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
Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


I seem to remember he was claiming to be a sex addict all the way back in the 80s. He was very ahead of the curve.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Basebf555 posted:

I think there's a lot of people getting that same rap from their grandmothers right about now. I got it from mine, but thankfully she's with it enough and our relationship is good enough that I can say "hey grandma I think that's outdated thinking and you're waaaaay off on this one". But a lot of people understandably have to just eat that stuff or they're risking a major argument.

My grandma said something similar, that it just happened and they never considered it wrong. There is a massive generational gap

Happy Noodle Boy posted:

Is that how it happened? One of the victims just approached the dude during his daughterís soccer game? Then was surprised he gave a stupid answer about something he wasnít directly involved? Well that sucks for the guy. Then again I guess if you reach the level of exec at a big company you should know better than to give out such a stupid answer in the first place.

Then give a non-answer, not a lovely refusal to do anything.

gently caress this guy and trying to make it about him. This is part of the loving problem. We're supposed to be more regretful about some guy's job than a loving rape victim.

Oh, no, he got fired? How awful, I'm sure that's much worse than being raped by a loving co-worker who then just carries on.

And yes, people are loving angry. I'm angry now because a man's default response to a woman telling him they were raped by a co-worker was to disbelieve her, and somehow we're sad for him.


DrVenkman posted:

Except he didn't say "I don't believe it". The woman asked why Netflix hasn't done anything about Masterson and he said that Netflix take all accusations seriously so maybe they don't believe it. He isn't speaking for him. He's being flippant and that's on him. The case against Masterson was ongoing, it's not like the woman came up to this random guy, told him what happened to her and he said he didn't believe her.

No, he said 'the company doesn't believe it' such a loving moral high ground.


The French stuff is really sad. Also, given that they'll happily close ranks to protect a child rapist in Polanski, and a child trafficker whose name I can't remember (kids were being trafficked in Mexico, a French woman was involved, France refused to extradite or prosecute her) I'm loathe to think what the motives here might be.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Lexi Alexander is cool.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Toplowtech posted:

Okay if you want the some of the motives, Catherine Deneuve is old sure but she also was old enough to be one of the signatories of de Beauvoir's Manifesto of the 343 Sluts. What she is doing is basically telling the young women in france that American style feminism, after nonsense like Gamergate, the new ghostbuster and Hillary Clinton's non-election and ultimate defeat against someone they now daily compare to a brainless idiot (so what are the people he managed to beat, many wonder?) should be seen at best as worthless and at worst as toxic. The thing is we have far better abortion laws and many old school feminists beside Deneuve are currently afraid the current brand of American feminism could end up being toxic, alienate the electorates and cause a regression to the laws in other countries. That if that poo poo spread here (well worse than it's already and some could argue it was born here and just flourished on the other side of the Atlantic), it's going to poison the weel and we are going back to align with country with poo poo abortion laws like the US, Germany or Italy.
"If we admit sexual assault is a problem, our abortion laws will be ruined."

You're going to have to walk me through that chain of cause and effect.

quote:

Also the second the state of California stop allowing the death penalty, Polanski will be thrown to a plane to Hollywood
Of course he will.

quote:

and i don't remember the Mexico thing but i think to remember a vaguely similar sounding case of the French woman who was the children mother and it's about the Mexican dad wanting his kids back and accusing her of prostituting them?
No, it was literally people trafficking. Her name is Florence Cassez. The French government bent over backwards to ensure she wouldn't spend any time in a Mexican prison for kidnapping and trafficking Mexican children

quote:

But hey, feel, free to react by calling us backward rapist-loving assholes that don't know what they are talking about, we are use to that kind of reactions from Americans since the Second Iraq war.
I know, it's all so unfair. All that happened is a large number of powerful people offered their own anecdotes of not being abused in reaction to other people sharing their stories of being abused, and people unfairly assumed that those powerful people are loving assholes. If you want to turn it into a broader statement about the French, feel free, but that's not what this is.

It's more or less a formal '#notallmen' lead by powerful people and cultural trendsetters, why the gently caress wouldn't people criticise them for that? Charlotte Rampling, an old, well respected actress, got similarly blasted for being completely tonedeaf on the 'oscars so white' thing.


