Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-14-2020, 01:59 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
She was an aspiring model who approached Woody at a restaurant and gave him her number shortly before her 17th birthday and says he never asked her age. It's unclear whether they first had sex shortly before she turned 17 or shortly after, which is significant because 17 was the legal age of consent in New York at the time. But given that in most states the age of consent was 16 or younger at that time (when I was a teenager in Minnesota, it was 15), this whole thing does not belong in a discussion of pedophile rape.

I would have an affair with an attractive 16 year old girl if the law allowed it. I would not have an affair with a 16 year old girl if the law did not allow it, because I don't want to go to prison. But I would never dream of any kind of sexual contact with a seven year old, regardless of the law. That's sick, depraved, disgusting. So let's not conflate these things, please.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #52  
Old 03-14-2020, 02:43 AM
TruCelt's Avatar
TruCelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 11,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
They likely haven't. But it is odd to purchase that book, supporting the guy making money off of his murders and thumbing his nose at the justice system. It is not a book I would openly read in public, due to the implications that I'm okay with giving money to that man.

The same applies to Allen's book. I'm not going to support the guy who most likely got away with child molestation. And I would think it odd of people who would purchase it and read it publicly. Like it or not, doing such makes a statement about your values.

No, the person reading it is likely not a pedophile. But they are okay with giving money to one.
I agree. In a Capitalist society, one votes with one's dollars. It would be right up there with buying an R Kelly album, or tickets to a Mel Gibson movie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
. . .
I would have an affair with an attractive 16 year old girl if the law allowed it. I would not have an affair with a 16 year old girl if the law did not allow it, because I don't want to go to prison. But I would never dream of any kind of sexual contact with a seven year old, regardless of the law. That's sick, depraved, disgusting. So let's not conflate these things, please.
So it's OK because it feels good to you? How old are you? How might you having an affair with a 16-year old girl affect her emotional development? Do you think it would promote a normal, equal relationship dynamic in her life?

Just because you are physically attracted to someone does not mean it's OK to have sex with them. That's an actual three-dimensional human there, who is still developing and growing. Regardless of what the law says, using her for your physical gratification is wrong.

Remember, the law is just the last bastion of decency. It defines the lowest you can possibly go without needing to be removed from society. The couple of weeks before or after a 17th birthday may define a legal safety zone for you, but they don't magically make the situation healthy for the girl.

Last edited by TruCelt; 03-14-2020 at 02:45 AM.
  #53  
Old 03-14-2020, 07:48 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,143
Here's a full account of the relationship by the woman who was involved with Woody Allen at age 16:

Woody Allen's Secret Teen Lover Speaks: Sex, Power and a Conflicted Muse Who Inspired 'Manhattan'

In 1976, 16-year-old model Babi Christina Engelhardt embarked on a hidden eight-year affair with the 41–year-old filmmaker that mirrors one of his most famous movies. Now, amid the #MeToo reckoning and Allen’s personal scandals, she looks back with mixed emotions on their relationship and its unequal dynamic.


She doesn't directly criticize or blame Allen, but at the same time he comes out of her account looking pretty unpleasant. It's clear that he only wanted her for sex, and otherwise had zero interest in her as a person.
  #54  
Old 03-14-2020, 08:16 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I would have an affair with an attractive 16 year old girl if the law allowed it.
Whelp, I'm starting to see a possible difference between Woody Allen supporters and myself...
  #55  
Old 03-14-2020, 08:17 AM
Horatio Hellpop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Jeju-si, S. Korea
Posts: 9,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
She doesn't directly criticize or blame Allen, but at the same time he comes out of her account looking pretty unpleasant. It's clear that he only wanted her for sex, and otherwise had zero interest in her as a person.
I just want to point out that even Allen's staunchest defenders on these boards, of which I count myself as one, come short of describing the man as "pleasant." If the film director in question were Werner Herzog or Ingmar Bergman, I doubt we'd be feigning indignation or shock. My expectations of Woody Allen are pretty much satisfied when he makes approximately one movie a year.
  #56  
Old 03-14-2020, 08:39 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I would have an affair with an attractive 16 year old girl if the law allowed it.
Jesus.
  #57  
Old 03-14-2020, 08:57 AM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 11,079
Allen said a few years back he doesn't know why he gets money to make movies since the box office take is so small. He added that as long as the money is there he will keep making movies.
  #58  
Old 03-14-2020, 12:12 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,919
I don't think it would be good thing if only good people got to write books. I have read the autobiographies of Malcolm X, Sam Gravano, and Lucky Luciano, who all did horrible things.
I don't believe he molested his daughter but he has behaved horribly to many women in his life and to his family. However, he is a great writer, is very thoughtful, and has led a very interesting life. I would like to read his autobiography.
  #59  
Old 03-14-2020, 01:54 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
No one is stopping Allen from writing anything.
  #60  
Old 03-14-2020, 04:04 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Allen said a few years back he doesn't know why he gets money to make movies since the box office take is so small. He added that as long as the money is there he will keep making movies.

