.

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!



Hereís my genuine opinion on Singer: if even a fraction of the rumors are true, and by proxy that would include the ďopen secretĒ element of visibility, then a loving lot of other people would have to know about it. Singer didnít start as a producer; he came up through the system. There would have to be an element of protection involved in his continued employment and success.

And to clarify: thatís where my comparison to Savile comes in. When he was exposed, a ton of other enablers were exposed as well. People who worked deeply in the entertainment industry.

Tart Kitty fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jan 25, 2019

edogawa rando
Mar 20, 2007

ASK ME ABOUT MY SCHOOL GIRL FETISH

Fart City posted:

Hereís my genuine opinion on Singer: if even a fraction of the rumors are true, and by proxy that would include the ďopen secretĒ element of visibility, then a loving lot of other people would have to know about it. Singer didnít start as a producer; he came up through the system. There would have to be an element of protection involved in his continued employment and success.

And to clarify: thatís where my comparison to Savile comes in. When he was exposed, a ton of other enablers were exposed as well. People who worked deeply in the entertainment industry.

In Savileís case, IIRC, even Maggie Thatcher was mentioned, pretty much confirming she was a poo poo-tier garbage person.

syscall girl
Nov 6, 2009

by FactsAreUseless


Fun Shoe

Vagabundo posted:

In Savileís case, IIRC, even Maggie Thatcher was mentioned, pretty much confirming she was a poo poo-tier garbage person.

The thing about Savile was the extreme nature of what he did.

Putting the iron lady on the list is wow, okay. poo poo. But raping kids in a hospital and even the morgue that guy was a piece of work.

Not trying to defend Singer.

edogawa rando
Mar 20, 2007

ASK ME ABOUT MY SCHOOL GIRL FETISH

syscall girl posted:

The thing about Savile was the extreme nature of what he did.

Putting the iron lady on the list is wow, okay. poo poo. But raping kids in a hospital and even the morgue that guy was a piece of work.

Not trying to defend Singer.

While there's no specific evidence to suggest Thatcher was involved in Savile's, uh, hobbies and interests, it's possible or even likely that she was at least vaguely aware of it, and it's not implausible that her estate has gone some lengths to covering it up - the redacting of documents requested by Operation Yewtree does not reflect favourably in this context and it is now known that she was warned by the honours committee about his lifestyle but nevertheless continued to lobby for him to get a knighthood. That said, she was racist scum, so I admit I am quick to assume the worst about that piece of loving poo poo.

syscall girl
Nov 6, 2009

by FactsAreUseless


Fun Shoe

Vagabundo posted:

While there's no specific evidence to suggest Thatcher was involved in Savile's, uh, hobbies and interests, it's possible or even likely that she was at least vaguely aware of it, and it's not implausible that her estate has gone some lengths to covering it up - the redacting of documents requested by Operation Yewtree does not reflect favourably in this context and it is now known that she was warned by the honours committee about his lifestyle but nevertheless continued to lobby for him to get a knighthood. That said, she was racist scum, so I admit I am quick to assume the worst about that piece of loving poo poo.

Yeah she was Reagan's counterpart like Blair was to dubya

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship

not trying to drag George Michael into this but Shoot the Dog played constantly on the corner shop

LividLiquid
Apr 13, 2002


CelticPredator posted:

Iím saying stop asking their friends what they think about their bad friends. Itís complicated and not worth the time.
No.

If I found out my friend was a rapist, they wouldn't be my friend anymore and if I stayed friends with a rapist once it became known, I deserve to be dragged for enabling a rapist.

It's not "complicated." It's super loving simple.

CelticPredator
Oct 11, 2013



Iím gonna never mind it. It wasnít bad. I just dont feel like this is the place to be snarky

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!



CelticPredator posted:

Iím gonna never mind it. It wasnít bad. I just dont feel like this is the place to be snarky

wait what

Chris James 2
Aug 9, 2012



LividLiquid posted:

No.

If I found out my friend was a rapist, they wouldn't be my friend anymore and if I stayed friends with a rapist once it became known, I deserve to be dragged for enabling a rapist.

It's not "complicated." It's super loving simple.

:agreed: and I can't believe this is a controversial opinion to have in someone's mind (though I shouldn't be surprised it's Celtic)

You ain't gotta stick up for everyone, in your life or in general

CelticPredator
Oct 11, 2013




I was being snarky. I just said ďokĒ. Iíve hard arguments with LL before so I was being a dick. But this isnít the place for it.

