Random Celebrity Headlines

[allegro]

That makes sense. I guess the momentum today makes it more believable that a lot of these people exist.

Dude we’ve known that they exist since forever.

You remember that gross Coco casting couch scene from the movie “Fame?”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4967318/Hollywoods-long-ugly-history-sexual-harassment.html

http://mashable.com/2017/10/18/casting-couch-history-joke-die/#quYPxex1cqqo

[Sarah K]

I had never heard any of this shit about Louis until today, or I would have happily not paid to see him, watch any of his shit, etc. We can't avoid shit artists if the story isn't widepsread and getting attention.

[imail724]

https://i.imgur.com/i7UqwF2.jpg

[allegro]

I'm not surprised by Steven Seagal since he is a scumbag. After all, he beat up Kelly LeBrock during their marriage and I'm not surprised by those auditions. There's also.... ugh.... this....

http://fightstate1.devise.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/steven-seagal-gropes-katherine-heigl.jpg

Katherine Heigl was SIXTEEN in this photo.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsvoMGGUrMU

[Bachy]

As a huge fan of his, this Louis CK news is beyond disappointing. I’m speechless.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7abspvhYHpMnHSuc/giphy.gif

[theimage13]

I am a woman, and a feminist, but I often wonder about the motivations of this kind of stuff these days, too, from guys online. This social media stuff, so much of it is shit, I do myself wonder if some of these guys are just trying to cash in on some "metoo" thing so they can get more hits or look really cool so they can get laid.

Ugh, it's all just ... ugh

And here we have a perspective that I have struggled with for a long, long time.

I've always considered myself to be a generally conscientious and caring person - I'm talking back to at least early middle school, when I was the unpopular kid but people would still come to me with their problems because I was a good listener. It never got me anywhere socially or sexually (that's not why I listened - just a statement of fact for context), and so it never occurred to me that someone would use generosity as a ploy.

Fast forward to dating as an adult: for years, I tried to be upfront about the fact that I considered myself to genuinely be a nice guy. Why? Because I know how many people aren't. But now, what you just said starts to become apparent: turns out many women see a man being outspoken about not being a total prick as an attempt to get in their pants. It took me way too long to realize this and understand why, but I eventually did. "Ugh" is right.

I am, for the most part, a calm, quiet, and shy person. But so help me, when guys at work are acting like sexist shitheads, I call them out for it. I will actually yell if it gets bad enough, which I almost never do unless it's a matter of immediate safety and yelling is necessary. And apparently, it's the biggest thing that my better half loves about me. But we didn't meet online; she never saw me "advertise" that I wasn't a prick. We were introduced by a mutual female friend who had known both of us for years, so she didn't have to wonder what my motives were when I said I was a feminist.

At the end of the day, as frustrating as it is to be a guy and constantly have my motives questioned, I know it's way, way more frustrating and difficult (and heck, potentially dangerous) to be a woman and have good reason to need to question a man's motives. And it makes me feel like shit because I feel like there's nothing I can do about it, even though I know in my heart that calling it out when I see it is at least a start.

Ugh, indeed.

[Volband]

allegro, may I ask you why you refer to The View a lot? Do you actually think that show has some merit and depth to it that it's worth listening to those gals, or is it just a coincidence that certain people's insightful answers were given on The View?

I'm asking, because what I've seen and heard from that show, is rather... questionable, to say the least. I am quite triggered from Whoopi "not "rape" rape" Goldberg and anyone who eats up Meryl Streep and pretend she did not give a standing ovation to a rapist. But of course, the same people are condemning these other predators.

I would also adjust my stance on Louis C. K., because he really is another case. Don't get me wrong, I want him to be purged out from Hollywood, but he is not malevolent. I don't question why he did what he did, I question why did he not seek help. I don't think he deserves hate; being abandoned by the people who trusted him in any form is what he should have coming for him. The whole article is just... sad. Especially when you think about his wife and children.

Unfortunately, as it was expected, some people will ride his penis till the very end. In every discussion there are some folks who feel the need to add "ALLLEGEDLY". No. Just no. read the article: names, cross-references, multiple sources. The only think that is alleged is whether he closed the doors or not. The article did not mention it.