I think most of his movies make a modest amount of money and then occasionally one strikes it bag, so it’s a pretty good investment.
  #61  
Old 03-14-2020, 04:17 PM
needscoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair Rarity View Post
Stephen King is coming in for another hot take (I forget what he said recently, but I gave him a bit of side-eye).



They're not muzzling him, my dude. They were trying to get the money from selling his books AND not pissing off their staff and stable of writers. Allen has his first amendment rights to speak and write whatever he wants. No one has to publish it, however.

The unmitigated gall of these assholes to have Ronan on one hand and sneaking and hiding Woody on the other hand.
This is really the whole answer to why Woody Allen's autobio was dropped: money. Ronan Farrow + avoiding bad PR is worth a lot more to the publisher in the long run than one controversial book that could get boycotted anyway. I know which side I'd bet on.
  #62  
Old 03-14-2020, 04:44 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 2,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
No one is stopping Allen from writing anything.
Fortunately, we're mostly not forced to consume his works - except that supposed DEBBIE DOES DALLAS tape (VHS) with ZELIG overdubbed. Bummer.
  #63  
Old 03-14-2020, 05:35 PM
Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 14,537
Here are three websites with statistics about how much money Allen's films have made, with some of them adjusted for inflation.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ffice-revenue/

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...e-adjusted-for

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls059718010/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/woody-a...nd-the-misses/

He's worth about $80 million at the moment.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertain...g-memoir.html/

His movies have always cost relatively little to make. The early ones tended to make more money (adjusted for inflation). Even when his movies lose some money, it tends to be a pretty small amount compared to the cost of the big-budget films that you think of being what Hollywood mostly does. Allen has always (at least up to recent times) been able to get well-known actors to appear in his films for reasonable salaries, and his films have mostly gotten good reviews. Until a few years ago, what the studios said to themselves was that Allen's films never made large amounts of money, but on average they made enough to pay back their investments while winning some awards. However, in the past couple of years it's become clear that they no longer are really worth it. There are enough people angry at Allen that the chances of the movies making money aren't good enough to be worth any studio backing him. Given that Allen is 84 years old and has $80 million of his own money to invest in his films, he could keep making films for the rest of his life with only small contributions from distributors, but it's not clear whether he would want to do that.
  #64  
Old 03-14-2020, 08:18 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 53,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I would have an affair with an attractive 16 year old girl if the law allowed it.
Ew
  #65  
Old 03-14-2020, 08:59 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Allen said a few years back he doesn't know why he gets money to make movies since the box office take is so small. He added that as long as the money is there he will keep making movies.
His movies are so small, he could fund his own productions.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #66  
Old 03-18-2020, 03:50 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,157
Bret Stephens, a New York Times columnist, has a good column on the controversy. His closing statement is worth quoting.

Quote:
It matters because cancel culture threatens our collective well-being in multiple and fundamental ways: The banishment of unpopular people; the unwillingness to examine contrary threads of evidence and entertain opposing points of view; the automatic conflation of accusation with guilt; the failure of nerve by people entrusted with preserving the institutions of liberal culture; the growing power of digital mobs; the fear these mobs instill in any would-be contrarian or gadfly who thinks to venture a heterodox view. These threats go to the heart of what it means to sustain the habits of a free society.
  #67  
Old 03-18-2020, 06:55 PM
Fair Rarity's Avatar
Fair Rarity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,284
He sure lived the spirit of those words when he tried to get some random guy, who didn't even tag him, fired from his job for making a bedbug joke as his expense.
  #68  
Old 03-18-2020, 06:57 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
That's the bedbug guy? What a joke!
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #69  
Old 03-18-2020, 07:45 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
An imperfect messenger to be sure, but the message is valid.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #70  
Old 03-19-2020, 07:54 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's the bedbug guy? What a joke!
Yep, that was idiotic. So now what? Do we cancel everything he says from here on in? Can we only cite people who are absolutely perfect and never have said or done anything stupid? Is there anybody in the public eye who can pass that test? Do we have to do homework on every cite to learn their entire histories?

We're all entitled to make judgements about the worth of individuals and their opinions. We're all entitled to make judgements about entertainers and whether we wish to support them. People always have and always will.

My judgement is that cancel culture is a really bad thing. I'm going to agree with those who also think so. Note that cancel culture is not at all the same as holding people responsible for acts of true harm. The latter is necessary to a functioning society; the former is a tantrum.
  #71  
Old 03-19-2020, 08:21 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Yep, that was idiotic. So now what? Do we cancel everything he says from here on in? Can we only cite people who are absolutely perfect and never have said or done anything stupid? Is there anybody in the public eye who can pass that test? Do we have to do homework on every cite to learn their entire histories?



We're all entitled to make judgements about the worth of individuals and their opinions. We're all entitled to make judgements about entertainers and whether we wish to support them. People always have and always will.



My judgement is that cancel culture is a really bad thing. I'm going to agree with those who also think so. Note that cancel culture is not at all the same as holding people responsible for acts of true harm. The latter is necessary to a functioning society; the former is a tantrum.
It's a panic about "cancel culture". These idiots are afraid it's going to come for them. But it's not... not unless they did something awful. The rich and powerful (or many of them, anyway) are terrified, because now their actions, past, present, and future, might have consequences. They thought that consequences were just for the little people - they thought wealth and influence would protect them. The idea that maybe they'll have to face the same possibilities and risks that everyone else faces is absolutely terrifying to them.

