System Message

The forum store is down for maintenance and should reopen in the afternoon/evening (Central time). Thanks again to all the beta testers!
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
Darko
Dec 23, 2004



Fart City posted:

Edit: to clarify, I'm not saying one assault is better or worse than another. All are equally sickening, and my heart genuinely goes out to the victims of Louie, Spacey, and everyone else that has been exposed. I was speaking specifically in terms of the respective cultures. With Spacey being fired from House of Cards and cut from All The Money In The World, the axe has already dropped.

All aren't "equal" - they're different levels of wrong. There is a large difference between Louie CK having a jack off fetish and asking women if he could go for it right away (and doing it as soon as he got a yes) and someone threatening people's careers if they don't do it and calling out special forces against them to ruin their careers. There's more than an either/or dichotomy here, and a lot has to do with the nuance of success, consent, and implied power, and a longer discussion about how men who normally got to where they are by taking a lot of chances and being aggressive and using every means at their disposal have an issue with doing that same thing, to varying degrees, in sexual situations.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



Fart City posted:

I mean, I get the point you are trying to make, and a close examination of this specific moment in society is both welcome and necessary, but I'm gonna go ahead and keep feeling how I personally feel about sexual assault.

Well, just as an example, Louis CK didn't commit sexual assault from the current reports. He asked permission from all, did not coerce, none were his direct employees as I understand; he was just more successful than they were in the same field. He is accused of sexual misconduct, not assault, for that reason.There are different categories of harassment/assault/rape for very important reasons, and they have different max penalties for those reasons.

It's not just a "semantics" issue, nor is it excusing someone from doing wrong things, either. But the way you approach and deal with an actual predator that did things unrelentingly is different than you approach men who didn't understand how to maintain safer boundaries so they didn't make people feel uncomfortable and threatened, especially since practically all men have been guilty of that to some degree somewhere in their lives (in many cases, misreading things or not understanding what they were doing, due to a mix of being taught by media and other men, and societal gender roles creating different reactions to the same actions between genders).

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



Fart City posted:

I updated my post to clarify that I was talking about both sexual assault and harassment, and did so before your reply. Didn't want to come off that I'm stealth--dodging the discussion here. You are right: what CK and Spacey did do fall into two different categories of abuse, and that should be considered in how things move forward in both their respective careers, and in terms of legal response. I do take issue with you implying that it's not "fair" for me to find the actions of both men equally sickening, however. That's a personal reaction on my part, influenced by my own life experiences. Which I'm of course entitled to.

I do appreciate the clarity and thought you're putting into this discussion. I do think that it's important to examine the different levels of what we're seeing here. Like, CK is a scumbag creep who intruded on the personal safety of those we acted out his fetish in front of, but it's not quite the same as hiring ex-Mossad agents to befriend someone under false pretenses. The thing is, as much of a cultural moment as this is, it's also extemely personal for a lot of the people who are finding themselves in these discussions. I think it's important to keep that in consideration, which, honestly, almost everyone here has been doing already.

I agree with your personal feelings being your own, and don't want to come off like I find your feelings not "fair." This is one of the few places online I've seen where a nuanced discussion takes place without people just automatically taking extreme sides either.

I also think the empathy/having been there creates a kind of two sided discussion, as well. Women, unfortunately, almost all have dealt with a man being too aggressive or harassing them to various degrees, if not worse, and thus can easily project situations based on their feelings at those times. Men, on the other hand, have almost all misread situations in the dating world, or made moves they thought were obvious and got shot down, and thus many of them project their situation (and fear of being ruined by a mistake) on situations like Louis CK, which creates a lot of the back and forth on this particular issue that I'm reading online in comments. I mean, personally, things like this make me wonder if what I thought was a clear "yes" in any given occasion in the past was actually a "yes," and there's an amount of fear that comes up with that and a kneejerk reaction that has to be buried. The other side issue is that societal gender imbalance means that successful men are now in a precarious position as they have a level of implied power that they may not necessarily have grown up with, that informs consent differently.

My response to all of that is that we just need to do better, as men, and teach other men better, and then we might not have to worry about making mistakes in the future. But when it comes to the Weinsteins of the world, it's just a clear "screw that crap, no excuse for being a predator."