[theimage13]

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76), may I ask you why you refer to The View a lot? Do you actually think that show has some merit and depth to it that it's worth listening to those gals, or is it just a coincidence that certain people's insightful answers were given on The View?

I'm asking, because what I've seen and heard from that show, is rather... questionable, to say the least.

"See, what I love about this guy is that he's not like most men. He's not threatening. He's the kind of guy who you could take home to your parents, and not worry about getting you pregnant"

The View, introducing an artist who's single biggest runaway hit was about his girlfriend getting an abortion in high school. That was enough to make me never consider watching that show again.

[october_midnight]

The axe is falling, HBO has cut ties with him, FX is 'reviewing their relationship', movie cancelled, Netflix cutting ties and cancelled a planned special...

[telee.kom]

I'm not even that much of a fan (https://images.homedepot-static.com/productImages/4122dbad-9c36-446e-8430-b72bab7dd5cf/svn/lasko-specialty-fans-m16950-64_1000.jpg) of Louis CK but from what I've read he really don't deserve the same scorch-earth treatment as Weinstein and alike. First of all he asked them for permission, these women where there on their own accord, they could've left at any point, he wasn't making threats to any of them, the one who didn't want to participate said no and that was the end of it. Honestly this seems more like bedroom stories I've never wanted to hear than anything else. I can sort of understand the argument that he did this from position of power, but some of these happened what.. 15 years ago? He wasn't nearly as big as he is right now. I think the most important thing is that they said yes.. soo. No means no, yes means yes, but sometimes yes means also no or what is this supposed to mean?

[allegro]

And here we have a perspective that I have struggled with for a long, long time.

I've always considered myself to be a generally conscientious and caring person - I'm talking back to at least early middle school, when I was the unpopular kid but people would still come to me with their problems because I was a good listener. It never got me anywhere socially or sexually (that's not why I listened - just a statement of fact for context), and so it never occurred to me that someone would use generosity as a ploy.

Fast forward to dating as an adult: for years, I tried to be upfront about the fact that I considered myself to genuinely be a nice guy. Why? Because I know how many people aren't. But now, what you just said starts to become apparent: turns out many women see a man being outspoken about not being a total prick as an attempt to get in their pants. It took me way too long to realize this and understand why, but I eventually did. "Ugh" is right.

I am, for the most part, a calm, quiet, and shy person. But so help me, when guys at work are acting like sexist shitheads, I call them out for it. I will actually yell if it gets bad enough, which I almost never do unless it's a matter of immediate safety and yelling is necessary. And apparently, it's the biggest thing that my better half loves about me. But we didn't meet online; she never saw me "advertise" that I wasn't a prick. We were introduced by a mutual female friend who had known both of us for years, so she didn't have to wonder what my motives were when I said I was a feminist.

At the end of the day, as frustrating as it is to be a guy and constantly have my motives questioned, I know it's way, way more frustrating and difficult (and heck, potentially dangerous) to be a woman and have good reason to need to question a man's motives. And it makes me feel like shit because I feel like there's nothing I can do about it, even though I know in my heart that calling it out when I see it is at least a start.

Ugh, indeed.
I don’t see anything posted on here or by friends on FB or whatever to be “ugh” because it’s obviously a genuine concern that is all the time, not just at specific opportunities; women really do need men’s support in the workplace for this shit to no longer be accepted. We will all continue to fight, either way, there’s safety and power in numbers. When you do and say things at work to thwart harassment, it MATTERS. It’s important.

But I think what Volband was talking about was that specific Twitter link to a famous guy and Volband said said that guy is playing “White Knight” to the world of (anonymous to him) women and that seemed disingenuous, and I saw what he meant. Volband has been supportive here in his attitudes, as you have, but we are a kind of anonymous “family,” here, and it’s really great having your support. But I think Volband had a valid point about bewaring or wondering about the Twitter White Knights, people on Twitter aren’t always very genuine.

Social Media can be a great platform, it can be a creepy platform, and even scary. This is a message forum, and that type of online media way predates Social Media.

I apologize if members here think that I meant people here. I was referring to a Tweet and Twitter.

