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
Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


The Cameo posted:

Yeah, the Hollywood thing is more salacious and thus more headline-worthy since America has used Hollywood as Meritocracy Royalty since it came into existence, but there's literally no industry in this country where this poo poo isn't constantly happening, especially in businesses where the degrees of power one person can wield over others is as wide as the producer/director/lead actor and neophyte performer/crew member is.

poo poo, I'm still waiting for Jeff Epstein's plane trips to become a story. That would be the moment that would really shake American culture, given the names Clinton and Trump would surely come up alongside Spacey and others. Especially given Epstein's registered sex offender status.
I kind of backed away from talking about what I'm going to talk about in another thread, but I disagree.

I worked in TV briefly, and it's a different culture. For example, I know one beloved person who used to do something often in the office involving their genitals that I don't think anyone ever labeled as harassment. It was very much a funny story about this person. But after working in offices, schools, and knowing friends in so many different businesses... what they did was loving weird. And once again, I don't think people were offended and if anyone had said they were, I think they would have stopped. But who knows?

I think poo poo like that opened the door for more insidious people to be assholes. There was never a place I worked where people talking about the bodies of their coworkers so often and without restraint. There was no place I worked where parties and gathering were as blatantly open season for trying to hook up with younger and entry level employees. And when there was someone who sexually harassed me, I didn't really think much of it. And nor did the people who worked there when the same person who harassed me terrorized a young woman out of her job with no recourse whatsoever for the abuser.

And yes, I've worked in other places where harassment happens, but those situations felt like it was because the person was lovely. In TV, it felt like a cultural problem.

Part of it was twofold. Part of it is I don't think there was the level of discipline that other offices have. There was no HR. Most people didn't have clear supervisors and it would feel weird going to the EPs about it. So you get stuff that everyone accepts like the genitals gag, but that sort of opens the door for other shittiness.

The other thing is that the entertainment industry is very encompassing. When I go home, my wife and friends can give a second set of eyes to what happened during my day. They can give an outsider's perspective. In entertainment, it's like high school. All your friends are in the industry and potentially on the same project.

From my own really limited experience, it's different. And from my experience, this isn't poo poo that is just happening with these big men in power.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Nov 6, 2017

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


basic hitler posted:

Brace yourself for backlash in general. Someone will get hit by this that the general public really likes, and can't accept the accusations against. At that point false accussation wont matter. There is going to be a saturation point as well. Hollywood will not blacklist everyone to the detriment of its own economy beyond a certain point. People will not be willing to let go of their most beloved idols, no matter what they're accused or even convicted of.
I think we make a mistake when we curb our expectations for a movement based on how we think society would react. We live in a society where women were legally allowed to be raped within the last thirty years. The Me Too campaign has at the very least pushed a much different conversation than the Pussy Grabbing conversation last year. Society is a fickle thing and can change. In general, I think meta discussion around movements tends to hinder change because it changes the discussion to arm chair punditry instead of engaging with the actual issue.

Pedro De Heredia posted:

Permanently blacklisting people is also not really a great strategy.
I'd argue it is. Part of the problem with sexual harassment is that the stakes are really out of whack. The abusers can do what they do with a relatively small amount of risk whereas the abused face a disproportionate amount of risk if they speak out. It's a matter of changing who's afraid. Spacey and CK will still live lives of comfort and ease. But them being made an example of hopefully sends a message to people like them.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Pedro De Heredia posted:

I'm not sure about that.

I don't really think it's true that 'abusers can do what they do with a relatively small amount of risk'. The magnitude of the consequences that abusers face is pretty large: they can lose their jobs, careers, be tried under the criminal justice system and possibly even go to jail. That is, and has been true, for a long time. What's small is the likelihood that they'll face those consequences. I think that likelihood is small for reasons unrelated to the magnitude (the culture around believing accusations, people's support of celebrities, the difficulty of proving an accusation, etc.). This logic isn't very different than saying that harsher punishments (like the death penalty) are an effective deterrent to crime.

The idea that they're going to be affected by this measure is undercut by your comment that they'll "still live lives of comfort and ease". Is that just an observation? Is it a prerequisite? If Louis CK loses all his money in lawsuits, will he be un-blacklisted? How does this work?
I suppose I disagree with you on a couple of fronts here. How likely something is to happen does impact risktaking. It's why people don't bike with helmets on. The magnitude of the risk is high, but so is their confidence in an accident occurring being unlikely. But the first time you get a concussion, you're probably more likely to wear a helmet.