Toplowtech posted:

Not allowing extraditions of French citizen to countries which refuse to ban the death penalty is what it is about. I think in the Ira Einhorn case we literally asked the USA to start a new trial because the original one sentenced him to actual death* for murder. But Einhorn wasn't a french national so sending him to serve a life sentence was okay. The golden rule is you aren't deported to death penalty places, if you are French citizen. Moving Polanski trial to new mexico could work, i guess, but i don't think it's an option.
Protecting a pedophile to make a statement about another country's death penalty while letting him continue to be a free, lauded director is a really lovely way to make a point.

It's also absolute bullshit, since Mexico didn't have the death penalty, and Florence Cassez lives as a free woman in France (unlike the Mexican kids she sold into slavery)

This isn't a general statement about France. Polanski is a member of the cultural elite, that's why he's protected. It's about the same abuse of power that happens everywhere.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Motto posted:

What about "the new Ghostbuster" was an issue? It was a forgettable movie that had creeps harassing one of the actresses, which, uh, doesn't reflect on the dangers of "American feminism" or whatever.

It wasn't. It became a feminist rallying cry only because MRA fuckwits decided it was an attack on traditional masculinity or whatever. As a result, they made watching a forgettable movie into a statement.

Gamergate was in no way a feminist thing either. It was the opposite. It was anti-feminists getting into lynch mobs over gaming journalism.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Toplowtech posted:

Nice way to reinterpret what people say to you. Here is another one "listen and try to understand people". Sexual assault is problem, your solution to it will most likely make poo poo even worse, yes.You know the opposite of better. If you think that make me a monster to doubt you, fell free to put me on your ignore list. I can admire your desire to make the world a better place, ideological napalm and lynching crowds are just not my taste.
I did listen, and that was my understanding.

In what sense will 'calling out people who have committed it' made it worse?

In what sense will saying 'I wasn't assaulted' help?

What the gently caress does 'ideological napalm' even mean?

quote:

Pretty sure it's also done on the European level by the European court of Human Rights and it also protect terrorists who actually murdered children. If the USA suddenly decided to abolish the death penalty, i would give the country two weeks top, judging by the raging self righteous fury in this thread to do the same or probably even worse.

What? Seriously...what?

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Yeah, citing Gamergate as an example of feminists making a big deal out of nothing is not just misunderstanding what Gamergate was, it's reversing the roles almost perfectly.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


DrVenkman posted:

Yeah I mean check out interviews he did afterwards talking about 'younger' girls. He hid behind it as being the European way, which is a load of bullshit.

You can say what you want about the case (and really I've seen plenty of good points that the judges stance would've been talked down from what he was telling the press), but Polanski himself didn't see what he did as being wrong, not really.

That's the part that's frustrating about Hollywood's seeming forgiveness of him. It's repurposed as well you see Polanski was a victim too. Poor man, he was having to hide all these years.

Having to hide all these years in the country that he's actually from. How awful.

Holding up France's actions as any kind of moral stand is bollocks, because it's not like they've prosecuted him themselves, or limited him in any way. They just protect their own, like a lot of governments do.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


MiddleOne posted:

I'm starting to think you Americans don't get how rule of law is supposed to work.

I'm not actually American, and I'm curious to know how you think 'rule of law' applies.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


LORD OF BOOTY posted:

I think they're saying that this is a pretty ironclad thing in France in general and that they don't make exceptions just because someone's Especially Bad.

Except that they also protect their own when there's no death penalty involved, as they did for Florence Cassez.

Origami Dali posted:

It's gotta be Gaddafi.

Chechnya's dictator is pretty keen on martial arts poo poo. He pays a few UFC fighters, including former champ Fabricio Werdum, to hang out with him.

Never mind, the timelines in no way add up and i missed the part where they said he's dead.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Maxwell Lord posted:

it's saying "As long as you have this policy we will not cooperate, or do anything ourselves and will in fact keep giving him plaudits, awards and money while allowing him to roam free in an industry full of exactly the sort of young girls he's preyed upon before while claiming the moral high ground."

Almost like blanket policies can be pretty loving dumb.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


teacup posted:

Itís also to prevent the government sending a citizen away to be murdered by another state. Take Polanski out of the situation and remember America is one of the few western nations on earth still with this law.

In australia we have a similar law and the federal police here helped tipped off the Indonesians that some Australians were smuggling drugs into Indonesia. They ended up being caught with Australian intel in Indonesia and ended up being executed.