Re The View, I mostly get a kick out of Joy Behar, she HATES Trump — more than anybody I see on TV, more than ME, even — and we watch it most days during breakfast; it doesn’t mean I agree with everything, sometimes I agree with Meghan McCain, LOL. I stopped watching for years because of Simone and Cameron Bure and some others. This current panel is balanced. Although, I don’t like Sunny Hosten, at all (too Catholic Church with everything). Whoopie provides a different perspective as a black woman from a different generation. The View is now mostly a Liberal echo chamber but ... I like that lol.

[october_midnight]

these women where there on their own accord, they could've left at any point, he wasn't making threats to any of them, the one who didn't want to participate said no and that was the end of it.

For what seems to be the 2nd or 3rd time...physically blocking the door so people can't exit sort of negates being able to leave 'at any point', no?

[mfte]

I'm not even that much of a fan (https://images.homedepot-static.com/productImages/4122dbad-9c36-446e-8430-b72bab7dd5cf/svn/lasko-specialty-fans-m16950-64_1000.jpg) of Louis CK but from what I've read he really don't deserve the same scorch-earth treatment as Weinstein and alike. First of all he asked them for permission, these women where there on their own accord, they could've left at any point, he wasn't making threats to any of them, the one who didn't want to participate said no and that was the end of it. Honestly this seems more like bedroom stories I've never wanted to hear than anything else. I can sort of understand the argument that he did this from position of power, but some of these happened what.. 15 years ago? He wasn't nearly as big as he is right now. I think the most important thing is that they said yes.. soo. No means no, yes means yes, but sometimes yes means also no or what is this supposed to mean?


Be it as it may the public is out for blood and all it takes is a few allegations, headlines to paint a person with that brush. To a lesser extent look at what happened to Anthony Fantano or that Jamie Kleinstein guy and the affect it had on their careers. I don't care for Louis CK or have I really followed all of these developments but these days it feels that it doesn't matter if you sacrificed a cat or practiced naturopathy... a witch is a witch.

[Frozen Beach]

Here's his response.

BbQhTC5gMI0
I swear, Twin Peaks is cursed.

[allegro]

In every discussion there are some folks who feel the need to add "ALLLEGEDLY". No. Just no. read the article: names, cross-references, multiple sources. The only think that is alleged is whether he closed the doors or not. The article did not mention it.
We’ve discussed this, it doesn’t mean “we question the validity of the facts and allegations,” it’s to avoid lawsuits, it’s industry standard because we are a particularly litigious society. Employers are now instructed to NOT provide ANY job references and, instead, only confirm employment; because there have been many suits re job references that were INTENDED as good references but former employees didn’t agree. We have laws to protect homeowners protecting themselves from home invaders due to lawsuits where a robber was hit on the head or was shot by the homeowner while invading a home, then the robber sued the homeowner for injuries.

[Mantra]

I'm not even that much of a fan (https://images.homedepot-static.com/productImages/4122dbad-9c36-446e-8430-b72bab7dd5cf/svn/lasko-specialty-fans-m16950-64_1000.jpg) of Louis CK but...

I'm confused about why you hyperlinked the word "fan" to a picture of an actual table fan from the home depot site. Seems like an odd thing to do.

[M1ke]

For what seems to be the 2nd or 3rd time...physically blocking the door so people can't exit sort of negates being able to leave 'at any point', no?

I apologize as this is probably a reading issue on my end, but when I read the articles, I missed the part where they said that he blocked doors.

Can you please cite the source for this part of the accusations?

Thank you.

[allegro]

If some dude in a non-intimate situation whipped out his dick (or said to me hey baby I’m gonna whip out my dick and THEN DID), I think I’d have a damned heart attack.

The idea that I could just “leave” doesn’t UNDO WHAT I JUST SAW, I’d have to STAB OUT MY OWN EYEBALLS but it’d be in my head forever, UGH.

Some people seem to think the women grabbed a chair and a snack to sit and watch Louis CK jack off, then held up a sign like on the Olympics, “6.5”

Fuck if he blocked the door or not, or if they only saw this shit for 3 seconds before running out of the room - what part of any of this shit is okay or not really that bad??