What's out of whack is that I don't think sexual harassment feels like a risk to a lot of abusers. At the most extreme levels you have Weinstein who had a personal network of spies, Woody Allen's alleged mob connections, Bill O'Reily being contractually protected from any HR complaints, Donald Trump's tendency to use defamation and other counter-suits as a wall against any attacks, and CK's kingmaker status. For most people, you just have a broader rape culture. And the fact is that, yes, the odds of CK losing all of his money if very, very slim. And even if he never worked again, he'd still be worth more money than most of use would ever make if we worked for a century. He could lose half of his money and the former statement would still be true.

Meanwhile for the accused, the risk of burning bridges, being seen as a problem, closing off professional opportunities, and receiving threats isn't just exceedingly high, but probable.

I understand the issues with the "court of public pressure," but the reality is that we currently live in a world where public pressure has more often been used against victims than in their favor.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Pedro De Heredia posted:

He has successful movies every 5 years or so (Match Point, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Midnight in Paris, and Blue Jasmine all made a decent amount of money) and won an Oscar a few years ago. He's chugging along just fine.

The Woody Allen case is considerably different than a lot of other ones because 1) he's always denied it, 2) some other people have backed this denial, 3) there is a plausible alternative explanation, and 4) the case actually went through the legal system. You may well think he did it (and there's a good chance he did) but it's vague enough that treating him as guilty (declaring him persona non grata in Hollywood) is probably too extreme.
Mitt Romney of all people had a pretty apt response to the Roy Moore poo poo:

quote:

Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections. I believe Leigh Corfman. Her account is too serious to ignore. Moore is unfit for office and should step aside.

I get that our justice system is a key part of our society, but I think it's misguided to use as the corner stone for how we discuss these cases. It's especially true when sexual assault cases are often hard to prove and often the accusations are delayed due to fear from the victim. People are allowed to say, "I don't want to work with that creepy dude who basically married his adopted daughter."

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


precision posted:

...that's exactly what I meant though? Meaning that they would have dumped Ratner no matter what because of What's Goin' On
Even if Gadot's comments are more of a symbolic gesture, a woman shifting her weight around Hollywood and making it clear that she's not going to abide toleration of sexual predators--especially a woman who is loving Wonder Woman--is one hell of a symbolic gesture.

The focus isn't litigating individual creeps. The focus is changing the culture and conversation in general.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


precision posted:

Humans, in general, should think way more about the things they do and why they want to do them - not just when it comes to sex. That's the real issue. People do not like to talk about it in that way because it's hard - but enlightenment was never supposed to be easy.
You're not wrong on this point, but your spiel against being sex positive and the notion of kink shaming is. Consent speaks to a broader issue of communication and respect being necessary for a positive sexual experience. And those things can be missing from some vanilla rear end sex. The notion that bondage play is tied to having sex with children is frankly silly.

But overall, your post is casting Hollywood's moral reckoning as a new problem rooted in progress as opposed to a very old problem revealed by progress.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


esperterra posted:

I just think with the current spotlight on sexual harassment and assault, it will do more damage than good to act like it's only ever men who do this poo poo. There is a huge stigma on men about coming forward with this stuff, especially when it's a woman who abused them and not a man. That stigma needs to go away.
The problem is that while sexual abuse isn't unique to men it is a men's problem in the same way not just white people are racist but racism is a white people problem. Men who have been abused or women who've been abused by other women obviously should not feel excluded from the conversation. But there is a difference between inclusion of all victims and responding to the statement of "sexual abuse is a men's problem" with "Um, technically..."

I think your statement that women would be sexually abusing, harassing, and humiliating others just as equally if given the same position of power rings pretty false. While Hollywood is patriarchal, there are enough women in power that if your statement were true we'd have a lot more examples of it. The fact that we've seen women be shitheels in terms of systematically fostering the culture that leads to this poo poo actually supports this point.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


precision posted:

Um... no.

People are hosed up. People in positions of power do hosed up things. I have personally experienced it. It's sexist as gently caress to say what you're saying.
That's not really the argument though. Women are capable of being lovely. A lot of the stories we are hearing speak to a level of complicity at the very least among women. There are statistics around woman on woman sexual abuse that support what you guys are saying. And yes, women can and have raped, assaulted, and harassed men. And yes society has been predictably lovely to those men.

But that can still be true, and the majority of rape and harassment victims can still be women. I'm sorry, but even citing underreporting of male rape as well as factoring in woman on woman sexual abuse does not make up the gap especially when women also underreport. Acknowledging that the cases of sexual harassment and abuse that we are hearing from Hollywood are almost exclusively male, acknowledging that, as far as we know, women are over three more likely to be raped than men and four times more likely to be sexually harassed than men isn't "being sexist as gently caress."

But trying to steer the conversation into one that is exclusively about power is not okay. We can be inclusive to the stories of male survivors and also understand that this issue not only disproportionately impacts women but the gender dynamics of our broader society.


esperterra posted:

Anyone who honestly thinks there aren't female producers/etc out there using their position of power to gently caress hot young men probably doesn't know much about women. Even if they're indeed not assaulting/raping them as often as men do, does that not still count as an inappropriate situation?

Or are female bosses allowed to sleep with and date employees without impunity, and it's only an abuse of power if men do it?
Look dude, I think the last question you're asking is what makes me uneasy. Like obviously the answer is no and obviously the answer to your first question is yes. But I think it's a question that can easily take away from the more important question of how do we fix this and muddle the seriousness of this issue.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Nov 22, 2017

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


esperterra posted:

I just hate seeing people brush aside the fact that women do these things as well. We can't fix this situation if we're acting like half of the problem doesn't exist, or that the male half of the problem is somehow worse than when women do it.
Look, taking your argument in good faith, that is fair. Male victims and male victims of rape need to be treated the same as female victims. The fact that we have had male victims pay their female rapists child support is disgusting.

But the problem is that often what you're saying and asking is used as a deflection tool from the discussion of female rape/harassment/assault and how it is used as tool of disenfranchisement of women. That makes me uneasy. We need to have both conversations. But this conversation is about abuses in Hollywood, and I don't think I'm being naive by imaging some theoretical female producer committing sexual misconduct. And in that context at least it is by and large a male problem.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


precision posted:

I wasn't taking issue with your points, but to Timeless Appeal seemingly saying that sexual misconduct is, not only gendered by nature, but specifically gendered to be a male issue, and then going on to imply that we don't know if women in power would do the same things, when they provably can and have done.
Friend, literally the first thing I said in this conversation is that sexual abuse is not unique to men and I don't think I implied that men are inherently rapists. Men are disproportionately responsible for sexual abuse and harassment and women are disproportionately the victims. That is clearly true in the Hollywood cases that have come out.

I thank you for being frank about your own experiences, and I get how it can feel that your experience is being discounted. But I'm sorry, individual stories of what is statistically outlier behavior is not enough to make the claim that women in power abuse equally to men. Honestly, I think there is a bigger misunderstanding about the problem in Hollywood and in general. I think we're drawing this parallel between power corrupting and being responsible for what these men did, and I don't think that's true either. Speaking as a dude sexually harassed working for a TV show, the harassment I received came from people in lower ranks.

I don't think the belief that we have a society that has made many, many men dangerously predisposed to sexually harassing, assaulting, and humiliating others is naive or sexist nor does it discount the fact that yes, some women do abuse.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Schwarzwald posted:

If you discount "individual stories of what is statistically outlier behavior" then we're not left with any evidence that men in power are abusive either.
I'm not discounting anyone's story. I'm saying a single story is not evidence that women abuse at equal rates to men.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


I would argue that a lot of sexual harassment that doesn't directly involve physical violence or even touching still comes with an implied threat of power. What CK did serves to make his victims feel powerless. He is turning them into objects for him to jerk off to and they cannot stop it which welcomes the question of what else is he willing to do and can you stop him from doing that. The dehumanization of others always carries a certain level of threat with it. \

Maxwell Lord posted:

This is a complex problem with many contributing factors. Sexism and institutional misogyny are absolutely factors, and so is power. So it's mostly powerful men but some lower down the pole also get away with bad behavior, and it's mostly men but some women engage in this as well. And there's also often a racial angle, vis how Terry Crews was grabbed in public but couldn't react because of his being a muscular black man.
I agree with you that power is a contributing power, but I think we make a mistake when we go all in on the premise of absolute power being the root of this. Louis CK is a fair example of someone who has always had a good amount of clout in comedy circles if only for always being very close to folks like Chris Rock. Still, the 2002 incident happened way before CK decided to slide into the void left by Carlin's death, reinvent his whole persona, and leverage that to become an auteur. 2002 Louis CK was an average comedian who made jokes about having dreams in Spanish with only a middle school understanding of the language. When we talk about CK we have to remember that this is a dude who apparently did this well before being a household name. Louis didn't get away with it because he was a big deal in 2002. He got away with it because he was well ingrained in a community.

While it might sound naive to say this, we do have to acknowledge that there legitimately are people in power who live everyday not trying to sexually humiliate or intimidate others. Power enables monsters more than it creates them.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Nov 23, 2017

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Timby posted:

He was abusive to at least one of his wives and is notorious for being drunk or high all the time.
The same divorce proceedings you're referring to also mentioned him threatening to kill her, sex addiction which is more or less code for harassment at this point, Murray is pretty categorically a piece of poo poo.

But it does speak to a bigger issue of pieces of poo poo sort of being grandfather claused out of the discussion.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


It's actually really disappointing as I actually knew a lady who went out with Aziz for a bit and made him out to be this hyper respectful guy. It was nice to have eyewitness evidence of this guy being a decent dude and having faith that he was someone who probably wouldn't turn out to be lovely.

Oh well, I'm an idiot.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jan 15, 2018

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


DrVenkman posted:

This isn't victim blaming or anything like that by any means, but the only thing I find odd about the Aziz story is that after she goes to the bathroom she doesn't get dressed and sits naked with Ansari for a while. It's kind of hidden in the story, but it's only later that she says they got dressed.

It's not too discount what she's said in any way, but I guess if it was a genuine misread of signals on his part (and I don't think that it was) I can kinda see how that happens.
I don't know, dude. That's kind of a gross assertion in context because it puts the presence of naked boobs on the same level of the clear verbal and non-verbal cues that "Grace" provided, if not above them.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Aziz didn't have a "bad date." He was at best an inconsiderate rear end in a top hat to someone who was clearly giving him the benefit of a doubt and being pushy to someone who verbally said she was uncomfortable.

That doesn't mean that we have to make this into a binary of all accused are rapists. What Aziz did is arguably not as bad as what Dan Harmon did which is arguably not as bad as what Louis CK did which is very much not as bad as what Weinstein did. And considering the fact that even someone like Weinstein might never actually face any actual legal justice and despite all he's lost will most likely live his life in extreme comfort, I don't think these guys are in particular need of defenders. The ultimate goal of the #metoo movement shouldn't be and practically can't be a game of whack-a-mole intended to get rid of every lovely guy. But what it can be is shift the power dynamics. If Aziz or any man who takes note for this story is better at stopping when someone says they're uncomfortable than that's a win.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


21 Muns posted:

gently caress this. If there are still lovely guys out and about, there's more work to do.
The word ultimate is important there. The ultimate goal has to be about lasting cultural changes.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Babe posted:

Grace says she spent around five minutes in the bathroom, collecting herself in the mirror and splashing herself with water. Then she went back to Ansari. He asked her if she was okay. ďI said I donít want to feel forced because then Iíll hate you, and Iíd rather not hate you,Ē she said.

The notion that she did not give a clear verbal cue for him to stop is bullshit.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Al Borland Corp. posted:

Seth Macfarlane sang a whole song about it. "I saw your boobs" which wasn't really taken as the satire on the state of the industry it was meant to be. All the women in the song won awards for the roles mentioned in the song. So an agent tells you "nudity is how you advance your career" it's unfortunately actually true.
Yes who can say why a man standing on a stage and signing a song directly to women's faces reducing serious acting roles to them showing off their breasts and one specific women who's breasts were displayed against her will wasn't taken as sharp satire.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Fart City posted:

The thing about Trump is I feel like he absolutely would have been on the Weinstein block if he wasn't President. Before bumblefucking his way into the most powerful position in the free world, he was at the exact level of fame and notoriety that, had he simply been hosting The Apprentice when this moment arrived, would have placed him firmly in the crosshairs alongside other high profile celebrities who had been skating by on their bad behavior. No way would he have kept the show if the Access Hollywood tape leaked, and given how many accusers he has, he would have likely been staring down the barrel of years' worth of lawsuits.
The problem is that the whole thing is a chicken and egg thing.

Ezra Klein had an interesting take on why the Me Too moment happened the way it did. Basically, Trump put Liberals in a position where there was a lot more sensitivity to sexual harassment and sexual assault after the Access Hollywood tape and the Fox News harassment cases. But the big revelation we get that kicks off all the whole movement is Weinstein, a democrat donor. So, when Weinstein goes down, he literally has nobody to turn to. Trump's shittery helped codify consent politics into Liberalism. Conservatives were ready for the Weinstein story to be about how Liberals are hypocrites and didn't know what was actually happening. But Weinstein found himself in a position where he literally had nobody to turn to. It wasn't like before. There were no defenders. There was nobody questioning the accusations. Weinstein was defenseless and he went down hard. And his going down set a new precedent for how these stories are treated.

But the big question is, does this all work the same way if Trump didn't have his Access Hollywood moment or rape his wife or humiliate a woman on stage and force her to kiss him or oggle half-dressed and naked teenagers or...

The sad thing is that Liberals have been hypocrites. Especially in Hollywood, they've helped protect abusers and rapists. I think it is believable to say that maybe things would have worked differently for Weinstein without Trump. Look back at the beginning of the Weinstein revelations. It's clear that he thinks he can just go to therapy and give money to Liberal causes to get out of this. Lisa Bloom, a lawyer famous for standing up for women, is on his legal team. In those first few days, it doesn't feel like this will be different. But hell, let's go even further with that. I think the Weinstein story's play also got magnified in the mainstream media by Conservatives looking to shame Liberals. There's a good case to be made that this attempt to politicize Weinstein helped foster a media environment where the Me Too movement could get mainstream attention just by how much attention was on Weinstein. The problem for Conservatives is that they didn't hold onto their own narrative.

But also Trump literally sexually harassed a US Senator on twitter and we all saw it happen, so you know, there's a lot of poo poo to unpack with having an open misogynist as a POTUS.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


DrVenkman posted:

And yes, I have no doubt there are stars who have slept with Weinstein or others quite willingly to cement their career. There always have been and there always will be. But, that does not somehow wash away anything that he did. Just because some people slept with him willingly, doesn't magically excuse the fact that there are women he raped.
A person being taken advantage of sexually in order to further their career, keep their career, make ends meat, or just be treated as an equal isn't okay either even if they technically consented.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


DrVenkman posted:

There's a difference between a person being taken advantage of and a person deciding to use their body to get what they want as well though. No doubt that Weinstein and people like him are horrible, but there are people out there who will think nothing of using what they have to cement their career.
I guess? My issue is that Weinstein basically set himself as a blowjob troll blocking off certain careers if you didn't pay him a toll. Like yes, the women who decided they were fine just loving him and getting what they wanted could theoretically just not advance their careers or quit Hollywood. But that's lovely and they shouldn't have to. I mean power to whoever feels like they had their interactions with Harvey, got what they wanted, and didn't feel violated. But using your dick as a gate to success is just as monstrous as rape.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Mar 18, 2018

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


exquisite tea posted:

If you never pay money to see another Gilliam film forever then thatís fine sure, everybody has their own little ethical choices and in some microscopic way I suppose it influences public perception of a product. But ultimately none of those personal decisions will be more impactful or effective than systemic change within the industry where Gilliamís views are eventually no longer tolerated. You can live those values in your own life, but that only gets you so far, and reduces the issue down to consumption of a product rather than the broader issue that shields men like Gilliam from criticism.
The problem with your logic and the whole "judge the art; not the artist" philosophy is that it assumes a limit on creative genius or a surplus of a time for the audience. I think both assumptions are wrong.