Quite rightly people were pretty pissed off that the policy of not letting that happen (ie catch them in Australia) wasnít followed. I wouldnít trust America not to flip and say ďoh now he can be tried for the death penaltyĒ I mean America executes children in some states so itís understandable to have these laws in place.

Either way itís a bit rich for Americans to accuse the French of supporting Polanski. Didnít you guys give him an Oscar ten years or so back and have your elite stand up and give him a standing ovation? Isnít woody Allen a national treasure? Isnít trump your president?

Edit: what Iím trying to say is perhaps the industry and the patriarchy cross country lines

I'm not American. And yes, this is a serious problem everywhere. And the French quite deliberately and publicly perpetuating the phenomenon of rich people being able to get away with really awful poo poo while pretending they've got the moral high ground is loving dumb as poo poo. Yes, Hollywood gives him an Oscar every couple of decades, the French government lets him walk free every single day.

EDIT: It sort of tells you how endemic the issue is that we're actually having an argument about whether its worth protecting a convicted pedophile to protest a legal penalty that was never on the table for the convicted pedophile. Like, the safety of teenaged girls is less important than making a retarded political point.

Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Jan 13, 2018

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Maxwell Lord posted:

The government policy does not shower Polanski with awards and plaudits. It merely forbids extradition to countries which practice the death penalty, to encourage those countries to abandon it.

True, but he is free and able to make films and receive awards and plaudits as a direct consequence and effect of the policy. And it's not like they couldn't have anticipated that, and even if they couldn't have, they've got a fair bit of data now, saving them the trouble of anticipation.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


khwarezm posted:

You know, I'll give Wahlberg props for this, it's good that he took some action after that came up.

I too think it's extremely admirable that he did a good thing after being caught doing a lovely thing.

It's amazing how consistently Wahlberg is a loving rear end in a top hat.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Maxwell Lord posted:

And how could they react to that without abandoning the policy altogether?

As far as I can see the issue is he was able to flee prosecution in the first place. Maybe don't let your convicted felons get on overseas flights.

Lock him up themselves. Place him under house arrest. Limit his ability to make films or be around young women (like the one he raped and was convicted for raping). Are you really asking 'what could a government possibly do to a convicted criminal?' is that really a question you need me to answer? Dealing with criminals is something that governments exist to do.

"No, you can't have him, your criminal justice system is inhumane, we will deal with him."

gently caress, it's not that hard. gently caress off with this false dilemma bullshit.

"They have to leave him completely free, because the only other alternative is to hand him over, since the French don't have police or prisons or indeed any legal apparatus."

EDIT: This is really not how I expected this conversation to go here in this thread. We're only a few posts away from the awkward fucker who always shows up in this discussion pointing out that the girl was sexually active already.

Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jan 13, 2018

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Maxwell Lord posted:

Does the law allow them to imprison someone convicted in another country? Does the French Constitution or body of laws provide for this? You have to actually follow proper procedures, they don't stop existing because someone is a predator.

Oh gently caress off with this. If you honestly think that French law has absolutely no way to deal with this, you're either full of poo poo, or French law is. Australia has laws to deal with people who committed sex crimes overseas, and we're barely a country.

Origami Dali posted:

Last I heard, Polanski's victim had supposedly forgiven him and had been actively petitioning the LA court to close the case and move on.

good, i needed this square in 'polanski bingo'

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Maxwell Lord posted:

So you're admitting the possibility that they don't have the legal power to imprison him. Which is bad. They should do something about that.

Do you honestly think that either I or Origami Dali are defending Polanski? Because I feel like you're kind of trying to argue a point that nobody's making. Polanski is a rapist. He should suffer a harsher punishment for his crimes than he has. But making that happen probably involves something more complicated than going up to the Palais Bourbon and shouting "YOU BASTARDS!"

