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
LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



You’d think after Chapelle quit his own show because he was getting uncomfortable with the racist jokes he would be undertanding of transgender and metoo stuff.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Some Guy TT posted:

That's hardly a Mike Judge exclusive delusion. Liberals to this day and probably in this thread also blame the dumb poors for Trump's election. It really is remarkable how a few thousand white unemployed factory workers in the Rust Belt get all the blame rather than the usual Republican constituency which numbers in the tens of millions, I guess because Democrats have for some bizarre reason decided that the latter group is more likely to vote for them.

In a more subforum-relevant albeit still technically off-topic note, when I watched Idiocracy I missed the opening prologue that explained how dumb poor overbreeding ruined the country, and started off with the main character waking up in the dystopian future. Consequently, I thought the reason everyone was so dumb was because of several hundred years of pointless counterproductive corporate brainwashing. Every other scene someone says or does something stupid solely because a corporation gives them money to do so, but the breeding thing isn't referenced again until the ending. Really improves the reading of the movie there I'll tell you what.

Three loving cheers for Weinstein getting arrested by the way. I'm still amazed that actually ended up happening.

I wonder how much of that stuff is overemphasized by the narration. The movie isn't perfect but the narration is really bad, especially when it's playing over scenes that would probably move the story forward just fine (but using actual jokes instead of exposition.)

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



DC Murderverse posted:

Comparing the two is a little disingenuous because

A: Roseanne's comments were literally tweeted out the day that she got fired, whereas Gunn's tweets were old. This doesn't make what Gunn said any less offensive, but I would believe him if he said "i know now what I said was wrong, and those jokes were offensive and ill-spirited" because he's had lots of time to learn and be better. He also hasn't really done anything in the interim that's really tripped these particular triggers.

B: Roseanne was accused of being racist, for which there was plenty of evidence, most prominently the joke she made about Valerie Jarrett that day. Gunn made inappropriate offensive jokes, but based on the poo poo that was posted in here as examples of what these people are saying, they're accusing him of being a child molester (or being child molestation-adjacent). this is a common attack for this group, see: Pizzagate, many various Hillary Clinton conspiracy theories, etc, but there's no actual evidence of Gunn being a child molester, and I think even the people who think he should lose his job for posting offensive things don't actually think he's a child molester. This is part of where the whole "bad faith" thing carries actual weight; if you fire Gunn after these unfounded accusations, you're just giving weight to the people making them and encouraging them to make that same argument in the future. To bring it around to Roseanne again, if an organized group of people took her tweets about Valerie Jarrett and made an effort to get Disney to fire her based on the argument that these tweets implied that she was a literal member of the Klan or had slaves or something, it might be closer to a fair comparison.

C: Roseanne's apology after the fact was clearly disingenuous because like, a week later she started defending herself again, and her actions in the months following her booting are not the actions of someone who realized that what they said was wrong and insensitive. If James Gunn comes out and starts to defend the poo poo he said and say "it wasn't wrong to say that" or complain about PC culture I might feel differently, but he does seem to be sincere in his contrition.

It should also be noted that if you want to compare this to other comedians who have been the center of various arguments about this sort of thing, the only comedians who have really lost their careers over something like it have been people like Roseanne or Michael Richards. Guys who make really blue jokes like Daniel Tosh or Parker & Stone don't generally hurt their careers by making this sort of joke. It's possible that Twitter being the medium for the message has something to do with it (I imagine if a video of James Gunn saying most of those things on stage in the context of a stand-up act popped up, he wouldn't have been fired, but I'm not sure).

I'm pretty sure Disney won't be hiring Parker and Stone any time soon though.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



It's not that surprising that a contrarian internet atheist guy turned out to hate women.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



The biggest Youtube channel flirts with as much alt-right stuff as it can get away with.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



There's nothing more hardcore than talking about how many people your Netflix stand up special is going to trigger.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



porfiria posted:

Jerry Seinfeld is probably a sociopath.