Honestly Iíll just cop out. I have complicated feelings on this specific issue. But I know thatís not a good position to take. I donít treat it in a general sense, but I feel certain ways about certain cases.

NotJustANumber99
Feb 15, 2012



CelticPredator posted:

I was being snarky. I just said ďokĒ. Iíve hard arguments with LL before so I was being a dick. But this isnít the place for it.

Honestly Iíll just cop out. I have complicated feelings on this specific issue. But I know thatís not a good position to take. I donít treat it in a general sense, but I feel certain ways about certain cases.

What a pathetic non answer. yuck.

esperterra
Mar 24, 2010

SHINee's back






I didn't get the vibe Celtic was defending those types of friends who cling to people who have done nasty poo poo, but that it seems uncouth to try to needle them to talk publicly about it. Obvs it's part of being in this business so it's neither here nor there for me, tbh, public personas should be expected to have public opinions much of the time. But I think the point was it can be a painful and complicated situation already without being expected to immediately make a statement about how you feel about it. I'd imagine it would be a lot to deal with coming to terms with learning something like your good friend being a disgusting sex pest.

However, friends who knew all along and excused it are trash and we should mock them probably

teacup
Dec 20, 2006

Who would win in a fight? Taylor Swift or Daryl Somers?

I think the thing is like if some local man turns out to be a pedophile and then you ask like his brother who isnít a public figure then hey itís not fair to expect a perfect response as itís an emotional issue.

But public figures... well itís still an emotional issue but they are all happy to reap the benefits of media interviews with their new movies, so I figure itís fair game when you associate with people like that that you can be asked about it.

Samuel Clemens
Oct 4, 2013

I think we should call the Avengers.



syscall girl posted:

It's funny that this all, sort of, goes back to Weinstein who wasn't the first or the last just a first big splash in the pool. And most filmgoers couldn't tell you what he did other than have a private casting couch.

Yeah, Weinstein seems like the obvious counterexample, but I think that's partly explicable by the sheer magnitude of his abusive behaviour and also by him being fairly high-profile for a producer. The average filmgoer may not know exactly what films he was involved in, but they likely heard the name. Similarly, if Spielberg was somehow found to be involved in a scandal tomorrow, I'd expect that story to garner a lot more headlines than the one of a comparative no-name like Singer.

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009


LividLiquid posted:

No.

If I found out my friend was a rapist, they wouldn't be my friend anymore and if I stayed friends with a rapist once it became known, I deserve to be dragged for enabling a rapist.

It's not "complicated." It's super loving simple.

I think we should draw a distinction between people who donít know whether or not a (single) allegation against their friend is true, and people who are probably still in shock that a friend was recently outted as a sex predator, versus pieces of poo poo like that Avi Lerner guy.

I mean, in think in this thread there were several people demanding to know if Wil Wheaton had condemned Chris Hardwick yet, after Hardwick was accused of abuse by his ex-girlfriend. Which I think went too far. Unless Wil Weaton was camped out in Harwickís bedroom at the time of the alleged abuse, he wouldnít know what happened. And the sole reason for putting him on the spot was his friendship with Hardwick.

Benicio Del Toro has publically supported Johnny Depp, who heís been friends with for decades, and is apparently convinced that Depp is telling the truth and that Amber Heard is lying. Does this make me hate Benicio Del Toro? Not really, even though I think itís much more likely that Amber Heard is completely telling the truth and Johnny Depp most likely is an erratic spouse-hitting alcoholic with anger problems, and I think Del Toro would be better off keeping his mouth shut about it.

And I think a single allegation should also be treated differently than decades-long patterns of predatory behavior with a half-dozen different accusers coming forward where itís virtually implausible that all of them are lying. gently caress anyone who supports Bryan Singer.

For that matter, is Millennium Studios (which from past posts, sounds like a thoroughly rotten company controlled by sex pests) actually going to be able to get Red Sonya made?

https://twitter.com/albinokid/status/1088710095876308992?s=21

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009


Samuel Clemens posted:

Yeah, Weinstein seems like the obvious counterexample, but I think that's partly explicable by the sheer magnitude of his abusive behaviour and also by him being fairly high-profile for a producer. The average filmgoer may not know exactly what films he was involved in, but they likely heard the name. Similarly, if Spielberg was somehow found to be involved in a scandal tomorrow, I'd expect that story to garner a lot more headlines than the one of a comparative no-name like Singer.