We should mock idiots like Bret Stephens. No need to "cancel" him, mockery will do just fine. At least until he shows some self awareness.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #72  
Old 03-19-2020, 09:05 PM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 11,079
I remember George Lucas saying he wanted to get money to do the film Red Tails. Clearly he had plenty of his own cash he could use.
  #73  
Old 03-19-2020, 10:08 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's a panic about "cancel culture". These idiots are afraid it's going to come for them. But it's not... not unless they did something awful.
It would be nice to live in that dream world. But it's not reality. Any reading of the news over the past few years would reveal numerous people who were not rich and powerful who said the wrong thing and had their careers derailed. There is no reality in which cancel culture affects only the Harvey Weinsteins. Cancel culture is not synonymous with #MeToo. It is utterly arbitrary and depends more on Twitter rages than on evidence.

It is a parody of itself. I know no better example than Help Decide the Top 1,000 Comedians of 2019. Comedian Zack Broussard had been issuing comedic listings of the top 1000 comedians for several years, changing the rules constantly. For 2019 he topped himself.

Quote:
“Genuinely, I think this will be THE MOST ACCURATE LIST YET,” Broussard tells Vulture. “Why? Because I’m giving everyone the power to cancel any comedian on the list with a click of a button.”

That’s right — from today through this Friday at midnight, you can visit Top1000Comedians.com, check out the list for yourself, and “cancel” any comedians you feel deserve to be knocked off. “My hope is to make sure the Top 1,000 Comedians list is 100 percent creep free, asshole free, and weirdo free. If a comedian ever slighted you in any way, you now have the power to make sure they don’t receive this elite honor of ranking in the top 1,000 of their craft,” Broussard explains. “My vision every year is to rank my peers from best to worst based on their buzz, but this year I learned that not all buzz is good buzz. Some comedians with the most buzz in 2019 are being buzzed about for truly terrible things. As comedy nuts (fans) we need some way to ‘cancel’ comedians with too much bad buzz.” If a lot of comedians get “canceled” from the list, Broussard says not to worry — he already has about 2,000 comedians’ names waiting in the wings to take their place. “Hopefully by Friday we’ll have the perfect list of comedians with only good buzz,” he says.
The result. A list of 1988 canceled comedians. And a list of 1000 uncancelled comedians. I have no idea how the lists are ranked. Nevertheless, I couldn't identify ten of the top 100 on the cancelled list. You think only the rich and powerful only get cancelled? You think being on that list won't affect their careers from now on, even if the list was a joke? You really want judgement based on the effort people put into clicking a button on a screen?

#MeToo changed our world for the better. Cancel culture is a sewer washing over people, the guilty and the innocent alike. Want proof?
Quote:
The example that perhaps sums it all up best is that all 1,000 comedians on Broussard's list were canceled just two hours after the list went live. All 2,000 comedians slated to take their spots in the event of any cancellations were canceled, too. Broussard ended up adding the option to uncancel anyone on the list who had been previously canceled
There's a distinction worth making.
  #74  
Old 03-19-2020, 10:10 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,151
There’s no such thing as “cancel culture.” No one is losing their careers because of cancel culture. What happening now is that people who once had the privilege of being protected from the consequences of their speech now have to face the opinions of formerly silenced people. I don’t feel sorry for them.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 03-19-2020 at 10:15 PM.
  #75  
Old 03-19-2020, 10:22 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,151
For every celebrated, successful, rich _______(full in the blank)______ who has revealed deprived, hateful beliefs or actions, there are countless _________ just as talented and with the same potential to be creators of cultural gems for the ages who haven’t had the right luck or opportunities and haven’t said or done something despicable. Let the former enjoy their riches in retirement and the latter step up to show their stuff.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #76  
Old 03-19-2020, 10:48 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
You think being on that list won't affect their careers from now on, even if the list was a joke?
Yes. Obviously. It's a joke, and one most people have never even heard of unless they are in on the joke. No one looks for a list of cancelled comedians or any other group.

Being cancelled means that either (a) you lost your job (or equivalent) after you did something controversial and people complained to your boss, or (b) you're self employed and people stopped wanting to pay for your stuff because of something you did.

So, no, I can't see how such a list would hurt them, even if it were perceived as serious. Cancelling just doesn't work that way.
  #77  
Old 03-19-2020, 11:15 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
We're all entitled to make judgements about the worth of individuals and their opinions.
...but apparently we're not entitled to make judgements about the worth of Bret Stephens and his opinions?



The bedbug incident is highly relevant because it's about freedom of speech. Stephens is defending freedom of speech, but he notoriously fails to practice it himself. He's a hypocrite when it comes to freedom of speech.

Yet you seem to be getting upset about anyone making judgements about the worth of his statements on the subject.


Let's be clear about one thing. Nobody is infringing Woody Allen's freedom of speech. Nobody is stopping him publishing his book through another company, or privately on the internet. Hachette made a business decision that it was going to cause too much hassle to their company to publish, but there are probably 20 other publishing houses falling over themselves to publish it.