If the French have absolutely no legal recourse for someone who has actually been convicted, that is a damning indictment of them. It's also extremely unlikely, since 'committing crimes and fleeing the country' has been an idea as long as crimes and countries have existed. And the idea that France has no legal recourse, now, in 2018, or even 40 years ago, is really stupid.
If there was no legal recourse for the government, there's other things the establishment could do. Even if it was something as simple as 'not financing, starring in or distributing his films.' I mean, John Landis hasn't worked in 20 years, despite having not been convicted. And the chain of responsibility is a bit more complicated than 'he hosed a child' which Polanski did.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


El Gallinero Gros posted:

No it isn't. I'm pretty sure most countries don't have the ability to prosecute somebody for a crime they committed elsewhere,

Dr. S.O. Feelgood posted:

Yeah, despite being an awful person, Polanski still has the same legal rights as anyone else. I admit I am not an expert on French law, but it sounds pretty illegal to prosecute him in France for a crime he committed elsewhere, especially considering he’s already been prosecuted for that crime in the country where it happened. Like, you can’t just put someone under house arrest because they’re a really bad person, you have to have a legal justification. I don’t consider saying any of that to be “Polanski apologism”. The blame lies with Polanski himself and the people within Hollywood and other entertainment industries that continue to support him.

You can prosecute for crimes commited elsewhere. Australia absolutely does, and we're not even a real country. When Australians head over to SE Asia to gently caress kids (which was a huge problem, and probably still is), they can be prosecuted in Australia. It's not some insane impossible scenario that no one has ever thought of before.

It's also not even what's happening, since he's already been convicted.

And yes, he does have rights, absolutely, but it also means that I have no loving interest in what the French artistic establishment thinks of anyone else's sexual morality, which is how all this started.

banned from Starbucks posted:

getting paid for your work....the shittiest of things

Context is hard, apparently. Insisting on getting paid extra in the context that WE ARE loving DISCUSSING NOW is super lovely.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010



Because it was an extra shoot positioned largely as a symbolic statement against abuse in Hollywood. A symbolic statement that Wahlberg insisted on being paid to make because he's a loving sociopath.

He's also the highest paid actor in Hollywood.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Mechafunkzilla posted:

Symbolic statement my rear end. They couldn't release the film with Spacey as a part of the main cast. Don't treat PR as canon.

That sort of suggests that Wahlberg didn't understand the point of the PR exercise. At best, it was a stupid thing to do. At worst, it was the action of an rear end in a top hat. Since Wahlberg has a history of being an rear end in a top hat, i'm not optimistic.

Also, since Scott just replaced him unilaterally, and then told the studio, I'm not sure the studio wouldn't have tried.

Also, Wahlberg made eighty-something million the other year. He's been a well paid star for decades. Don't treat 'people should be paid for their work' as canon either, especially when doing it for free would have sent a pretty strong message.

Also, again, Wahlberg is a loving rear end in a top hat and has been for years. Why would anyone assume the best of him?

Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jan 14, 2018

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


For gently caress's sake, Tom.

No wonder they stopped doing 'Tom Haverford the hound dog' plots on Parks and Rec. gently caress.

poo poo like this makes you look at all their projects much more criticially, and goddamn is Parks and Rec creepy now.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


CelticPredator posted:

They probably stopped it because it got stale.

Or because a guy who won't take no for an answer is pretty loving creepy, and that's what Tom was for much of the show's early run.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


CelticPredator posted:

Tom never raped anyone. The only time I can recall him doing anything like that is when he was trying to win back his green card wife.!

I didn't say that he did. I said he never took no for an answer. He wears down Ann for two or three seasons. There's a creepy aspect of the character that they downplayed after the first two seasons.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Inescapable Duck posted:

I still think that romantic comedies and romance subplots hosed up people's ideas of relationships at least as much as porn.

I think far more so. Porn, with very few exceptions, presents itself as an over the top fantasy, and people's viewing of it tends to be restricted to a particular function (getting off) and people who take it seriously are few and far between, while tv shows and films are the thing you talke about with people to show you're part of society, like the weather or sports. That reinforces their implied values much more strongly, while porn is more a representation of our id and a symptom of the rest of our culture.

Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jan 15, 2018

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Steve2911 posted:

They just gently caress up our views on different aspects of relationships.

This is a whole other discussion, but I always felt like porn just delivered on the implications of other media. It's reactive to other cultural urges. Urges is probably the wrong word.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


khwarezm posted:

Jesus Christ people are really going into overdrive about this.

The Atlantic, despite being really good on some stuff, has some massive blind spots. I mean 'the tragedy of the American Military' is an amazing long form article, but they also put out poo poo like this and simply cannot get their heads around what Antifa is.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


khwarezm posted:

The Atlantic is not in the least bit leftist in any way (one of their frequent contributors is David Frum and Jeffrey Goldberg is the editor in chief), one of their stock-in-trade types of articles they absolutely love to revisit again and again is 'loving college students are too sensitive'.