Well, Weinstein was the one who kicked off the entire MeToo movement because he was so powerful that it was proof that if he could go down, anyone could go down. Could. ďCouldĒ go down, not ďwillĒ go down. But anyone remember how we discussed how even after all the allegations came out, supposedly SNL didnít touch it until Lorne Michaels was sure that Weinstein was down and wasnít coming back? The implication not being that Michaels necessarily was trying to cover for Weinstein, but that he was so powerful in the industry that nobody else in showbiz would dare mock him until it was certain that he was done for.

Singer isnít nearly that powerful, which does half make we wonder if the speculation that he has serious dirt on some high-profile people is true. I think it could be. Singer is infamous for hosting and attending Hollywood parties with high-profile people in attendance where underage boys may or may not have been present and available. He wouldnít even necessarily have a secret stash of polaroids under the bed; there may well be powerful people who want to convince Singer that theyíre loyal to him so that even if he goes down heíll have no reason to retaliate against them and will keep his mouth shut about what heís seen.

Side note: Of course heís got nothing to do with this, but since somebody brought him up, Iíll point out that Spielbergís a little different than anyone else because heís got as much name recognition as an A-list actor. Nobody in the general public knew who Harvey Weinstein was, though they might have vaguely recognized the Weinstein Company if they pay attention to credits.

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!



Again, reminder, Singer is a studio dude. He was a Richard Donner student. Like, Superman Returns was essentially a giant love letter to Donner as a thank you for his stewardship. He's been shepherded for a long time by the system.

Ostiosis
Nov 3, 2002



Saville wouldn't be the first pedo Thatcher protected, she has a pretty long track record of doing that.

deety
Aug 2, 2004

zombies + sharks = fun



It's completely understandable to have mixed feelings about a friend after they're accused of lovely behavior, but I think some folks may not understand just how many people in their lives are quietly paying attention to their reactions to these issues. Whenever someone I know questions a #metoo accuser or makes excuses for some creep that they insist on keeping around, that person gets mentally filed in the "people who probably wouldn't have believed me either" pile. I may not cut ties with them, but I avoid any situation where their judgment might impact my safety.

I'm not suggesting that one allegation should be enough for someone to be permanently ostracized from all of society. I just think that the choice to defend a potential rapist is about more than that one friendship. Casting doubt on an accuser without any real cause to do so makes false rape allegations sound more common than they are, and keeping an abuser in your friend group may put other people you know at risk. I can see how this would seem like a much bigger issue for celebrities who are in the public eye, and I guess that's true in terms of public perception of assault allegations. But most of the assault stories that I've heard from my friends involve men whose professional or social circles waved off previous complaints about them. Many of those stories also ended with the victim as the one who's dropped by mutual friends because it's more comfortable to assume that they're overreacting to a misunderstanding than it is to realize that you were wrong about a rapist's character.

Ghost Leviathan
Mar 2, 2017
Probation
Can't post for 2 hours!


I'm pretty sure most of the ill will towards Wheaton is because his response to Hardwick's allegations was a very wishy washy 'gathering his thoughts' response, which to this day has no follow-up.

Pirate Jet
May 2, 2010


Well, the reason Wilís hiding in a cave somewhere right now is because he tried to enter a leftist social media space and people called him out on his transphobia. The Hardwick thing is icing on top.

Rhyno
Mar 22, 2003

how few people do you
need before you can
change the world?


Pirate Jet posted:

Well, the reason Wilís hiding in a cave somewhere right now is because he tried to enter a leftist social media space and people called him out on his transphobia. The Hardwick thing is icing on top.

Wait, what?

Pirate Jet
May 2, 2010


Rhyno posted:

Wait, what?

So thereís these things on Twitter called block lists. You can subscribe to a block list and it will automatically block anyone new who gets added to that particular list for you, sometimes by automated means, sometimes curated. Make your own judgements on what it says about Twitter that this kind of feature is even necessary. Wil is of course a nerd, so he gets your typical heat from the nerd right-wing spheres - gamergate, comicsgate, sad puppies, whatever - and subscribed to one run by another social media star named Randi Harper. He promotes the block list to all of his fans, who are like ďI would like to use Twitter without dealing with dickheads all day tooĒ and sign up for the list.

The problem is that Randi Harper really loving hates trans people. Full-on TERF all the way. Harper starts adding trans people to her blocker alongside the right-wing douchebags without telling anyone, but the trans community takes notice when a lot of nerd celebrities and a significant portion of Twitter are cut off from them. (And sadly, Twitter is such serious business that this actually impacted peopleís careers, suddenly this means youíre blocked off from clients, commissions, and other business contacts.) People repeatedly point this out to Wheaton and he never responds. An alternative is made that accomplished the same purpose without hating trans people, Wheaton never follows up.

