I doubted it bugged you but it’s a little offputting because it’s not your name here. Anyways, whatevs.
I don’t have a narrative. If you think I do you are not reading very carefully.
No, it isn’t. What you are describing is freedom of speech. The employees used their speech to make their opinions known. You are arguing that they should have not said anything, denying their freedom of speech. You are advocating censorship.
You can argue that Haschette initially wanted to publish the book. However, they clearly decided against it after all the backlash. They realized their initial calculations were in error, and that they would lose money in the long run. So, as good capitalists, they pulled it back. They were in control the entire time.
They could have decided that it would be worth it to fire their employees instead. That is also their choice. But they realized that this would not help them not lose money. Again, it is all about capitalism.
Capitalism and freedom of speech do not mean what you seem to think they mean. It is not a guarantee that something will be published. It does not mean that protesting and backlash is wrong. It does not mean that employees have to shut up and do as they are told. And it doesn’t mean that a company has to go along with their initial plans.
Freedom of speech means everyone can speak. Not just the people in charge of the company, and not just famous person. And capitalism only means that companies will do what makes them the most money.
You are arguing for compelled speech and that a company should be forced to take a loss on something they have decided they don’t want to publish anymore.
He never said he didn’t care. The issue is proportionality. No movement of any kind will not have some downsides, because no human action can have only upsides.
Let’s take something that most people think are a definite good: vaccines. And I mean the tested ones that are actually in effect, not experimental ones. Even though they don’t cause autism, there are sometimes bad responses to them. Yet the diseases they prevent harm so many more people.
By the logic you’ve presented, we should stop all vaccines. We can’t work on trying to fix the issues with them or mitigating the problems. We must stop them. That is what you want for “cancelling.” You want it to stop entirely, rather than trying to mitigate the handful of issues.
Granted, not all cancelling is about sexual misconduct, abuse, and rape. But that is what is being discussed in the context of this thread. And thus pointing out all the rape victims is like pointing out all the people who die of vaccine preventable diseases.
These small things are tragedies that we should work to fix. They are not, however, condemnation of the entire concept. Name any social movement you consider good, and I can just as easily come up with some people who it harmed. Such is never a sufficient argument that it should be stopped.
It will always be about proportionality and mitigation, not canceling entire concepts.
BigT, you seem to think it’s a “gotcha” to accuse someone of saying Allen’s not guilty of molestation. Well, I will spell it out. I don’t believe he is guilty of molestation. Ronan’s story’s pretty obviously a load of steaming horseshit. Am I metaphysically certain of his innocence, such that I’d bet my life on it? No, not quite. But not only do I think the evidence is not strong enough to convict “beyond a reasonable doubt”, I think it’s pretty close to strong enough to convict Mia Farrow of concocting the story and brainwashing Ronan into repeating it.
Okay, good, because I found Carnal’s post super weird. People almost always call me “Slacker” and I don’t get all huffy because people leave off the “Inc”, sheesh.
I…wasn’t. I’m fairly sure I called him Andy the first time I ever addressed him, because it just appeared obvious to me that Andy was his name. Which it is. This is all just bizarre, honestly.
The book, Apropos of Nothing, has been acquired by Arcade Publishing:
And here it is:
Skyhorse is a subsidiary of Arcade Publishing.
Ironically, available on Amazon as well:
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9781951627379&tag=skyhorsepub-20&ref=nb_sb_noss
You’re young, IIRC. When you’re older you may get to learn that you cannot correct a moral wrong by committing another moral wrong. Telling people who are falsely accused of sexual crimes that they’re acceptable collateral damage and should just suck it up is a moral wrong. Telling people who are being cancelled for no reason or for mistakes made as teens that they have no recourse is a moral wrong.
Of course the bulk of attention and concern must be directed toward the millions, mostly women but some men, who have been damaged personally and professionally for decades. We’re currently experiencing a revolution in attitudes and actions. Revolutions are notoriously bloody and always unfair. The correct moral position is to *both *support the revolution *and *work to spare the innocent from the side effects. Anything less is unacceptable.
Not sure if any of this was directed at me, but none of this disputes anything I’ve said.
[Moderating]
While this is not quite over the line for personal insults, it’s getting uncomfortably close. Please dial it back.