It's the same with no-platforming. It doesn't infringe anybody's free speech. If a religious fundamentalist knocks on your front door and wants to come in and preach to you about his religion, are you obliged to let him in and listen to him? Are you infringing his freedom of speech if you refuse to do so? Are you not entitled to no-platform a religious evangelist in your own house?

How is that different from a university refusing to allow someone whose values are not compatible with the values of the university to speak on their campus? Are they stopping him from speaking anywhere else?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that other people are forced to listen to you. And it doesn't mean that publishers are obliged to publish your book.
  #78  
Old 03-19-2020, 11:37 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
Why should a university promote only a certain kind of liberal, politically correct speech? That's an odious notion.

It was refreshing to see this article trending on the NY Times site: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/m...cusations.html

Maybe the moral panic has crested and will soon recede, just as happened in the 1990s. Fingers crossed.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #79  
Old 03-19-2020, 11:54 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Why should a university promote only a certain kind of liberal, politically correct speech? That's an odious notion.
Is a university not entitled to promote any point of view they like?

But yes, I agree that there are certainly cases where people have gone overboard. We do need to be careful of extremist ideology on all sides, and not condone witch hunts or character assassinations.
  #80  
Old 03-20-2020, 12:54 AM
Horatio Hellpop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Jeju-si, S. Korea
Posts: 9,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
There’s no such thing as “cancel culture.” No one is losing their careers because of cancel culture. What happening now is that people who once had the privilege of being protected from the consequences of their speech now have to face the opinions of formerly silenced people. I don’t feel sorry for them.
I'm sure Al Franken, Garrison Keillor and Neil DeGrasse Tyson don't want you to feel sorry for them. I suspect they'd all like their careers from three or four years ago back. If they're not undeserving victims of cancel culture, I don't know who is.
  #81  
Old 03-20-2020, 05:22 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
It would be nice to live in that dream world. But it's not reality. Any reading of the news over the past few years would reveal numerous people who were not rich and powerful who said the wrong thing and had their careers derailed. There is no reality in which cancel culture affects only the Harvey Weinsteins. Cancel culture is not synonymous with #MeToo. It is utterly arbitrary and depends more on Twitter rages than on evidence.



It is a parody of itself. I know no better example than Help Decide the Top 1,000 Comedians of 2019. Comedian Zack Broussard had been issuing comedic listings of the top 1000 comedians for several years, changing the rules constantly. For 2019 he topped himself.







The result. A list of 1988 canceled comedians. And a list of 1000 uncancelled comedians. I have no idea how the lists are ranked. Nevertheless, I couldn't identify ten of the top 100 on the cancelled list. You think only the rich and powerful only get cancelled? You think being on that list won't affect their careers from now on, even if the list was a joke? You really want judgement based on the effort people put into clicking a button on a screen?



#MeToo changed our world for the better. Cancel culture is a sewer washing over people, the guilty and the innocent alike. Want proof?





There's a distinction worth making.
How did this affect anyone's life? Random people clicking "cancel" on a comedian they don't like on some random website doesn't harm them. Might as well complain that someone on Twitter said something mean.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #82  
Old 03-20-2020, 05:45 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's a panic about "cancel culture". These idiots are afraid it's going to come for them. But it's not... not unless they did something awful.
That statement is incorrect. The last phrase should read "not unless they're accused of doing something awful".

I'm registered with the New York Times but I don't think this NYT magazine article is paywalled. It's quite long, but insightful and informative:

The Accusations Were Lies. But Could We Prove It?


Honesty and justice are two of the essential and fundamental pillars of society, without which it deteriorates into anarchy, mob rule, and sometimes mob hysteria. At the most basic level that's all I've been trying to say in all my posts in your #MeToo thread.
  #83  
Old 03-20-2020, 06:11 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
That statement is incorrect. The last phrase should read "not unless they're accused of doing something awful".

I'm registered with the New York Times but I don't think this NYT magazine article is paywalled. It's quite long, but insightful and informative:

The Accusations Were Lies. But Could We Prove It?


Honesty and justice are two of the essential and fundamental pillars of society, without which it deteriorates into anarchy, mob rule, and sometimes mob hysteria. At the most basic level that's all I've been trying to say in all my posts in your #MeToo thread.
False accusations are possible, and they're bad. But what do you suggest we do? Ignore accusations because some small but real fraction might be fake?

All accusations should be taken seriously. That's all I, and #MeToo, are suggesting.
  #84  
Old 03-20-2020, 07:58 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Hellpop View Post
I'm sure Al Franken, Garrison Keillor and Neil DeGrasse Tyson don't want you to feel sorry for them. I suspect they'd all like their careers from three or four years ago back. If they're not undeserving victims of cancel culture, I don't know who is.
Al Franken and Garrison Keillor are victims of themselves. There was no injustice done to them. They are also doing just fine—better than 99 percent of us—and have plenty of opportunities yo speak to any public who is willing to listen to them. Franken doesn’t have a right to be a senator. Keillor doesn’t have a right to a weekly two-hour public radio program.