The Hardwick poo poo happens. Wheaton says heíll give a response once heís done gathering his thoughts. Hardwick gets all his jobs back and faces no repercussions whatsoever, Wheaton says nothing forever.

Wheaton eventually realizes even blocklists canít make Twitter bearable and joins Mastodon, a decentralized left-leaning alternative to Twitter. Because itís left-leaning, a lot of the trans community is on Mastodon. The trans community calls Wheaton out on his poo poo. Wheaton reports *pretty much every single person who says anything mean to him,* the admins at Mastodon see that one account is generating an unusual number of reports, and ban it. Wheaton writes a blog post about how everyone is too mean to each other on the internet so he needs to take a break from it, which is, I guess, the right conclusion reached for all the wrong reasons.

Pirate Jet fucked around with this message at 10:32 on Jan 27, 2019

henkman
Oct 8, 2008


Twitter is trash

Rhyno
Mar 22, 2003

how few people do you
need before you can
change the world?


So is Will Wheaton.

WeedlordGoku69
Feb 11, 2015

by Cyrano4747


Jesus so he's basically a loving ostrich

sponges
Sep 14, 2011



According to an interview he did he did his best to remove the women from that list and when that proved fruitless he stopped sharing it

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009


I suppose my point here is that getting Wil Wheatonís opinion on the Chris Hardwick thing is completely unnecessary, and seems a prime example of ďpointlessly demanding everyone whoís friends with or associated with an alleged sex pest denounce themĒ that the other poster was talking about.

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!



I'm of two minds of it. There are certainly plenty of cases where a person's abusive predilections might run under the radar, and friends and family never had an inkling that they were associated with a predator. However, when you are a celebrity you have a unique platform to engage and address that predatory behavior. Trite "well I didn't know much about it, so I can't speak on it" answers are what made people like Weinstein continue to be able to abuse in an unchecked environment. If you have a chance to speak for people who don't have a voice, it's your moral responsibility to do so. Or at least you would hope that a person would feel that way. But at the same time if you are working with people Woody Allen or Bryan Singer in 2019, you know the allegations, full-stop. You have to. And if you choose to work with those men, you are complicit in whatever fallout might come down the line if and when they should be further exposed.

Deadguy2322
Dec 16, 2017

Greatness Awaits


Fart City posted:

I'm of two minds of it. There are certainly plenty of cases where a person's abusive predilections might run under the radar, and friends and family never had an inkling that they were associated with a predator. However, when you are a celebrity you have a unique platform to engage and address that predatory behavior. Trite "well I didn't know much about it, so I can't speak on it" answers are what made people like Weinstein continue to be able to abuse in an unchecked environment. If you have a chance to speak for people who don't have a voice, it's your moral responsibility to do so. Or at least you would hope that a person would feel that way. But at the same time if you are working with people Woody Allen or Bryan Singer in 2019, you know the allegations, full-stop. You have to. And if you choose to work with those men, you are complicit in whatever fallout might come down the line if and when they should be further exposed.

But itís not enough to be responsible for your own actions! You have to be responsible for everyone you know!

Snowglobe of Doom
Mar 30, 2012

If you see me in the COVID thread, ignore me.

I photoshop charts to fit my narrative. I happily cherry-pick only the worst information to share and, lacking that, just make up lies.


Sucrose posted:

I suppose my point here is that getting Wil Wheatonís opinion on the Chris Hardwick thing is completely unnecessary, and seems a prime example of ďpointlessly demanding everyone whoís friends with or associated with an alleged sex pest denounce themĒ that the other poster was talking about.

Wheaton entered the discussion pretty much unprompted by promising that he was going to make a statement:



... so it's not like people were randomly chasing him down and demanding that he give his opinion, he said he was going to do it but never did.

I don't have a dog in this fight because I don't give a poo poo what Wil Wheaton says or does but I can understand that some people would have been upset by that.

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009


Snowglobe of Doom posted:

Wheaton entered the discussion pretty much unprompted by promising that he was going to make a statement:



... so it's not like people were randomly chasing him down and demanding that he give his opinion, he said he was going to do it but never did.

I don't have a dog in this fight because I don't give a poo poo what Wil Wheaton says or does but I can understand that some people would have been upset by that.