HE WHIPPED OUT HIS DICK AND MASTURBATED IN FRONT OF PEOPLE IN NON-INTIMATE SITUATIONS, IN FRONT OF CO-WORKERS / PEERS.

[october_midnight]

I apologize as this is probably a reading issue on my end, but when I read the articles, I missed the part where they said that he blocked doors.

Can you please cite the source for this part of the accusations?

Thank you.

From the Gawker article (http://defamer.gawker.com/louis-c-k-will-call-you-up-to-talk-about-his-alleged-s-1687820755) about the incident in Aspen.

At the Aspen Comedy Festival a few years ago, he invited a female comedy duo back to his hotel room. The two ladies gladly joined him, and offered him some weed. He turned it down, but asked if it would be OK if he took his dick out.
Thinking he was joking (that’s exactly the kind of thing this guy would say), the women gave a facetious thumbs up. He wasn’t joking. When he actually started jerking off in front of them, the ladies decided that wasn’t their bag and made for the exit. But the comedian stood in front of the door, blocking their way with his body, until he was done.

[allegro]

GAAAHHHHHHHHHH OH MY God ...

There is something seriously wrong with that guy

[M1ke]

From the Gawker article (http://defamer.gawker.com/louis-c-k-will-call-you-up-to-talk-about-his-alleged-s-1687820755) about the incident in Aspen.

At the Aspen Comedy Festival a few years ago, he invited a female comedy duo back to his hotel room. The two ladies gladly joined him, and offered him some weed. He turned it down, but asked if it would be OK if he took his dick out.
Thinking he was joking (that’s exactly the kind of thing this guy would say), the women gave a facetious thumbs up. He wasn’t joking. When he actually started jerking off in front of them, the ladies decided that wasn’t their bag and made for the exit. But the comedian stood in front of the door, blocking their way with his body, until he was done.

Thank you, I missed that part.

[october_midnight]

Louis CK statement. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/arts/television/louis-ck-statement.html)

[theimage13]

Louis CK statement. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/arts/television/louis-ck-statement.html)

His sentiment is certainly accurate (he wielded a position of power so people felt compelled to oblige his requests), but JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOUR APOLOGY FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT SHOULD NOT INCLUDE HALF A DOZEN REFERENCES TO HOW MUCH PEOPLE ADMIRE YOU.

I've never liked the guy's work (heard him once on the radio before he really blew up and he sounded like a complete asshole). Now? Color me completely unsurprised.

[allegro]

His sentiment is certainly accurate (he wielded a position of power so people felt compelled to oblige his requests), but JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOUR APOLOGY FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT SHOULD NOT INCLUDE HALF A DOZEN REFERENCES TO HOW MUCH PEOPLE ADMIRE YOU.

I've never liked the guy's work (heard him once on the radio before he really blew up and he sounded like a complete asshole). Now? Color me completely unsurprised.

Legally in most states, it's not sexual assault (requires actual physical contact)* but, that aside, isn't he saying that it's kinda WORSE that he USED his position of power and the knowledge of same (that these people admired him) to do it? It's like he's saying that the combo of his position of power and that "audience" was WHY he did it, like the masturbating in front of them COMBINED WITH that position of power is the whole power-fuckery to him? (To MOST: That’s exactly HOW harassment happens.)

Sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual misconduct ... NONE of them are REALLY about "sex" and are EVERYTHING about power.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/slightly-blighty/201711/what-is-the-link-between-sex-and-power-in-sexual-harassment

*Most sources are referring to it as sexual misconduct (https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/sex-crimes/sexual-misconduct/).

[theimage13]

I'll admit I don't have a great grasp of the legal differentiation; I just used the first term that came to mind that seemed appropriate. Misconduct does sound more fitting though. I haven't actually read a single story about him other than the link to the statement posted above, so I hadn't seen how it was being reported.

[botley]

I'm glad Louis is (finally, FINALLY, after years of willfully ignoring it) addressing his awful behaviour -- even though he actually failed to apologize for it. Because I think this does qualify as an assault, and at the very least it's something which you should apologize for doing. How is that so fucking difficult?