That's their other major blind spot. They cannot reconcile with the idea that a nazi trying to do a speech at a university being booed off is not a free speech issue.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


precision posted:

Does it change anything if Aziz was drunk? That's not a loaded question, it's just something I'm thinking about, and the article is vague enough to not get a clear picture on how much alcohol they both had. It seems like it may have been a fair amount, especially given that Aziz weighs about a buck twenty soaking wet.

I've had people get me drunk and pressure me into sex, and on occasion they were also drunk and that helped me to understand why the worst of their personality was coming out; alcohol (and cocaine) can often unleash the darker aspects of one's ego.

In Vino Veritas, and all that.


khwarezm posted:

Here's some more in the same vein as the last article I posted:

Babe’s Aziz Ansari piece was a gift to anyone who wants to derail #MeToo

And look:


:psyduck: My god, exactly the same stupid tactic as the last article.

These are the people who'll complain that the movement got derailed by petty poo poo, while being the exact petty fuckers who derailed the movement.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Steve2911 posted:

Nah. He likely won't other than reputational harm.

Almost no one ever does. I mean, it has to be a flood of really horrible allegations for anything to actually happen, yet somehow the idea that 'we have to be careful, because false accusations can ruin a career' persists. Even though it's hard enough for real allegations to do any damage.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Nucleic Acids posted:

Maybe I'm just too cynical, but it's depressing to imagine that this could get drowned out by Babe loving up their reporting of the Ansari story in terms of #MeToo.

It'll be done by a bunch of larger, better equipped and more experienced publications, who'll then write op eds in a few months, wondering how it all fell apart.

It's not because they want it to fall apart, it'll be because high end journalists have a tendency to feel very territorial in the face of online competitors or people who did it 'the wrong way' you can see it in the venomous reaction to Michael Wolff as well.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


teacup posted:

Yeah, also treating your story about what has now become a social movement as a "scoop" furthers the bullshit of people saying witch hunt or women make it up

Those people also discounted decades of testimony with 'why didn't come forward at the time?' or 'what did they think would happen?' they're scum. They're people who think all 40 women or whatever it was who accused Bill Cosby all made it up separately, or that Depp couldn't have beaten his wife because he didn't beat the others. The decorum of the reporting doesn't loving matter unless you help them pretend it does.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

Not everyone who disagrees with you is "scum". Not everyone who will look at a source like Babe and think "these people don't seem kosher" and as a result question the stories they print, is "scum", or stupid, or unreachable. The perceived legitimacy of the delivery system for a message is integral to how likely that message is to be taken seriously, and repeated, and acted upon. This is not, and should not be a difficult concept to grasp.

"I was going to think a demonstrable sex pest was a sex pest, but I read it in a place that seemed concerned about advertising revenue. This is a morally defensible position."

Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

If your default position is that people are unreachable, then no poo poo, you won't reach them. And nothing will change.

That's not my position at all.

Are you going to judge Ansari based on how Babe approached the story?

I'm assuming that your answer is no, because the alternative is stupid.

The chorus of people that worry about reporting decorum all add up to a unified voice that sounds very much like a group of people who worry more about the decorum of a website that whether a self identified feminist tried to jam his fingers down a woman's throat. By worrying about whether some vague anomalous mass of people will be reached, you change whether they will be reached. Because you help reinforce the idea that the purity of the website matters more than what Ansari did.

Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jan 19, 2018

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

If Ansari had not admitted to the story being true, and had in fact denied it, then yes, lacking any other corroboration, or 'Grace' coming forward, I would be looking at this story with scepticism.

So, it matters in an alternate universe where what didn't happen happened. The fact that he didn't deny it sort of suggests Babe actually did their homework, and the only problem is their Mean Girls approach to CNN's pretty fuckin' lovely response. It's not actually about journalistici integrity, it's entirely about decorum.

quote:

What you seem to be advocating is a standard by which I could make a blog tomorrow, accuse someone of being a sex weirdo, and expect to have them ruined by Sunday.

No.

It's advocating that Babe's writers getting into a pissing match with CNN doesn't matter at all, and you worrying about its impact on their integrity is what helps us worry more about the form than the substance of an accusation.