I don’t know enough about the Tyson situation to comment.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #85  
Old 03-20-2020, 08:04 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,151
And now people will start to learn that if you want to be in a career that depends on people liking you, you should be aware that any time you mistreat someone in private, your audience might decide they don’t like you any more. That’s the first step to eliminating importuning on the part of people holding over others. They will be aware that their privilege doesn’t protect them and they will learn about consent.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #86  
Old 03-20-2020, 11:26 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
False accusations are possible, and they're bad. But what do you suggest we do? Ignore accusations because some small but real fraction might be fake?

All accusations should be taken seriously. That's all I, and #MeToo, are suggesting.
Woody Allen was investigated and cleared of any charges, yet he is being punished anyway.
  #87  
Old 03-20-2020, 11:48 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Woody Allen was investigated and cleared of any charges, yet he is being punished anyway.
Regardless of whether such an investigation can be trusted, what would you suggest? Should publishers be forced to publish his book? Should workers be forced to work for a publisher if they disagree with them on something? Should readers be forced to buy his book?

This is a free society. If people think Allen is a creep, they are free to criticize him and publishers who want to work with him. Workers are free to criticize their employers. Allen is free to publish a book with his own resources, which is incredibly easy and inexpensive nowadays (I've done it three times so far).

Allen will be fine. If he doesn't like how the public has responded to him, he can console himself with his millions of dollars.
  #88  
Old 03-20-2020, 11:57 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,157
I probably should be angry, but I'm mostly amused by the way my post has been turned inside out, cherrypicked, and misinterpreted to be repurposed as arguments against what I was saying. What a great example of the interact in action.

The lesson from Broussard 's prank is not that cancel culture is invalid and has no effect, but that nobody complained about it being an injustice that invited an audience to castigate their peers anonymously. Instead everyone got canceled. Every single person. That's what mobs do. They don't make distinctions. They don't do nuance. They don't have to think, or gather evidence, or check facts. Mob justice is no justice at all.

Yeah, iiandyiiii, we should take #MeToo seriously. You know who also said that? Me. But here's something that several wise thinkers said.

Quote:
Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION: That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.
ATTRIBUTION: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.—The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Albert H. Smyth, vol. 9, p. 293 (1906).

He was echoing Voltaire, “that generous Maxim, that ’tis much more Prudence to acquit two Persons, tho’ actually guilty, than to pass Sentence of Condemnation on one that is virtuous and innocent.—Zadig, chapter 6, p. 53 (1749, reprinted 1974).

Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 9th ed., book 4, chapter 27, p. 358 (1783, reprinted 1978), says, “For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”
They said that because they were so afraid of mob justice at work. The question of what to do about the falsely accused innocents is a crucial one. I don't have an answer. I don't think anybody has. I'm very much afraid that some innocent lives will be ruined in the process of righting decades of serious wrongs. That is how society works. Should no one care?

Here's another thing I said, though. "Cancel culture is not synonymous with #MeToo." You and most of the others keep running over those words to talk about #MeToo. Look over here! is a another internet eyesore I'm sick of. You can't find an example of my saying anything negative about the #MeToo movement because I never have. I am, irony alert, being accused of something I never did. Will some readers of these posts believe my accusers over me? Will they make a swift judgement on the basis of an accusation? Will I have to defend myself in the future against some rot that came bubbling out of the ooze?

You see how easy cancel culture can arise out of nothingness? You're wrong to dismiss it or claim that it has no consequences. Cancel culture is new only in the way it currently manifests. It's the direct descendant of earlier whisper campaigns. Stay away from John, he's a homosexual. Betty? She belonged to a Communist group. Old Abe is secretly a Mason. I am not exaggerating the seriousness of this new variation; I wish I were. Get your minds around the notion that two separate but partially overlapping cultural movements can happen simultaneously. Real Communist spies did real damage by stealing real secrets and they needed to be exposed. At the same time, thousands of innocents had their lives destroyed by suspicion and namecalling. Both happened simultaneously. The mob happily allowed it; heck, encouraged it. Today McCarthyism is one of the worst insults that can be hurled at someone. Is cancel culture the new McCarthyism? Maybe. I'm fighting it just in case.
  #89  
Old 03-20-2020, 12:14 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Woody Allen was investigated and cleared of any charges, yet he is being punished anyway.
I wouldn't exactly say he was 'cleared'.

From the 1993 judgment:

Quote:
Mr. Allen's relationship with Dylan remains unresolved. The evidence suggests that it is unlikely that he could be successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse. I am less certain, however, than is the Yale-New Haven team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse.
...

I agree with Dr. Herman and Dr. Brodzinsky that we will probably never know what occurred on August 4, 1992. The credible testimony of Ms. Farrow, Dr. Coates, Dr. Leventhal and Mr. Allen does, however, prove that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.
...

Mr. Allen's request for immediate visitation with Dyan is denied. It is unclear whether Mr. Allen will ever develop the insight and judgment necessary for him to relate to Dylan appropriately.
  #90  
Old 03-20-2020, 12:56 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
False accusations are possible, and they're bad. But what do you suggest we do? Ignore accusations because some small but real fraction might be fake?