Alright, so he's not really worth defending since he brought the poo poo up himself, but I still don't see how anyone could or should be upset by Wil Wheaton's non-opinion on Chris Hardwick, or any similar lack of a public opinion by anyone in a similar position. "I don't know for sure what happened, please give me some privacy and time to think" seems like it ought to be a viable response for anyone whose buddy or coworker gets accused of something bad like that. But as for Wil Wheaton, "not knowing when to keep your mouth shut" seems to be a common ailment among minor celebrities who spend way too much time on social media. We don't need these types of people's opinions on the subject, and I think a social environment where literally everyone involved is supposed to either publicly support or denounce someone is a move in the wrong direction.

Like I said, this is different from when someone is basically unambiguously outed as a sexual predator with a long list of victims, like Singer or Kevin Spacey or Weinstein. Anyone who continues to work with them is enabling them and allowing them to access more victims.

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!



Sucrose posted:

Alright, so he's not really worth defending since he brought the poo poo up himself, but I still don't see how anyone could or should be upset by Wil Wheaton's non-opinion on Chris Hardwick, or any similar lack of a public opinion by anyone in a similar position. "I don't know for sure what happened, please give me some privacy and time to think" seems like it ought to be a viable response for anyone whose buddy or coworker gets accused of something bad like that. But as for Wil Wheaton, "not knowing when to keep your mouth shut" seems to be a common ailment among minor celebrities who spend way too much time on social media. We don't need these types of people's opinions on the subject, and I think a social environment where literally everyone involved is supposed to either publicly support or denounce someone is a move in the wrong direction.

Like I said, this is different from when someone is basically unambiguously outed as a sexual predator with a long list of victims, like Singer or Kevin Spacey or Weinstein. Anyone who continues to work with them is enabling them and allowing them to access more victims.

I mean you said it yourself: he brought it up himself. Wheaton isn't like,a test-case for other people who might not have known what people related to them were doing. He basically said "HEY GUYS LET ME MEDITATE" and then didn't offer any follow-up. I don't think anyone in this thread has basically said "go after everyone related en masse without proof or reason."

WeedlordGoku69
Feb 11, 2015

by Cyrano4747


Snowglobe of Doom posted:

... so it's not like people were randomly chasing him down and demanding that he give his opinion, he said he was going to do it but never did.

"i'm not ready to do this yet and i'm not sure when i will be" is not the same thing as "i'm gonna do this, guys!!!!!"

and the tone of the tweet sounds like people had been hounding him, honestly

edogawa rando
Mar 20, 2007

ASK ME ABOUT MY SCHOOL GIRL FETISH

Fart City posted:

I mean you said it yourself: he brought it up himself. Wheaton isn't like,a test-case for other people who might not have known what people related to them were doing. He basically said "HEY GUYS LET ME MEDITATE" and then didn't offer any follow-up. I don't think anyone in this thread has basically said "go after everyone related en masse without proof or reason."

Or, you know, he's entitled to keep his thoughts on the matter private and opt not to make a big public show of disavowing someone that was part of his life. He doesn't owe anyone poo poo.

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!



Let me kind of do a follow-up in this responsibility deal: as I mentioned in a previous post, celebrity gives you a platform. Ideally you would use that platform for good, by forwarding good social change and giving voice to people who don't have it. Wil Wheaton, beyond the Hardwick thing, has an issue with being an Internet Celebrity who seems to walk into an infinite amount of rakes in public discourse. Him being noncommittal in the Hardwick thing is gross. His transphobia-by-association is equally gross. I don't talk about it much (why would I, who the gently caress cares?) but I'm trans. I'm older, too. I grew up with Wil Wheaton. He was an early Known Quantity in internet culture. He coasted for a longtime by being an innocuous "good guy," but every time he's been called into the spotlight for his opinions or associations he's buckled.

Vagabundo posted:

Or, you know, he's entitled to keep his thoughts on the matter private and opt not to make a big public show of disavowing someone that was part of his life. He doesn't owe anyone poo poo.

He tweeted about it. Maybe he doesn't owe anyone poo poo, but if that's true he shouldn't expect poo poo from anyone. Celebrity is a social contract.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

enki42
Jun 11, 2001
#ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!


I think the criticism of Wheaton was a combination of him actually making a point to mention it as well as his reputation for being exactly the type to call out people for associating with sex pests. The internet loves calling out hypocrisy.

Jonah Ray and Matt Mira were perfectly fine being silent through the whole ordeal and no one has made much of a point of calling them out.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply