Okay, that does make your meaning perfectly clear.
It does lead to other questions-
Why or why not was her asking for donations immoral? I would argue that there are certian cases where asking for or donating money is immoral.
OTTOMH, the plane crash here in Philly was revealed to be a Shriner’s hospital program to fly a child in from Mexico, give her life saving surgery, and then fly her back home. Obviously, this is a very moral thing to solicit donations for, or to donate money to.
There have been plenty of people running for political office who I disagreed strongly with. I would still call the overwhelming majority of them moral, and their supoorter as well Without getting into details, some politicians have run on obviously immoral platforms. People who supported them, donated to their cause and voted for them did so of their own free will. It was still wrong. OTTOMH, the last time Frank Rizzo ran for Mayor here in Philadelphia, one of his official positions was to ‘keep Philly white’. Yeah, I would call that immoral.
Other than “God, I wish it were the good old days where we could both fuck you”, you mean…
At least 14 of them before Scarlett told her, according to the report.
So we can believe that she found the place, even though that comes from Scarlett, but not why, even though that also came from Scarlett?
She had the means to fly all over the world. She just had the means to fly from Boston to LA for an awards show. Cries of penury ring a bit hollow when someone is globetrotting.
I remain curious as to what makes something ‘wrong’ or ‘immoral’ rather than just ‘something you disagree with’.
I would disagree with this general statement. If David Duke decides to run for office again and asks for volunteers and donations, how is that not an immoral request? How are the people volunteering an donating not doing something wrong?
Hypothetically, if Neil Gaiman ended up bankrupt and homeless and started asking for donations and volunteers to help defend him from yet more civil cases and criminal charges- that would be immoral wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t the people donating an volunteering be doing something wrong?
I am not talking about whether the cause is moral. I am considering how the funds are spent in accordance with what was outlined in the kickstarter. If people know what they are paying for someone else can think it’s a bad deal but the person making the donation gets to decide for themself if they are happy with it.
Agreed. I have read a fair amount of Gaiman and have enjoyed his work. I have until this thread never heard of Palmer or Dresden Dolls, and don’t care.
People who consume her work can decide if she aided and abetted or has her own sins that make consuming her work uncomfortable for them. Maybe somewhere other than here?
I still have to decide if I will watch or read anything else he is associated with or give a complete pass going forward. I’m leaning to passing on it. The joy is gone knowing what I now know.
I think you’re confused, here. Scarlett was the one living rough on a beach. Amanda was the one living in her own separate house on Auckland’s Millionaire Island.
Cries of poverty now are ringing a bit hollow and frankly portraying her as some sort of economic hostage is insulting to the actual economic hostages (Scarlett & Caroline, for instance) in this story.
After the divorce she moved in with her parents. She does not have nearly the kind of inexhaustable wealth that Gaiman does. Unless you can provide bank statements we simply don’t know who controlled how much money and when.
Again, I will quote from the article, there is evidence that his money gave him more power in the relationship.
Palmer would have preferred to live in New York City, but Gaiman liked the woods. Eventually, he picked a sprawling estate set on 80 acres in Woodstock. It was Gaiman’s money, a friend who accompanied them on the house hunt says, “and he was going to have the say.”
I’m saying whatever money and power she had may not have been enough to protect the victims when Gaiman had a history of using his greater wealth to control the situation and get what he wants.
What I found skeevy about Palmer’s depiction in that article was her asking if her son had his headphones on when Gaiman made advances to a victim. As if it were okay for him to DO THESE THINGS IN THE SAME ROOM AS HER SON, as long as his headphones were on.
So this doesn’t have anything at all to do with right, wrong or immoral? The people who donated were told the truth about how their money would be spent, and that contract was kept so nobody else has any grounds to complain?
Possibly, I could disegree more strongly. I’ll have to wait a while to be sure though. I am having a bad day.
I was being a little circumspect in my language, yes. I hadn’t reread the article and wasn’t quite sure of exactly how far that incident had gone, only that Palmer’s reaction to it was weird.
I hadn’t reread the article and wasn’t quite sure of exactly how far that incident had gone, only that Palmer’s reaction to it was weird.