As audience members, we have a limit of just how much art we engage with because of sex, food, family, and our own passions taking up our time. When I choose to watch a Gilliam movie, I'm prioritizing his work over someone else's. Just like when he receives financing or distribution, it's because someone is prioritizing him over someone else. And that's fine to some degree if Gilliam is the only person who can give us important or beautiful films, but that's probably not true. The reason I haven't wanted to watch The Disaster Artist or Wonder Wheel isn't out of some vindictive sense of revenge. It's out of a sense that men like Gilliam, Allen, and Franco are taking up a seat at the table that could belong to someone who is talented and also not a piece of poo poo.

Choosing to not engage in Gilliam's work frees you to pursue other people you may not have given a chance. And while you may not be an individual kingmaker, I think it's fair to say that there is a collective effect when we all decided to look elsewhere. And I think it's fair to say that when the people who finance Gilliam or distribute his work take a similar stance, they are providing meaningful space for new voices to rise up.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Mar 21, 2018

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


GrandpaPants posted:

The Simpsons and Futurama still seem safe from shittiness?
Yeah... you're going to want to sit down...

The short story is that the first aired episode of The Simpsons, "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire" was written by a women named Mimi Pond who was never invited to actually join the writers' room. She admits that she was very green as a screenwriter, but the darker reason for not hiring her was that Sam Simon--one of the major creative forces of the show--intentionally locked women out of the writers' room because had a rough divorce and didn't want to be women. So, yes, no actual sexual misconduct, but The Simpsons writers' room was a lovely exclusive boys club for years and is still incredibly lacking in diversity.

If you're wanting to write Sam Simon off, please remember that Simon more or less was the man to define The Simpsons. Matt conceived the show and Brooks shepherded it, but everything you love and know about The Simpsons was really rooted in Simon's leadership.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


GrandpaPants posted:

The really lovely part is that a lot of gross dudes are reading that and going "Hell yeah you tell'em Hank" and seeing it as more validation for their lovely worldview.
The Comic Book Thread here is sure going to some places right now in reaction...

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


I think in general we are still way too caught up in the punitive aspect of the Me Too movement. Yeah, it's fair to say that Gunn has grown up although I'm pretty sure that Guardians of the Galaxy still slips in a prison rape joke. But the problem is that guys like Gunn indirectly contributed to making the industry hostile to a lot of folks. I think it is definitely fair to be mad and disregard Gunn because he's guy who said a lot of lovely stuff, became successful, and now has the ability to disregard his previous comments from a place of power and comfort.

The question of what he should do is flawed. It ignores that people are allowed to be angry at the millionaire who gets to make superhero movies despite past lovely behavior.

Ya know, but still gently caress Cernovich and the context of this poo poo.

lelandjs posted:

I donít remember if there was anything offensive about Super but even if there was, Iím sure it was from the viewpoint of one of the main characters who you very much arenít supposed to agree or empathize with.
Super has some weird racial dynamics to it.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


There is a lot of hypocrisy around Gunn's firing.

But he was fired because those tweets legitimately were gross, including one that was sent to an actual pedophile. It's understandable why Disney fired him, especially since all the press around Pixar and Roseanne. They're also tweets that if like a friend of yours was fired for making at an office job, you'd kind of get it even if it sucks. It's not okay that Disney isn't firing people who are actual abusers though.

With that said, James Gunn has a net worth of 40 million dollars. For reference, if you are currently earning $50,000 a year, you would have to work for 800 years to earn the amount of money James Gunn has for making mediocre movies. The fact that so many people are expending so much mental effort and concern for a millionaire who will clearly continue to make other movies, just not with Disney, is insane.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Krankenstyle posted:

Nerds love online petitions
About supporting millionaires who will probably be making a movie with Blumhouse within the next two years.

At one point this discussion should probably just go to the comics thread because it's clearly not about sexual assault or direct sexual harassment.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Or getting ready to cheerlead Harmon who actually has sexually harassed people.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


CelticPredator posted:

He apologized and owned up to it, and his accuser accepted it.
What's your actual point here?

This topic is only tenuously related to the metoo movement and sexual harassment. This is a thread for discussing the sexual assault and harassment culture in Hollywood and the thread's preparation to cheerlead a known harasser over a separate issue where he happens to be in the right is weird.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


CelticPredator posted:

That he apologized and she accepted it. And that whatever happened between them years ago was dealt with in a public forum and doesn't have anything to do with what occurred here.
That's not the point.