All accusations should be taken seriously. That's all I, and #MeToo, are suggesting.
I don't want to rehash the arguments in the #MeToo thread all over again. I think Exapno Mapcase has eloquently summarized much of what I wanted to say in post #88 anyway.

But I do have the following specific responses to the above post. You are suggesting much more than what you claim.

1. Nowhere did I ever say or imply that accusations shouldn't be taken seriously. What I object to is a social climate where an accusation is equivalent to a conviction, with no due process and no recourse, and which may be career-limiting or career-ending or, as in the story I posted, put an innocent person through years of living hell.

2. Even when there is an investigation which clears the individual, we live in a social climate where it doesn't matter. In the minds of many, Woody Allen is still a pedophile, and Chris Hardwick is still being called a creep who doesn't deserve to be on the air.

3. Most disturbing of all is your claim in the other thread that a "broken society" placed Ghomeshi's accusers in an "impossible" situation, and that therefore their deliberate, proven lying and calculated withholding of material information should have been excused and Ghomeshi found guilty regardless, despite the fact that the credibility of the witnesses was absolutely central to the case. This goes directly against the principle I expressed that honesty and justice are the pillars of civilized society. Instead, your conclusion was that the judge (who was widely praised for putting justice and due process ahead of emotion) was an old fogey who erred in his decision.

BTW, I hope it was clear that in the other thread, when I said "I don't see #MeToo helping with very much of it", the "it" I was referring to were your alleged systemic societal dysfunctions of misogyny, patriarchy, and "rape culture". I think we can all agree that #MeToo has done a great deal to expose and reduce sexual violence against women and that this is an unmitigated good thing. I think progress in these other areas is mostly being made through other, broad cultural changes.

I think in the final analysis all that I really disagree with you about is what I regard as your extremism, which seems willing to subvert those fundamental values I talked about -- honesty and justice -- to a social cause that you believe in so strongly that any societal upheaval and injustice is worth it.
  #91  
Old 03-20-2020, 12:58 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
The lesson from Broussard 's prank is not that cancel culture is invalid and has no effect, but that nobody complained about it being an injustice that invited an audience to castigate their peers anonymously. Instead everyone got canceled. Every single person. That's what mobs do. They don't make distinctions. They don't do nuance. They don't have to think, or gather evidence, or check facts. Mob justice is no justice at all.
But no one got canceled, AFAICT. That list did nothing and affected no one. A bunch of random people clicked "cancel" or whatever, next to some names, but why is this notable? Why does this matter? I could make a list and invite people to decide who is a poophead and who isn't... but this wouldn't affect the world in any way. No one would or should care about a random list on the internet with "poophead" or "cancel" next to a bunch of names.

Mobs actually hurt people. Random internet people just do silly things online that affect no one, for the most part.

Quote:
Yeah, iiandyiiii, we should take #MeToo seriously. You know who also said that? Me. But here's something that several wise thinkers said.
I don't have a problem with any of those quotes, and they don't dispute anything I've said.

Quote:
You see how easy cancel culture can arise out of nothingness? You're wrong to dismiss it or claim that it has no consequences. Cancel culture is new only in the way it currently manifests. It's the direct descendant of earlier whisper campaigns. Stay away from John, he's a homosexual. Betty? She belonged to a Communist group. Old Abe is secretly a Mason. I am not exaggerating the seriousness of this new variation; I wish I were. Get your minds around the notion that two separate but partially overlapping cultural movements can happen simultaneously. Real Communist spies did real damage by stealing real secrets and they needed to be exposed. At the same time, thousands of innocents had their lives destroyed by suspicion and namecalling. Both happened simultaneously. The mob happily allowed it; heck, encouraged it. Today McCarthyism is one of the worst insults that can be hurled at someone. Is cancel culture the new McCarthyism? Maybe. I'm fighting it just in case.
Maybe there are bad things about whatever "Cancel Culture" is, and maybe it could hurt some people. But you haven't offered any examples of this so far -- just random internet silliness, and mundane things happening to wealthy people that marginally affect their lives. Many abusers, gropers, harassers, and the like have suffered significant (but rarely criminal) consequences, and this is a good thing. But I assume this isn't what you're talking about.
  #92  
Old 03-20-2020, 01:10 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I don't want to rehash the arguments in the #MeToo thread all over again. I think Exapno Mapcase has eloquently summarized much of what I wanted to say in post #88 anyway.

But I do have the following specific responses to the above post. You are suggesting much more than what you claim.

1. Nowhere did I ever say or imply that accusations shouldn't be taken seriously. What I object to is a social climate where an accusation is equivalent to a conviction, with no due process and no recourse, and which may be career-limiting or career-ending or, as in the story I posted, put an innocent person through years of living hell.
I object to this as well, and I don't believe anything I've advocated leads to this.

But false accusations will cause suffering, unfortunately. I can't imagine how all accusations can be taken seriously without the possibility of the false ones causing suffering. Can you?