[allegro]

I'm glad Louis is (finally, FINALLY, after years of willfully ignoring it) addressing his awful behaviour -- even though he actually failed to apologize for it. Because I think this does qualify as an assault, and at the very least it's something which you should apologize for doing. How is that so fucking difficult?
He’s not going to admit to doing anything criminal*. No lawyer would advise him to do that. He’s being punished and, more importantly, he’s not going to get away with it again.

Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey ... the first three deny everything and call all the victims liars and the last one seemed to blame being gay.

There’s no excuse for LCK’s behavior but it appears that his apology and admission includes his attempt to figure out his psychology behind why he did it. He not only hurt these women, he is also hurting his children and his wife. NO apology will be good enough. Something is WRONG with that guy. He need counseling.

*edit: not FELONIOUS criminal

[botley]

But it's not even an apology. He's centering how badly HE feels, how HE justified his actions, how HE wants to behave going forward. I'm glad he ends by saying "I'm going to shut the fuck up now" because that's ultimately what he needs to do. Followed by some kind of actual atonement.

[cashpiles (closed)]

He’s not going to admit to doing anything criminal*. No lawyer would advise him to do that. He’s being punished and, more importantly, he’s not going to get away with it again.

Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey ... the first three deny everything and call all the victims liars and the last one seemed to blame being gay.

There’s no excuse for LCK’s behavior but it appears that his apology and admission includes his attempt to figure out his psychology behind why he did it. He not only hurt these women, he is also hurting his children and his wife. NO apology will be good enough. Something is WRONG with that guy. He need counseling.

*edit: not FELONIOUS criminal

I’m cynical about Louis not getting away with it again. He could easily visit other countries and engage in non-consensual sexual behaviour. One typical country that is often mentioned is Thailand.

I read about this island powerful people such as Bill Clinton are invited to for parties. The parties are populated by underage girls and boys that are used for sex.

This recent explosion of revelations will help change society, but for the people who want to engage in these activities, they will find ways.

[allegro]

its an admission that shows remorse. you really think he hasn't apologized directly to the victims?

That’s exactly whom his apology is directed to: his victims. And his explaining it the way he did helps to show why they trusted him enough to go to his hotel room (since some are saying it’s THEIR fault for doing that). His apology isn’t FOR us; it’s for THEM. It’s up to them to decide if the apology is adequate or acceptable.

[thevoid99]

Asshole extraordinaire Brett Ratner harassed Ellen Page during the production of X-Men III: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/ellen-page-accuses-brett-ratner-homophobic-harassment-x-men-set-1057053

I'm going to kill that motherfucker.

[telee.kom]

For what seems to be the 2nd or 3rd time...physically blocking the door so people can't exit sort of negates being able to leave 'at any point', no?

I've read the NY Times article the second time and there wasn't anything about physically blocking anyone, so I guess there's some other story that I'm missing? Although, if NYT planned this story so long ahead, it seems a bit weird to me to leave such crucial detail out.


I'm confused about why you hyperlinked the word "fan" to a picture of an actual table fan from the home depot site. Seems like an odd thing to do.

Guess I'm an odd guy

[Mantra]

The problem is that LCK spent years lying his ass off and claiming it was nothing but false "rumors," basically calling the women liars. So it's hard for me to believe that he's genuinely remorseful. He did an interview with Vulture (http://www.vulture.com/2016/06/louis-ck-horace-and-pete-c-v-r.html) just last year where they mentioned the accusations and he said...


No. I don’t care about that. That’s nothing to me. That’s not real.

NYT put out this article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/11/movies/louis-ck-rumors-wont-answer.html) just from this September where they brought it up much more directly and he said...


"I’m not going to answer to that stuff, because they’re rumors,” Louis C.K. said during the Toronto interview, as he told Vulture last year. But he added on Sunday, “If you actually participate in a rumor, you make it bigger and you make it real.”

So it’s not real? “No.” he responded. “They’re rumors, that’s all that is.”

And what did he make of the comments by Ms. Notaro, whose work he has championed? (Louis C.K. is an executive producer of her Amazon series, “One Mississippi,” though she has said they haven’t spoken in over a year; a new episode of her series features a plot with echoes of the rumors about Louis C.K.) “I don’t know why she said the things she’s said, I really don’t,” he replied...”