Darko fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Nov 10, 2017

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



AlternateAccount posted:

At the risk of sounding like a Gibson apologist, saying some pretty hosed up poo poo and even domestic abuse are a lot more relatable and forgivable by most people than using your position of power and influence to trawl for and abuse women in a mega-creepy and predatory way. Gibson also gets the crutch of substance abuse.

Also that most men don't have this kind of relative power, and have nothing to relate it to, and can thus "holier than thou" in these kinds of cases.

I see a lot of "quiet" reactions from bosses/CEOs/wealthy/ultra successful men, where a lot of them (note, probably all) have leveraged their wealth and power for attraction and sex, and a lot of outrage from 9-5 workers on my feed who probably secretly dreamed of being rich and powerful and being able to pick up women due to it but never did. Meanwhile, Gibson is the crazy drunk uncle that practically everyone can relate to.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



I don't think you're understanding what he's saying. He's saying that Michael Bay *seems to* shoot what he thinks people want to see as opposed to practicing it himself.

This thread generally seems to want to lump every single thing in a dichotomy under one single umbrella (as seen with the bullying discussion earlier), and not realize the nuance of what all these accusations are showing about society, and the different categorizations of how it plays out.

Society gives men and women a large power imbalance on average. Men generally get more successful than women, and thus, women's well being often depends on men. Since men want sex, this power imbalance creates a giant minefield that is coming to the fore now in the media with a lot of people talking about it. This doesn't just come into play in Hollywood either, managers and senior people date their underlings all the loving time, everywhere; the richer and more powerful a guy is, the more direct he often is in trying to get just-sex (as boldness is tied into power), and they often simply straight up *ask* people for sex instead of the long run around, etc. And because of the power dynamic, a lot of guys don't even realize what they are doing because *they* would never feel threatened by what they're doing. And then, some others just view women as objects and are actual predators.

The underlying point is that practically every man that is not just a painfully shy person with no gumption to do anything, ever, is guilty of some kind of sexual misconduct somewhere in their lives - as "having sex" is pretty much trial and error for guys who are taught by guys that also don't know that they are doing - everyone gets it wrong in some way along the way - and these publicized cases should serve to teach men how to navigate these waters better and to be better.

In the example of Hollywood, these cases are varying levels. And these levels are a reflection of men in general in how they relate to the relative power that they have.

Some are about people not necessarily realizing that their fame gives them relative power and that even vocal consent does not mean they should proceed because of this relative power. (Louis CK0
Some seem fully knowledgeable about that power and try to use it to bully people to give them what they want, and also don't care about age when it comes to that. (Kevin Spacey) (Weinstein)
Some are straight up rapists that forcefully take what they want. (Polanski)

The Louis CK case is a really good one because it's actually relate-able for most men and should teach those supervisors and managers and owners or senior team members to stop hitting on their juniors for that reason (as an example, every bar or restaurant owner I know in the city has slept with at least one of their employees along the way, and many of the women that work in design have at one time slept with a senior team member or someone higher up in the company). It's something hugely common among men, and this is a large issue. The other cases are more about how the structure of money and power allows people to actively be terrible, and how those structures need to be broken.

Darko fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Nov 13, 2017

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



Magic Hate Ball posted:

They really don't. God, I hate posts like this.

Explain why not? Because I get that "projecting what society wants and sometimes criticizing it and sometimes reveling in it" in every aspect of his films, including women.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

Gay men aren't straight men that simply find women icky, it's pretty reductive to conflate Bay's stunted sense of what's 'sexy' with being gay.

Oh, yeah, I do agree with "gay" being used as the direct analogy; I thought he was arguing Bay's intentions.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



Uncle Boogeyman posted:

I mean the thing with giving people a second chance is I'm about it in theory but I'm more inclined to feel that way for someone who fucks up once or twice and tries to make good than for someone who systematically abuses their power to sexually assault and harass people for loving decades

Not everyone implicated did that. Some did things when younger and seem decade(s) removed from their last stated incident (and not doing anything again is a large mark of repentance).

edit: Not saying you don't know this, but making a general point, that what Cranston said still makes sense in this aspect.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



peer posted:

I wish more folks (not in this thread, just in general) would care more about this and stop hailing Gadot as some kind of feminist icon

People do a weird thing where they want to binary categorize people as good/bad as opposed to judging specific actions at the time. While not doing it to themselves and adding all kinds of excuses and nuance for all the bad they did in their lives. Gadot's stance on Israel is hugely problematic and probably based on her background and being exposed to one-sided information. Her making a stance against Ratner in public is good. You (as in people, not you) should be able to simultaneously judge her harshly for Zionism while being positive about her stance on abuse, but people have a problem doing that and default to all good/all bad.

Darko fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Nov 15, 2017

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



Spielberg cheated on his wife with his star actress and then divorced his wife and married star actress. That is the known dirt in Spielberg's past. Kids in his movies seem to be centered around his obvious daddy issues, if we are getting into his psyche. No reason to "suspect" him or anyone else until named.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



It's not even just that - to branch it out further, it's going to mostly be liberals that suffer from this in general.

In cases of liberals like Franken, you have both lberals and conservatives going for his head. In cases of conservatives like Trump, you only have liberals doing the same and they skate by with conservative backing. Franken will be replaced by a democrat, but in other cases, where, again, practically every powerful man has some kind of history of sexual misconduct - what happens when they aren't in situations to be replaced by other liberals?

We have years of Republican politicians doing the same and nothing happening unless it was gay, but now that "liberal" Hollywood is in the target, something is happening because there is a unified front among *everyone*. But there is a reason there is a unified front, and there is a side that sees this as a tool.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004




Rocky had sexual misconduct in it, so that would be like the least surprising thing ever.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



Alhazred posted:

"I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way"

How is is this " refreshingly honest"?

Because most men don't remember or realize the way they have wronged women and if we understand our perspective or intent doesn't really matter, women would be better off for it.

Similar to how the most important part of CK's (for men) was where he said his relative position is what made it wrong even though he didn't realize it at the time.

These are the parts that *men* need to read and take in.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



davidspackage posted:

I'm hugely disappointed by Tambor. It'd be nice if one of these fucks took actual responsibility for their misconduct and apologized, let alone come forward before they're accused. Though I get that it's legally unwise to do so.

This is something that a lot of people don't understand; public figures with lots of money behind their name, have to be really, really careful about admitting anything ahead of time, and when they *do* admit something, how they admit it is very, very important, legally.

Franken had to say he didn't recall that incident happening that way, *especially* if he didn't recall it happening that way. The initial allegations about Louis CK years ago had things like him forcefully blocking the door (as stated by a friend of a friend that recalls hearing it that way as opposed to the victim) that were not in the current allegations he responded to, etc. Everyone pretty much has to shut up now and respond to things specifically after the fact without implicating themselves in more than they need to.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004




I'm not sure about how this one reads.

"I took a picture with him, he got too close and reached around and grabbed my rear end instead of my hip or side, I posted the pic and my godly religious family said it wasn't the required space between a man and a woman, meanwhile, I met a Republican senator right afterwards who asked my politely to even touch and let's hear a statement about how great he is, from him now" doesn't read well, no matter what happened.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



I wouldn't compare Franken to Clinton at this point. The political timing, level of accusations, and political affiliation of the accusers apply much more of a wait and see/take no stance either way until we know more to him as compared to Clinton, who had much more evidence against him at the time, including a later admitted to actual assault (by reason of his position of power over the person he had sex with). This is the predicted problematic point of these accusations where the same kind of "counter-story with media giving the same weight to both sides, no matter the degree" stuff that happened during the election would happen here.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



esperterra posted:

ftfy

I think dating your employee is fine given the right circumstances. When someone is just abusing power, though, that's hosed and needs to stop. Besides dating your boss sounds like it would be the worst. You'd never get away from work!

There is no way for someone in power to know if they're abusing it or not for sure, so, no, no one should be dating employees or juniors that they mentor or supervise.

Darko fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Nov 22, 2017

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

I think what people more react to is that the offenses are wildly disproportionate.

The reaction is. Women have grabbed my rear end, dick, and lifted up my shirt to see my body in public; I get inappropriately grabbed and hugged or kissed once a week, at least, etc...but I don't care because I've been socialized not to care. Whoever the sexual aggressor.is, in any given instance, is normally really bad at doing it - its just that sexism socializes differently, so more men are in the position to do it and men brush it iff easier on average from women than vice versa.

For the wide conversation, I don't talk about the hundreds of times a woman has grabbed me because I have been socialized to view it as a compliment, and have the power and socialized agency to stop it. That's really what the difference is.

Darko fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Nov 23, 2017

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



Steve Yun posted:

I have been harassed, but I have never felt in danger for my safety, which I think is a big difference between sexual harassment by men and sexual harassment by women.

I am sure that there are cases when men are in danger from women, but I would never argue that it happens to men as often as it does to women.

That's what I was alluding to as well in the general statement. I'm 6 feet and in decent to good shape for a man; I only feel in danger of a woman lying on me and getting men after me. Same with business; even if I lose a job for harassment, as a man, I feel confident that I can equal out elsewhere. Two advantages women don't have, outside of being socialized to be more than sex objects, which is why it is different. But both sexes do often do that "front end" harassment.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



I'm not entirely sure you're seeing the issue with power. The issue with CK is not his kink in itself, it's that his relative power due to being more far more famous/ingrained than the comedians that he asked consent from - removed their consent. A "yes" with a possibility of someone's life being affected by saying "no" is not necessarily a yes, and that's where the problem/power comes into play. It wouldn't matter if CK asked to have sex with them or masturbate them or whatever - the offense would be the same. This is a rather universal problem in that plenty of guys try to hook up with juniors in every possible field - and they STILL don't see the issue because people are focusing mainly on kink-shaming in that case as opposed to literally what Louis CK spelled out in his statement.

Men are more likely to be more successful than women in general in any particular field, and with that success comes a degree of implied financial/life control over less successful women in specific circumstances. That's where the implied power difference lies. The reverse is far more rarely the case. Just by numbers, there are just less numbers of female supervisors/bosses/seniors/mentors trying to hook up with male juniors than the reverse, since there are just less numbers of women in those positions.

That's not even getting into the issue of physical power/strength/intimidation that also comes into play.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



GonSmithe posted:

That might be true, but the culinary industry is especially so.

Especially because having attractive waitstaff and bartenders often results in profit for the business just because of that. It only increases the superficiality and toxicity of the whole business.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



Rhyno posted:

I think you hit the nail right on the head and drove it through the goddamned board.

See also: how everyone discussed Michael Jackson post death.

Post-death, the pendulum seems to have swung more to "Jackson was just crazy and thought he was a kid and people tried to profit off of that by making false accusations" as opposed to people thinking he molested kids. The percentage is much different than it was right around the trial(s) when people were saying "I knew it!"

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



Comedy needs context and tone to *get* where someone is going with a joke, and can't really be judged by excerpts and quotes. See the initial news reporting about Chapelle's show before anyone actually saw it.

Also, the perspective of a black man raised by Boomers about false accusations or level of response to accusations on celebrity, as well as fighting for one's identity will be different than that of someone else.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



The Ansari allegations should open up larger conduct about people making sexual intentions or refusal clear and *when* to back off, but people are incapable of nuance and are either full defense or full offense on this.

It mainly still centers around issues with the patriarchy as men being forced more often to be sexual aggressors and taught by nothing but movies and TV and women being taught to be non direct and submissive creates a ton of issues where both parties are communicating differently and don't know what the hell is going on. The onus falls on the aggressor to not keep pushing stuff after someone backs off - but then a lot of men have experience with being told they weren't aggressive *enough* from women and that she wanted them to read their mind and try harder which even further confuses things.

Ansari is wrong for being too persistent and seemingly doing a horrible job of reading body language and intention, and the fact that practically every guy over 21 that has attempted to have casual sex with a woman (and also a lot of women do similar with men, just not the same ratio) has done stuff like this makes it a huge thing that could possibly be explored and actually improved if an actual dialogue would start, but...people.

Darko fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jan 16, 2018

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



Criticizing behavior and condemning the person is different. And there is a wide gulf of difference between being too pushy due to misreading body language or the mood or something (which is relateable for every guy that has to work their way through that stuff when young) and an older guy purposely threatening women over and over again for sex.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



STAC Goat posted:

I mean, I want to make it clear I'm absolutely fine criticizing Ansari for his behavior. I think MAYBE (huge question on that) you could maybe argue "mixed signals" early on in the story and dismiss him as "aggressive" or "pushy". And I'd agree that that's a problem in itself. But once she's telling him "I don't want to" and he keeps making "advances" then I lose any and all sympathy I may possess from my younger less evolved days.

And again, if you want to argue that the early stuff is wrong and any sympathy I have is just from my own messed up ideas of sex when I was younger I'd probably agree and hang my head with a fair amount of shame that while I can definitely say I never crossed a line into pushing sex I really can't be sure I never hit on a woman too much or pursued her in a way that made her uncomfortable.

Practically every guy that isn't shy to the point of doing nothing and being completely passive all the time has, especially as you go back towards Gen X. At least some of us learned better over time.

Edit, I mean some of our first exposure to relateable romance was drunken Elliot grabbing a classmate and forcing a kiss on her and her *liking it.*

Darko fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jan 16, 2018

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



Magic Hate Ball posted:

Yeah I hate that take. She:

-Repeatedly pulls away
-Gets up and moves
-Says "I don't want to feel forced"
-Goes quiet and still
-Says "I really don't think I'm going to do this"
-And finally turns away and says "you guys are all the loving same"

Some of this can go into perception by parties, especially when drinking is involved. As a slightly similar example I have good friends and an ex girlfriend who hooked up at one time, and her story to me was that they basically begged her to have sex and she finally gave in, their version was that she ran down the hall excitedly and jumped in their bed. I could see all kinds of scenarios where parties got different impressions or were not being exact or using hyperbole or whatever (since I knew the people involved), and in that case the only reason I took any side in the end was based said ex using similar hyperbole about others that she got busted on. And there are a million more examples I've seen of two differing details in a story about two people hooking up, especially having worked around service industry people that are always around alcohol and always hooking up with each other.

Nobody is denying that Aziz was being a shithead that was begging and harassing that should have quit by any account (and *this* is what people really need to learn), but a one-sided story like that *can* be missing important perspectives or information that the other perspective may shine a light on.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



Some Guy TT posted:

The article reminded me of that Cat Person story from the New Yorker that was big awhile ago. I really felt bad making that connection, because what Ansari did was way, way worse than anything the guy in the story did, but the disaffected literary style in which the article was written really does make the whole thing sound more like a bad experience than an indictment of Ansari as a person. There's moments where it's practically a comedy, because Ansari responding to every obvious moment of discomfort by initiating more oral sex sounds like something out of an Aristocrats joke.

I read it as Ansari reading her "take it slow" and some actions as him being able to get laid *sometime that night* as opposed to *later in the relationship*, and thus him trying to jump in with any opening.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



SamuraiFoochs posted:

That is really loving shady.

It also removes any "blame" from the accuser for looking for fame/putting the story out and undermining #metoo when the blog site tracked her down and rushed out the story for clicks. Since that's the extreme end that I've been seeing online against that statement, those people can be shut down or at least redirected to ranting about the site, which I don't mind at all.

Darko fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Jan 18, 2018

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



Asking stars in general about details of a single time hookup or meeting is an issue. It's M. Bison/Chun Li in the wonderful Street Fighter: The Movie - for the star it is often just a Tuesday. Especially if they were innocent or did something by accident or had a different perspective, since nothing in particular would even stand out to them.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



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.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



The hot takes on this are terrible.

When you're confident, and approach a woman, there's a very thin line between too aggressive and not, especially since pick-up style flirtation often involves reading into reactions and intensifying your approach or lowering it based on those reactions.

He's saying it's too much of a risk now, as a celebrity, to do that with random women, and hell just go back to people that he already knows he's okay with it/that he can be direct with. I've been seeing this sentiment a lot from men who were more in the pick up culture as opposed to chasing relationships. And it means less margin for error and this less harrassment, so it's a net positive.