Quote:
2. Even when there is an investigation which clears the individual, we live in a social climate where it doesn't matter. In the minds of many, Woody Allen is still a pedophile, and Chris Hardwick is still being called a creep who doesn't deserve to be on the air.
Neither Allen nor Hardwick have been cleared. Maybe investigations occurred (with some or no details released), and maybe they faced no professional or criminal consequences, but that doesn't mean they've necessarily been cleared.

Quote:
3. Most disturbing of all is your claim in the other thread that a "broken society" placed Ghomeshi's accusers in an "impossible" situation, and that therefore their deliberate, proven lying and calculated withholding of material information should have been excused and Ghomeshi found guilty regardless, despite the fact that the credibility of the witnesses was absolutely central to the case. This goes directly against the principle I expressed that honesty and justice are the pillars of civilized society. Instead, your conclusion was that the judge (who was widely praised for putting justice and due process ahead of emotion) was an old fogey who erred in his decision.
Here you misrepresent my posts once again. Not once have I characterized the verdict of the case in any way -- I only criticized the judge's comments. And I stand by my criticism of the judge's comments, which I made in detail and with specific examples.

Quote:
I think in the final analysis all that I really disagree with you about is what I regard as your extremism, which seems willing to subvert those fundamental values I talked about -- honesty and justice -- to a social cause that you believe in so strongly that any societal upheaval and injustice is worth it.
Maybe clearing up the mischaracterization above would eliminate this concern/disagreement. Honesty and justice are also two fundamental values in my view as well.
  #93  
Old 03-20-2020, 04:21 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
I actually used the constituent contact form to urge my senator Al Franken to step down. I don't agree that he's an innocent victim.

But what about the lesbian couple in that NY Times piece?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #94  
Old 03-20-2020, 04:29 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
But what about the lesbian couple in that NY Times piece?
If their story is accurate, then they suffered unjustly. But I don't understand what this story has to do with this discussion. We already know that false accusations are possible. Sucks, but sometimes people suck.
  #95  
Old 03-20-2020, 05:32 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
I wouldn't exactly say he was 'cleared'.

Per Wikipedia:


Quote:
According to the report, the important inconsistencies in Dylan's statement, the lack of spontaneity, and the impression of repeating something learned are the main reason for the conclusions.[6] The report also stressed that Dylan felt that she had to solve her mother's problems,[79] and indicated that the relationship between Mia Farrow and Dylan and Satchel was very disturbed and required immediate intensive psychotherapy.

Which is just what Moses, now a psychotherapist himself, reports:


http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018...es-farrow.html
Quote:
It was important to my mother to project to the world a picture of a happy blended household of both biological and adopted children, but this was far from the truth. I’m sure my mother had good intentions in adopting children with disabilities from the direst of circumstances, but the reality inside our walls was very different. It pains me to recall instances in which I witnessed siblings, some blind or physically disabled, dragged down a flight of stairs to be thrown into a bedroom or a closet, then having the door locked from the outside. She even shut my brother Thaddeus, paraplegic from polio, in an outdoor shed overnight as punishment for a minor transgression.[...]
For all of us, life under my mother’s roof was impossible if you didn’t do exactly what you were told, no matter how questionable the demand.[...]
When I didn’t give the answer she wanted, she slapped my face, knocking off my glasses. She told me I was lying and directed me to tell my brothers and sisters that I had taken the tape measure. Through my tears I listened to her as she explained that we would rehearse what should have happened. She would walk into the room and I would tell her I was sorry for taking the tape measure, that I had taken it to play with and that I would never do it again. She made me rehearse it at least a half-dozen times.

That was the start of her coaching, drilling, scripting, and rehearsing – in essence, brainwashing. I became anxious and fearful. Once, when I was given a new pair of jeans, I thought they would look cool if I cut off a couple of the belt loops. When Mia saw what I had done, she spanked me repeatedly and had me remove all my clothing, saying, “You’re not deserving of any clothes” and making me stand naked in the corner of her room, in front of my older siblings who had just returned from dinner with their father André. (After I spoke to People magazine in 2014 about how I was treated, Dylan called it a “betrayal” and said that I was “dead to” her. She later publicly dismissed my recollections of my childhood as “irrelevant.” This from a woman who now styles herself an “advocate for abuse victims.”)[...]
In her widely-circulated 2014 open letter in The New York Times, the adult Dylan suddenly seemed to remember every moment of the alleged assault, writing, “He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains.”

It’s a precise and compelling narrative, but there’s a major problem: there was no electric train set in that attic. There was, in fact, no way for kids to play up there, even if we had wanted to. It was an unfinished crawl space, under a steeply-angled gabled roof, with exposed nails and floorboards, billows of fiberglass insulation, filled with mousetraps and droppings and stinking of mothballs, and crammed with trunks full of hand-me-down clothes and my mother’s old wardrobes.[...]
Now, whenever I hear Dylan making a public statement about what allegedly happened to her that day when she was barely seven, I can only think of that imaginary train set, which she never brought up during the original investigation or custody hearing. Did somebody suggest to the adult Dylan that such a specific detail would make her story more credible? Or does she really believe she remembers this train “circling around the attic” the same way she says she remembers Woody’s whispered promises of trips to Paris and movie stardom (kind of odd enticements to offer a 7-year-old, rather than a new toy or a doll)? And all this apparently took place while those of us who promised to have our eyes trained on Woody were downstairs, seemingly oblivious to what was happening right above our heads?