Seriously, look at that shit: "I don’t know why she said the things she’s said, I really don’t".... Dude, fuck you, of course you know what a huge piece of shit you are, you shameless fucking LIAR.

And now here he is not even TWO MONTHS later and we're supposed to believe that he's all of a sudden become incredibly remorseful? Just all of a sudden? Gimme a break. The ONLY reason he's saying this shit is cause he's shitting himself because he knows he's totally busted and it's all going to shit and so he's forced to acknowledge it. He would have never admitted anything otherwise. He would have been a-okay with everything going along as it was, business as usual, keeping the "rumors" at bay, claiming that it was all a lie. Which is why it doesn't really mean much. The actual apology itself was moderately okay, or at least it was written better than what we've been seeing from a lot of these fucking idiots, but when you put it in the context of his recent history and the timing, I can't help feeling like it's a somewhat calculated attempt at damage control.

[october_midnight]

I've read the NY Times article the second time and there wasn't anything about physically blocking anyone, so I guess there's some other story that I'm missing? Although, if NYT planned this story so long ahead, it seems a bit weird to me to leave such crucial detail out.

I literally linked to and quoted it above on this same page lol.

[telee.kom]

I literally linked to and quoted it above on this same page lol.

Ah sorry I missed it. Doesn't really explain why NYT article does not mention this. And I'm sorry, but I have little more faith in NYT truthfulness as oppose to what tabloid like Gawker says.

[october_midnight]

No doubt, I feel you.

[october_midnight]

Oh, also... Lead singer Jesse Lacey of the band Brand New now accused of sexual misconduct with a minor. (https://consequenceofsound.net/2017/11/brand-news-jesse-lacey-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-with-a-minor/)

[allegro]

Mantra, those are all REALLY good points, thank you. Considering all those other points you cited, he’s a bigger asshole.

I still contend that his punishment is to be determined by his accusers.

[onthewall2983]

Corey Haim's mother says Charlie Sheen didn't abuse him (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-corey-haim-judy-haim-sexual-1510332257-htmlstory.html)

[Jinsai]

I don't know what to make of the Louis CK thing... I'm really trying hard not to let my personal appreciation for his work interfere with how I feel about it. I also need to do some more reading before I could even begin to weigh in.

From what I've read, I haven't heard the response given after he whipped it out. If anyone can fill me in there, please, but I'm hoping to find it. He also asked, and got a laugh, as if it was a joke. I am not sure if he earnestly believed at the moment that he was just moving ahead with something crazy. I haven't heard that he tried to do more beyond masturbate in front of them.

I think, based on what I've read (and again, I've not read enough, I still need to read his full "apology"), that it's plausible that he regretted doing it, and that he realized in hindsight that what he did was shameful. Denying it goes along with that.

I don't know. I guess I'm going to dive into this deeper. At the very least, failing to confront the allegations when they became a public scandal months ago is cowardly, and makes the whole thing more pathetic.

[october_midnight]

I can't believe it...I really can't. Next up... George Takei (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/george-takei-accused-sexually-assaulting-model-1981-1056698)

[thevoid99]

NO! NOT SULU!!!!!!

Aw fuck. I hate Hollywood.

[thevoid99]

And now added to the list. Disgraced FIFA president and co-founder Sepp Blatter: https://sports.yahoo.com/hope-solo-accuses-former-fifa-president-sepp-blatter-sexual-assault-204752918.html

This one isn't much of a surprise since he is a scumbag.

[thevoid99]

Rolling Stone founder, Jann Wenner, offering work in return for sex: https://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/jann-wenner

I guess there's more reason to use that magazine as toilet paper.

[Volband]

I don’t see anything posted on here or by friends on FB or whatever to be “ugh” because it’s obviously a genuine concern that is all the time, not just at specific opportunities; women really do need men’s support in the workplace for this shit to no longer be accepted. We will all continue to fight, either way, there’s safety and power in numbers. When you do and say things at work to thwart harassment, it MATTERS. It’s important.