I definitely meant no insult and I apologize if it was taken that way. I meant only that age gives one the experience of having lived through crises and seen what the long-term outcomes are, something unavailable to the young through no fault of their own.
So now, not only is Allen automatically guilty of a 25-year-old accusation for which there has never been any substantiated evidence, but he’s also guilty of allegedly attempting something that he actually didn’t do (take Mariel Hemingway to Europe with him for nefarious purposes). This is assuming that Mariel’s account is completely truthful and omits no important details. Remember, when writing a memoir or any other kind of non-fiction book, “nothing happened, really” is not going to grab the publishers’ or the audience’s attention.
The hypocrisy inherent in following #MeToo as a fashion statement instead of an important, reason-based, rationally guided social movement is incredible.
Kate Winslet, September, 2017:
Kate Winslet defends working with Woody Allen, Roman Polanski
“As the actor in the film, you just have to step away and say, I don’t know anything, really, and whether any of it is true or false. Having thought it all through, you put it to one side and just work with the person. Woody Allen is an incredible director. So is Roman Polanski. I had an extraordinary working experience with both of those men, and that’s the truth.”
Kate Winslet, just over four months later, January, 2018:
Kate Winslet Admits She Has ‘Bitter Regrets’ Over Working With Certain ‘Men of Power’
Kate Winslet has admitted regret over working with certain individuals — presumably directors like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, who have been accused of sexual abuse.
I regret bringing Polanski into the conversation but I wanted to provide the full quotes. But what is Winslet saying about Allen? That he was wonderful to work with but now she realizes that she got cooties from him and will never come near him again? Even though no new information about the allegations has emerged in 25 years? Our social values are changing fast, and to the extent that it’s influencing our justice system, I think there’s room for sober consideration about the best path forward for the overall benefit of society.
I have to say, love Allen or hate him, his book seems to be well-written and highly entertaining, judging from the preview on Amazon.
It’s already the #1 bestseller in Rich & Famous Biographies, #59 in all Kindle books.
Sounds like Allen will be absolutely fine. Whether he deserves to be absolutely fine is unknowable by most, but I have no problem with those who make the decision that they will not cooperate in his enrichment and celebration.
From here.
“We choose not to take sides but rather, firmly believe in upholding the right to Freedom of Speech.”
Bullshit. It isn’t a freedom of speech issue, capitalized or not. Anytime someone trots out that sorry excuse, they are either arguing for their freedom to be an asshole or freedom to make money. And they throw in “politically correct” - that’s two squares covered in jerk bingo!
Kate Winslet’s 180 on Allen in the space of four months is pretty dispiriting. To Andy, Acsenray, et al: do you think she truly had that dramatic a change of heart? Or did she feel the intense pressure from “cancel culture” that led her to conclude she was going to tank her career if she didn’t “get right” on this question? I think it’s pretty obvious it’s the latter, that she felt she had to choose between being lynched by the online mob or picking up a torch and pitchfork and joining in with it. It’s sad that she wasn’t a little more courageous, but also somewhat understandable. I can’t say with 100% confidence that I wouldn’t do the same in her position, but the whole thing is just sickening.
Thank you! Just purchased it. Honestly, it’s a little pricey for my taste (I usually don’t spend more than ten bucks for a book), so I wouldn’t have bought it if this all had not happened. But I feel honor-bound to do my part.
I would still like to be able to see Allen’s most recent two movies though! :mad:
“Guilty” is an Irrelevant term here. This isn’t a court of law. The rules of evidence don’t apply. We get to apply 40-plus years of information we have from people who have encountered him, from the words out of his own mouth, and from what his own work says about him, in order to decide as individuals whether we are willing to enter into a business relationship or other kind of relationship with him.
That’s not hypocritical. That’s perfectly reasonable. We as individual people and business entities are perfectly justified in deciding “This person is too skeevy for us to do business with him.” People should have been doing this with respect to Cosby or Weinstein for all the decades preceding any criminal convictions.
I see no good reason not to take her at her word. If your argument amounts to claiming to be able to read someone’s mind, it’s not something to take seriously.
Why am I not shocked that SlackerInc doesn’t believe what a woman says, and assumes her change of heart must be for some other reason.