Darko fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Jul 13, 2018

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



As a counterpoint, I've seen women touch Cavill in ways he would be #metooed about immediately, especially since he didn't really want that kind of attention at the time. So the movement is part of the reaction, just as much as the changing times. He has a career to lose for what women and men consistently do out of just not respecting or understanding personal space, which can often get convoluted.

Darko fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Jul 13, 2018

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



a) Cavill is referring to pick up culture and not dating culture, which is a different approach and distinction. Picking up someone for the night is generally more aggressive than trying to date someone long term and the distinction between reaction to the exact same approach is if someone is into you or not.

b) Cavill is so attractive (and famous) that relatively few would turn down an initial conversation with him, so if he actually went for an approach to try to sleep with them, he has a risk of it being construed as harassment if that's not the direction they were going for with him. When women aren't into many guys, they let you know at the initial approach, and that's something that he doesn't get much of. He's not an average goon, he's one of the prettiest guys I've ever seen and people around him just brighten up being around him. The signals world-traveling goon would read as "into" are the signals that Cavil just gets from being famous beautiful man. I have a squeaky-clean record when it comes to #metoo accusations from being very aware of reading people and when to back off, but I have no idea how I'd navigate in his shoes, because it's far rougher and more questionable in that position.

A lot of people are making an equivalency with trying to pick up someone and trying to date someone, and a lot of the issues are around the immediate pick up approach. And that's something an open dialogue needs to be had about, as there is a difference between failure, annoyance, and actual harassment, and it would be good if those lines could be clearer for everyone due to open dialogue. Also, there is a large difference for famous attractive people - hanging around them is far different than hanging out with your average friends or whatever, and the endless line of women approaching them because they are who they are and what they look like is super blurring. I've hung around people like him and Momoa, and Porcello on the sports end, and it's an entirely different world of human interaction there than what the average person is used to (or even lesser attractive celebs) when it comes to the sexual navigation side of things.

Darko fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jul 14, 2018

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



Offenders that go after boys/men are a lot less likely to come back than those that go after girls/women due to the added level of the public's feeling on same sex things in general.

Also, things like Franken, where there are large questions on much of the stuff even happening as stated, especially with there being political motive surrounding the events, will be "forgiven" more than/earlier than more clear cut instances of actual assault.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



I see punishment as corrective, and not revenge. If someone did something years ago, was already called out at the relevant time, apologized, and most importantly - did not repeat their actions, I dont see the point of a retroactive punishment.

Especially with a social issue where a change in society means the social punishment increases a great deal from when the initial social crime was made. I simply dont understand people that want some kind of revenge on people who have clearly learned the error of their ways.

This is different from a, say, Polanski, who ran from his initial punishment, or a Trump who avoids facing anything from his CURRENT actions.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



treasured8elief posted:

Being okay with Disney firing him for those doesn't mean we're one with Nazi rapists. Like, can y'all please tone it down with that.

There is an actual culture war going on with Nazis against everyone else, and everyone else is losing.

One of the recent forms of attack are Nazis going through everyone who is critical about them's past, finding something wrong, and using the kneejerk reaction of people to silence them, leaving them unopposed (and making other people scared to openly talk about them for that reason).

NOBODY is squeaky clean and EVERYONE has something negative in their past. People just tend to make excuses for their own demons, while damning everyone else.

Either we accept people can change and accept proof of change (like being a decade removed with lack of other offenses), while condemning CURRENT actions, or we lose that war because there will be no one left to speak against those we are fighting against.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



I've avoided dunking on them as such as well, but as a minority, I'm also willing to forgive racists that have reformed because I recognize that I had lovely, uninformed opinions about people 20 years ago, and much of that was based on societal exposure. I think it's better to focus on the positive and show what it takes for people to change to encourage change, personally. But everyone handles everything differently.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004




I'm not a Faraci fan at all, but given the quality of that, maybe he's changed from when i last read him and I should give him a chance.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Darko
Dec 23, 2004



graventy posted:

The guy who got fired for sexual assault and then “found Buddhism” and came back?

Forgive me if I take his ‘People like me should be forgiven’ article as slightly biased.

I missed his personal stuff; it's hard keeping track of everything. I don't think "I've changed" counts if it's like a week, no. Lots of years, yes.

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