But I think what @Volband (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=3656) was talking about was that specific Twitter link to a famous guy and @Volband (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=3656) said said that guy is playing “White Knight” to the world of (anonymous to him) women and that seemed disingenuous, and I saw what he meant. @Volband (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=3656) has been supportive here in his attitudes, as you have, but we are a kind of anonymous “family,” here, and it’s really great having your support. But I think @Volband (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=3656) had a valid point about bewaring or wondering about the Twitter White Knights, people on Twitter aren’t always very genuine.

Social Media can be a great platform, it can be a creepy platform, and even scary. This is a message forum, and that type of online media way predates Social Media.

I apologize if members here think that I meant people here. I was referring to a Tweet and Twitter.

Re The View, I mostly get a kick out of Joy Behar, she HATES Trump — more than anybody I see on TV, more than ME, even — and we watch it most days during breakfast; it doesn’t mean I agree with everything, sometimes I agree with Meghan McCain, LOL. I stopped watching for years because of Simone and Cameron Bure and some others. This current panel is balanced. Although, I don’t like Sunny Hosten, at all (too Catholic Church with everything). Whoopie provides a different perspective as a black woman from a different generation. The View is now mostly a Liberal echo chamber but ... I like that lol.
Exactly. There is nothing wrong with defending anybody, who is is clearly not enjoying any of the shit being thrown at them. As long as you can recognize and separate banter from any form of harassment, you are good to go. Though when mysogynists or racists talk at my workplace, I just lay low; they don't hurt anybody right there and then, and I sure as hell don't want to confront some of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

But you see, what that disgusting white-knight wrote in his twitter post is nothing more than disingenuous PR talk. "Trust women" is one of the dumbest sentence you can utter, and it remains just as dumb if you exchange women for men. It has nothing to do with trusting women, and everything to do with trusting reliable sources.

In fact, that prick actually hurts and derogates women, and any girl with a sense of dignity* would laugh and say "fuck off" to him. If I were a woman (though the same sentence could be said for every gender), I'd like to be addressed as a normal person, and not some handicapped toddler. Don't fucking condescend to me by telling others what to do with me. I would not want anyone to trust my words just because I have a vagina. I would want people to listen to me as they would listen to anyone else, and decide themselves if they believeí me or not. Everyone would be more than welcome to help me out, but not by pointing out my genitals, which has nothing to do with being a reliable source, but by strenghtening my arguments, backing me up with useful facts.

*I could understand how some desperate women would fall for phony people like this scum. He is basically trying to win over people by giving them some candy that looks really delicious from the outside, but absolutely rotten inside. If you want to be on a pedestal, then eat his words up. If you want us to be equal, then laugh just laugh at idiots like him.

theimage13: Yes, not only thiy guy is fake af, it is also not a good way to net that pussy he is looking for. He might get them as voters, but girls prefer guys with an actual backbone. You know, when your forced personality revoles around "WOMEN ARE ALWAYS RIGHT. I LOVE WOMEN. WOMEN ARE SO SMART AND AWESOME. WOOOOO!!", it can be quite repelling and boring. The thing with being a nice guy is that you never try to sell yourself as one. People will notice, and that should be enough. You don't bark at waiters, you don't force down your opinion on others, you don't throw hissy fits and you can treat women equally without the need to tell them that you are in fact treating them equally - which in turn would result in the exact opposite. When nice guys complain about "girls liking jerks", there is always more to those stories. If your grand plan in wooing a chick is to figuratively lick her ass, then you immidietly strip yourself from any personality traits she might've found appealing otherwise.

You should watch Black Mirror s02 e01. It is about a woman, who loses his husband, but gets to rebuild him as a total lookalike "robot" with all the information about him being downloaded from his social accounts, so the doppelganger behaves as him. There is a scene that pretty much sums up everything I've been talking about in this post.

https://youtu.be/4yUPyjdVyds?t=40m25s

Now why would any self-respecting person would want to live with someone like this? It's boring, it's fake, it's "trust women", it's uhhh.

allegro: hahaha, understandable about The View. We all have our guilty pleasures. Too bad Hollywood took another spin of that expression.

[Conan The Barbarian]

Andrew Kreisberg, producer of the dc tv shows, has been accused by 14 women and 4 men of sexual misconduct.