Yes, he is super rich.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006




Yikes.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



twerking on the railroad posted:

Pro tip: You probably shouldn't be happy to see child actors on screen in things you watch. And not just because very few children are good actors.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Pedro De Heredia posted:

The context of making comedy?

It's all an act, a performance. It's just jokes you write, that you think might be funny. But you don't know if they're funny. You have to present them to audiences, and see if they laugh. If they do, you can keep honing the jokes. If they don't, you retool them or drop them entirely. It's not uncommon for comedians to not want bootlegs of their performances to be out there, because it's a work in progress.

That's a normal process, but he's not really being judged for being a comedian, he's been judged because people want to believe that comedy is a window to the soul. People accepted, for years, that what they were seeing when they saw Louis CK perform was his unfiltered ID. It never was, it was just an act. It's always an act.

The amusing thing is that, while accepting that in this case it was just an act, people still want to believe in this 'window to the soul.' So now because Louis CK did a few bad jokes + we know he "is bad," then My god, his new set shows what he's really like! That's the real soul of Louis!

You don't need the quotation marks, he is straight up a bad person.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Snowman_McK posted:

If that's the case, why bother making any movies at all?

They need to make movies in general, it's just that they're big enough to drop one franchise and not feel it.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



In terms of MJ I'm concerned that anyone who helped him do this poo poo or helped him cover up will get away with it.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



kaworu posted:

I know this is not exactly "news", but I have gotten into the most frightening, and yet eye-opening argument on youtube. Normally I never, ever engage in such shenanigans (and if I do I'm too embarrassed to admit it) but this was... shocking.

I bet at least some of you have seen (or heard about) the new Amazon series The Boys, which is based on an "edgy" comic book with copious violence, sexual or otherwise, but the series is actually fairly decent. However, there is an extremely creepy scene in the Episode 1 where the "good and innocent" female superhero Starlight, who has just become an elite member of the super-group of superheroes known as "The Seven", encounters Aquaman rip-off "The Deep" alone in the meeting room of of the tower. He coerces her into giving him oral sex after she shyly reveals that she had a crush on him when she was younger - superheroes are celebrities in this universe. She is grossed out, and he says "It's just a question of how badly you want to be a part of The Seven, I guess..." which seriously pisses her off, causing her to inadvertently use her powers to make some monitors and light bulbs explode. The Deep then implies he will say she tried to assault him and effectively ruin her life if she doesn't go through with it. We then cut to her vomiting in the bathroom, mercifully.

So, that is the scene, right? Now, to me, that is rape, right? You would ALL agree that making such threats amounts to abusing power and coercion and is, unequivocally, rape, yes? That is how I read the scene, anyway. But apparently this is not how a lot of male viewers read the scene, judging by the shitstorm I caused simply by making the previous statement on a freaking youtube comment section.

You see, apparently I am confused, and really stupid, and in that scene Starlight is actually being a total whore - she just wants to be on The Seven so bad, she doesn't care whose cock she has to suck, you see. All the fans I was discussing the scene with, they seemed to agree that they would OBVIOUSLY have just walked away in Starlight's position, it wasn't like he was physically forcing her. And apparently, what The Deep was doing was only "sexual harassment" and "blackmail" - it definitely wasn't rape!

I have to say, that I was beyond flabbergasted that so many people seemed to believe this. Sure, it was youtube comments, but loving still! I couldn't... not say something, it was such a deeply hosed up perspective, and I thought it was just a few crazy misogynists but.... drat. There were a couple people who agreed with me but it seemed too hosed up for them to bother making more than a sadly ironic comment. The thing of it was that I could not understand why all these guys cared about this... loving semantic distinction! It was like they all agreed that it was a creepy thing to do and "probably sexual harassment and maybe blackmail" but they were getting REALLY offended and worked up over me insisting again and again that NO, it was actually the very definition of RAPE since he forced a woman to unwillingly suck his dick, but this... was apparently not obvious or clear to them, or they would not admit it?