I expect (or at least hope) that a lot of the people who are so sure Dylan must be telling the truth have not read this.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-20-2020 at 05:33 PM.
  #96  
Old 03-20-2020, 06:38 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I probably should be angry, but I'm mostly amused by the way my post has been turned inside out, cherrypicked, and misinterpreted to be repurposed as arguments against what I was saying. What a great example of the interact in action.

The lesson from Broussard 's prank is not that cancel culture is invalid and has no effect, but that nobody complained about it being an injustice that invited an audience to castigate their peers anonymously. Instead everyone got canceled. Every single person. That's what mobs do. They don't make distinctions. They don't do nuance. They don't have to think, or gather evidence, or check facts. Mob justice is no justice at all.

Yeah, iiandyiiii, we should take #MeToo seriously. You know who also said that? Me. But here's something that several wise thinkers said.



They said that because they were so afraid of mob justice at work. The question of what to do about the falsely accused innocents is a crucial one. I don't have an answer. I don't think anybody has. I'm very much afraid that some innocent lives will be ruined in the process of righting decades of serious wrongs. That is how society works. Should no one care?

Here's another thing I said, though. "Cancel culture is not synonymous with #MeToo." You and most of the others keep running over those words to talk about #MeToo. Look over here! is a another internet eyesore I'm sick of. You can't find an example of my saying anything negative about the #MeToo movement because I never have. I am, irony alert, being accused of something I never did. Will some readers of these posts believe my accusers over me? Will they make a swift judgement on the basis of an accusation? Will I have to defend myself in the future against some rot that came bubbling out of the ooze?

You see how easy cancel culture can arise out of nothingness? You're wrong to dismiss it or claim that it has no consequences. Cancel culture is new only in the way it currently manifests. It's the direct descendant of earlier whisper campaigns. Stay away from John, he's a homosexual. Betty? She belonged to a Communist group. Old Abe is secretly a Mason. I am not exaggerating the seriousness of this new variation; I wish I were. Get your minds around the notion that two separate but partially overlapping cultural movements can happen simultaneously. Real Communist spies did real damage by stealing real secrets and they needed to be exposed. At the same time, thousands of innocents had their lives destroyed by suspicion and namecalling. Both happened simultaneously. The mob happily allowed it; heck, encouraged it. Today McCarthyism is one of the worst insults that can be hurled at someone. Is cancel culture the new McCarthyism? Maybe. I'm fighting it just in case.
Do you notice that those citations all references criminal punishments—imprisonments, death penalty, and other punishments we only allow the government to impose after due process.

“Mob justice” is when Private citizens usurp the prerogatives of the justice system to, say, abduct, assault, or murder someone.

When people in society decide they don’t want to associate or do business with someone, that’s not mob justice. Would you really restrict the rights of individuals, entities, and societal institutions to refuse to include someone in their social groups? Would you really make being rich and famous a protected class?

What happened to some of the people in Jon Ronson’s book is unfair. What happened to Woody Allen or Al Franken is not a miscarriage of justice.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 03-20-2020 at 06:41 PM.
  #97  
Old 03-20-2020, 06:44 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
I'm with Mill on this one. I don't think it makes it okay to say "oh well, it's not government censorship".

Quote:
I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #98  
Old 03-20-2020, 06:46 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,151
Show us where Moody Allen is being censored. Otherwise that cite is irrelevant.

If Woody Allen being censored then that means everyone who has ever been given a rejection letter has been censored.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #99  
Old 03-20-2020, 06:51 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
If they get a rejection letter because a bunch of people are actively trying to prevent the book from being published, you bet it's censorship. That's completely different from just deciding "eh, I don't think this manuscript would garner much interest".
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #100  
Old 03-20-2020, 07:55 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Maybe there are bad things about whatever "Cancel Culture" is, and maybe it could hurt some people. But you haven't offered any examples of this so far -- just random internet silliness, and mundane things happening to wealthy people that marginally affect their lives. Many abusers, gropers, harassers, and the like have suffered significant (but rarely criminal) consequences, and this is a good thing. But I assume this isn't what you're talking about.
Seriously? You're going down the same road that had LAZombie say there was no AIDS crisis because he didn't know anyone with AIDS? You've had your eyes and ears closed for years?

You don't remember Carson King and Aaron Colvin?

You didn't hear about Jeremy Kappell when he made an extremely unfortunate stumble over his words?

How about when Sam Sedar got fired after a misunderstanding of a decade-old tweet?

I'm still shaking my head over your continued dismissal of my comments about Broussard. A parody only works if everybody instantly gets the joke, meaning that it is public and obvious. Just because you're blind to the issue doesn't prevent you from learning about it when it's waved in front of your face.

Every movement has a segment of assholes who go too far and outrage the rest because they give the whole movement a bad name. Cancel culture is the segment with the assholes who make #MeToo look trivial and vindictive. If you didn't know that before, you know it now.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017