This thread about people being raped, sexually assaulted, and harassed has been cooped by people angry that a millionaire can't make a sub-par superhero movie because of lovely tweets he made. And it's fair to think that sucks because there is a lot poo poo and hypocrisy around the topic. But it's not the topic of this thread, and it's gotten to the point where a thread about how about the culture of Hollywood is toxic is preparing to literally cheerlead someone who sexually harassed a young writer.

I'm not criticizing Harmon. I'm criticizing the discussion for being in this thread to begin with.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jul 23, 2018

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Appreciate the effort.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Actual #Metoo News:

Family Guy Planning #metoo episode
This feels cheap

A small article dealing with harassment of cosplayers at ComicCon
On the plus side most of the women interviewed feel safe, but it's by treating comic con the same way my friends treat Eastern Parkway at three in the morning. ComicCon still doesn't have specific rules about sexual harassment, just blanket harassment rules.

Comic Con's dealing with Hardwick
On the plus side, he wasn't there. On the downside, it wasn't really addressed. I guess it's worth asking if it should have been.

EDIT:
A pretty in-depth map of Gibson's scary return to Hollywood and a reminder that he's a monster

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Jul 24, 2018

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Ghost Leviathan posted:

Last I remember a lot of cons had to introduce anti-harassment rules along the lines of 'cosplay does not equal consent' because female harassers were as much a problem as male ones. ('no glomping' was also another rule they had to introduce)
From what I remember when Comics Alliance still existed/was good and did a lot of good reporting on the topic, some cons were really proactive about it. I think Emerald City is supposed to have tons of signage around the issue or at least did. Comic Con has continued to be notable for not directly targeting the issue.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


bad day posted:

She didnít accuse him of anything specific. Thereís nothing to deny or prove or disprove.
I mean only by the metric that she doesn't have time-stamps? She is making pretty specific accusations about trends in their relationship.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Zogo posted:

ĎYou know what you didí: Keith Ellisonís ex-girlfriend, Karen Monahan, speaks out
https://thinkprogress.org/keith-ellison-ex-girlfriend-karen-monahan-speaks-out-b4e8c3bf7095/
Considering this is the second accusation against Ellison, I have enough trust in the claims that Ellison is probably a shithead to women.

With that said, it's an interesting case to look at in terms of how the media reports this stuff. A lot of the evidence to verify the claims seems cagey and reporters have been uneasy about reporting the claims in the past. I think most people--or at least lovely people--are under the belief that newspapers are just reporting anyone who claims sexual assault, but "believe the women" isn't really their guiding philosophy. There has been this rubric of verification (Material evidence, witnesses, confidants who were told of the abuse at the time) that I think is eventually going to rub against the broader emerging philosophy of "believe the women."

Once again, I do believe the women. Ellison probably is abusive at least at some level. But he probably won't be punished for these claims.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Dane Cook's teenage yet adult girlfriend is legitimately less creepy than like the last six posts.

V No, I'm expressing that the opinions above are gross and weird. V

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Aug 28, 2018

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


LesterGroans posted:

Why can't all these guys get a job mopping up a Baskin Robbins or something?
Or just live off owning Babe Ruth's house.

Like... he could literally just airbnb Babe Ruth's house for the rest of his life.

If I owned Babe Ruth's house, nobody would ever worry about me. They'd always be like, "Nah, he's fine. He owns Babe Ruth's house."

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


No, it reads like a woman giving explicit and implicit signals that she doesn't want to engage in certain sexual activity and repeatedly being pressured to do those things anyway.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Aug 29, 2018

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Sucrose posted:

Right. Same. Thanks for that, I basically wanted to know, for sure, what he did because I've heard several conflicting things about it.

That said, I'm not sure how you'd keep Louis CK out of comedy for longer. It's not like movies made by gigantic corporations; there's a gazillion little comedy clubs out there. If Louis CK shows up, undoubtedly some people will pay to see him.

I suppose at least people can continue to voice their disapproval of him and keep him from making a TV or film comeback, but nothing's going to prevent him from doing all the standup he wants. Maybe that's the way it should be. At least everyone in that business and in general now knows that he's a creep.
You're not wrong, but that's not where you make money and get a larger audience. Large theaters, concert venues, hotels, colleges, and resorts are what matter.

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