Then I came to a really... horrible, really chilling realization. All these guys were refusing to call it rape because they had done similar things to women (or men) in terms of using power or threats to receive sexual favors from people who were almost certainly unwilling - or maybe they just WANT to do those things. And they DO NOT think of themselves as rapists, not by any means - I cannot think of ANY other reason why someone would care so much about the definition of rape and how it applies in that context. It's the only reason why I'm at all motivated to angrily argue the OTHER SIDE, which is a point they made several times by referring to events they assume happened in my past that were "not-rape" in their opinions...


I'm sorry to bring this all up here as it was a silly internet argument, but... well, to be honest that really freaks me out. Like I said, why else would that point of view exist? It's deeply unsettling to me.

Men are bad, unironically.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Everywhere on the internet is as bad as Youtube.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



A Sometimes Food posted:

Especially when he just used "men" for men in the previous sentence. "Men and :females:" is one hell of a red flag.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

It felt like a response at odds to the one we'd see if it were a woman coming out against yet another male predator.

And if you look at that sentence you might notice that without thinking about it i said "woman" and then "male". People do that switch without being MRAs. But do please carry on attacking the victim in this story.

If you had said "yet another male" instead of "yet another male predator" your pwn might make sense.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Bust Rodd posted:

I absolutely hate the way every picture they are using of Katy Perry for these accusations articles makes her look so sad and forlorned, like they are tying to make her appear wild and vulnerable, instead of just a weird and spoiled person.

I just don’t think it’s possible to make a million dollars at age 19-20 and maintain any semblance of humanity.

It's not really possibly to make a million dollars at any age and not be a scumbag.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



R. Guyovich posted:

funny i thought we were just talking. did we get some kind of punitive power from posting online? are the terror dreams of right-wing scumbags finally coming true?

If only.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



"Vote with your wallet" never, ever works.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Bust Rodd posted:

As an incredibly poor person IRL, I personally feel like any amount of time he takes off would feel completely arbitrary because if I say he should take a year and Celtic Predator says he should take 5 years and the woman he hurt say he shouldn’t ever come back... well none of us really have any reason for our arbitrary deadlines, and there is no indication or data to support the idea that taking time off from society to live like an ascetic hermit actually has any impact on your behavior. The $40 million dollars that he lost for himself and his family feels like the biggest punishment any of these predators have faced so far (except for like Epstein).

Also you’ve got a common misconception here. The “larger comedy world” still supports Louie and the number or anti-Louie comedians shrinks daily. Most of them vocally believe that any of these guys can come back whenever they want to because you can’t tell someone not to work and not provide for their families, and if he can’t produce shows or make movies and nobody wants to work with him on new projects, isn’t touring and doing stand-up really his only option?

Like if you’ve had one career for 30 years and suddenly not only do you get fired but you’re also blacklisted and can’t ever work in that field again, what the gently caress are you supposed to do? Learn a new trade skill at 50 and work your way back up until you can support yourself again?

It’s just an unrealistic expectation that anyone who gets cancelled just has to go crawl in a hole and die, that’s not how things work and I don’t think that’s how things should work. People need a chance. My brother is getting out of prison next month after 18 years for murder. I have to believe that people can renter society.

He's rich he doesn't have to worry about supporting himself.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Bust Rodd posted:

No, I'm specifically saying "maybe we shouldn't cancel a man completely because of dumb things he's said, especially considering all the good he has done with the world". I've literally never once said he should get a free pass, but many posters in the thread think that his entire career is forfeit and all the positive change he's enacted is meaningless.

"Kevin Hart is an unabashed HOMOPHOBE because of these 10 and 11 year old tweets! gently caress his entire career!" is black and white thinking. "Let's take a step back and not immediately write this entire person off as a shithead because they've positively impacted literally millions of people" is not. Unless you're running my posts through a filter before reading them I honestly don't understand how you're arriving at this conclusion.

Like, for example, I don;t stand up for any of the good Bill Cosby did, because Bill Cosby is an unapologetic Serial Rapist. I'm very comfortable ignoring his career and the millions he's donated to charity and scholarships and all the black kids he got through college etc because at the end of the day his crimes are simply too gruesome to ignore or forgive.