Peaceful Anarchy posted:

"I heard this guy did some hosed up poo poo, but I see the people reporting it are a clickbait blog trying to be journalists so I'm not sure it's true."

Which is a hosed up conclusion to draw, especially in light of Ansari not denying it in any way.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


jet sanchEz posted:

Yeah but the next time some rear end in a top hat is accused they can try the "This is just like Ansari and the hit-job by Babe" and people might just buy it.

They'll already buy 'All thirty women accusing Cosby are lying.'

quote:

If the Washington Post hadn't been very careful with the Roy Moore story, there'd be a (known) pedophile sitting in the U.S. senate.

Again, Babe was actually careful in the story itself, nothing of the facts have been disputed by anyone. This is just about decorum.


Bill Maher is worthless and seems determined to remain so.

Also, gently caress Dan Schneider.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

Some people do. Some people are unreachable. Most people are not. You are using a fringe minority as a reason not to consider the majority of people.

The majority probably believe the story and don't give a poo poo about the slapfight between Babe and 'proper' outlests unless you go on about it and turn it into a bigger issue than the story itself, which you seem determined to do.

Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Jan 21, 2018

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


precision posted:

Doug Stanhope straight up admits what he's done now. I TOLD YOU GUYS.

link?

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


You're right, there's been heaps of people dogged by long standing rumours who've turned out to be innocent like...

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


21 Muns posted:

Literally Mr. Rogers.

When was this?

EDIT: I actually googled this, and the only references are to a guy with the same name who was actually arrested for pedophilia, or 800 articles going 'this is the one that would break out hearts'
I thought I'd hit on something at Observer, but that was a think piece on how Rogers unintentionally made people think that TV was trustworthy (he was, the rest of the industry isn't)

So, either I've missed a joke, or the rumours were very quiet.


For all the insane theories about him (not a citizen, secret muslim, born in a test tube) I've never heard one about sexual assault, and I've heard most of them. I mean, there was one that Michelle was cheating on him and he was loving Biden. I've heard that one repeatedly. People were not shy about throwing allegations at him.

Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jan 23, 2018

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

You miss my point. Why are persistent long term rumours of rape and abuse any different from the persistent rumours you list?

Because sexual assault by a powerful person is an observably common phenomenon, while the most scrutinised figure in the world faking their citizenship, religion and the nature of their existence is less so. It's kind of weird that you need this pointed out.

Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

What you are doing, is dangerous. Whether you agree or not, you are appealing to irrationality and mob mentality. You think we are being unreasonable because we won't take unsourced, unproven, anonymous internet rumours as gospel truth. You are unreasonable for expecting us to.

Not really. I'm expecting no action but this to be investigated. I've not called for anyone to be strung up and I've gathered no mob. I just think that, if anything, we have a glut of skepticism when it comes to sexual assault committed by the powerful.

Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

Scepticism is not denial, it is simply the application of reason. The people we are talking about are real living breathing human beings. Alleged victims and victimisers both. You don't get to act like we are the problem because we wont just condemn them as "yeah, totes abhorrent monster" without even having a victim come forward, because there are real repercussions for real people.

No one has expected you to condemn them. But I'm responding primarily to someone who's first response was to equate this to conspiracy theories.

Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

The story about Nickleodeon is plausible sounding in the current context, but then Obama being a secret muslim is plausible to some people. At the moment all we have is a rumour, and it should be taken as such. It could just as easily be malicious as true for all we know.

You're right, since paranoid schizophrenics find something demonstrably insane with literally no evidence to be plausible, we should be equally skeptical about someone in a position of power with a trail of damaged young women leading directly to his door, because those two are comparable.

I mean, thus far, longstanding rumours of sexually predatory behaviour have been right a shitload more often than they've been wrong. It's hardly surprising, since the commodification and exploitation of young flesh is more or less why Hollywood exists

Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jan 23, 2018

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

At this moment in time the Nickleodeon rumour is, quite literally, a conspiracy theory. It is the theory that a conspiracy exists, without proof or allegation of a conspiracy existing. A conspiracy may exist, and in time it may be alleged or proven to exist. But for now this is a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are seductive, and so they should be treated with reason, healthy scepticism, and care when repeated.

So...would you want it investigated? Because comparing it directly to really stupid conspiracy theories suggests that you don't.

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