Contrast this with what kevin hart has done. Are they the same? Do they deserve the same scrutiny and reactions?

Bust Rodd posted:

If 2018 has taught me anything, it’s that utterly destroying someone’s reputation based on as little information as possible is arguably more important than ignoring anyone’s claims, however sedate and meaningless they might appear to be.

“Once at Christmas party I bumped into George Clooney and wouldn’t you know it, we were under the mistletoe and he smooched me!”

“Actually ma’am George Clooney mouth raped you.”

“But I love George Clooney and he’s so sweet and charm-“

“Raped your mouth, miss, with his mouth.”

-this thread

(No one bring up the Katy Perry mouth rape scene from American Idol, where she tricks an incel into making out with her and then he came out as like “that was really gross”)

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



That must have been a short break because you were back at it the next day and have basically been just barely slipping your horrible opinions under the radar for over a year now.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

"Philanthropy" should not exist.

Every philanthropist is just giving back a small percentage of what they're supposed to while promoting horrible stuff behind the scenes.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



AceOfFlames posted:

If I were a philanthropist hell yeah I would control every dollar. Not to make people "dance" but to make sure that, say, if I invested in medical or evironmental research that it would go to actual research instead of vanishing into "administration costs" (i.e. the pockets of the senior lab executives)

Getting every donated dollar into a rich fucker's pocket instead of anywhere useful is the entire point of rich person charity.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Was Franco the one filming sex scenes for spurious reasons.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Stand up comedy isn't funny enough to spend so much time defending.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



He used his power to crush women who tried to call him out and doesn't seem apologetic so gently caress him.

Eat the rich.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Yeah, that's a big thing too: all the accomplices around these sex offenders who also never deal with any consequences.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Coffee And Pie posted:

I mean it’s weird but at a certain point isn’t a woman allowed to make her own choice?

Is this a Louis CK quote?

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

Yes, I'm definitely the weird one for thinking that throwing people on the Weinstein pile for getting married is hosed up.

This thread is not a court of law, he'll probably survive.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



I'm just making fun of the washed up cradle robber.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Timeless Appeal posted:

5) Sixty year olds and twenty-five year olds are not aliens. Like age differences obviously create differences, but it's possible to interact with someone significantly older than you as a peer

The worlds they grew up in are so different they might as well be seperate planets.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Judakel posted:

I love how anyone is pretending this isn't mutually beneficial arrangement between these two people, even if unspoken.

Weinstein probably made some of his victims into stars too, I guess everybody wins?

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Vagabundo posted:

Didn't you get the memo? The two consenting adults in question now must front up to a judiciary and explain themselves, apparently.

Again, this thread is not a court of law.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Hodgepodge posted:

i mean, if i was going to sum up my reaction to it, it's that it does look suspect, but imposing our judgements on a woman (we've all but accused her of being a prostitute) for her choice of relationships with a complete disinterest in any evidence beyond the surface level is not the same thing as empowering the voices of victims of abuse. the only voice being empowered is our own, flaunting the very irrelevance of her voice in the face of our ability to know better than her based on abstract principles.

would the suspicions in this thread bear out with evidence? it doesn't matter, because she doesn't matter to anyone in this thread, there is a complete disinterest in anything other than our abstract right to judge her. it is a celebration of our power over her, for her own good.

lol

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



I wanna know what the CEO of McDonald's did that was so terrible that he knew he couldn't just ride out the news cycle.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



They know which side of the class war they're on and they stick together.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



I could see Allen as a smaller Epstein, definitely.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



If only we could have realised the casting couch stuff was rape earlier, luckily there's definitely nobody doing it any more.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY
Feb 3, 2006



Steve Yun posted:

What’re the odds that it’s an act for sympathy vs actually being that broken

It's common for old guys in serious trouble to suddenly become too ill to handle their trial/incarceration, yes.

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