As a fan of the flash tv show I️ feel pissed. Fuck man.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[october_midnight]

Ironic in a sad way, since his son is one of Spacey's accusers...

Richard Dreyfuss (https://pagesix.com/2017/11/10/richard-dreyfuss-accused-of-sexual-harassment/)

[Jon]

Ironic in a sad way, since his son is one of Spacey's accusers...

Richard Dreyfuss (https://pagesix.com/2017/11/10/richard-dreyfuss-accused-of-sexual-harassment/)

Maybe an algorithm needs to be adjusted? Surely this wasn't intentional.

https://i.imgur.com/tSbcleo.png

[icklekitty]

At this point it feels like ths should have its own thread with a running list at the top of all the names...it's so hard to keep up :/

[october_midnight]

I can't believe it...I really can't. Next up... George Takei (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/george-takei-accused-sexually-assaulting-model-1981-1056698)

Takei has fully disputed the claim.

Friends,
I'm writing to respond to the accusations made by Scott R. Brunton. I want to assure you all that I am as shocked and bewildered at these claims as you must feel reading them.
The events he describes back in the 1980s simply did not occur, and I do not know why he has claimed them now. I have wracked my brain to ask if I remember Mr. Brunton, and I cannot say I do. But I do take these claims very seriously, and I wanted to provide my response thoughtfully and not outof the moment.
Right now it is a he said / he said situation, over alleged events nearly 40 years ago. But those that know me understand that non-consensual acts are so antithetical to my values and my practices, the very idea that someone would accuse me of this is quite personally painful.
Brad, who is 100 percent beside me on this, as my life partner of more than 30 years and now my husband, stands fully by my side. I cannot tell you how vital it has been to have his unwavering support and love in these difficult times.
Thanks to many of you for all the kind words and trust. It means so much to us.
Yours in gratitude,
George

[Mantra]

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with defending anybody, who is is clearly not enjoying any of the shit being thrown at them. As long as you can recognize and separate banter from any form of harassment, you are good to go. Though when mysogynists or racists talk at my workplace, I just lay low; they don't hurt anybody right there and then, and I sure as hell don't want to confront some of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

But you see, what that disgusting white-knight wrote in his twitter post is nothing more than disingenuous PR talk. "Trust women" is one of the dumbest sentence you can utter, and it remains just as dumb if you exchange women for men. It has nothing to do with trusting women, and everything to do with trusting reliable sources.

In fact, that prick actually hurts and derogates women, and any girl with a sense of dignity* would laugh and say "fuck off" to him. If I were a woman (though the same sentence could be said for every gender), I'd like to be addressed as a normal person, and not some handicapped toddler. Don't fucking condescend to me by telling others what to do with me. I would not want anyone to trust my words just because I have a vagina. I would want people to listen to me as they would listen to anyone else, and decide themselves if they believeí me or not. Everyone would be more than welcome to help me out, but not by pointing out my genitals, which has nothing to do with being a reliable source, but by strenghtening my arguments, backing me up with useful facts.

*I could understand how some desperate women would fall for phony people like this scum. He is basically trying to win over people by giving them some candy that looks really delicious from the outside, but absolutely rotten inside. If you want to be on a pedestal, then eat his words up. If you want us to be equal, then laugh just laugh at idiots like him.

theimage13: Yes, not only thiy guy is fake af, it is also not a good way to net that pussy he is looking for. He might get them as voters, but girls prefer guys with an actual backbone. You know, when your forced personality revoles around "WOMEN ARE ALWAYS RIGHT. I LOVE WOMEN. WOMEN ARE SO SMART AND AWESOME. WOOOOO!!", it can be quite repelling and boring. The thing with being a nice guy is that you never try to sell yourself as one. People will notice, and that should be enough. You don't bark at waiters, you don't force down your opinion on others, you don't throw hissy fits and you can treat women equally without the need to tell them that you are in fact treating them equally - which in turn would result in the exact opposite. When nice guys complain about "girls liking jerks", there is always more to those stories. If your grand plan in wooing a chick is to figuratively lick her ass, then you immidietly strip yourself from any personality traits she might've found appealing otherwise.

You should watch Black Mirror s02 e01. It is about a woman, who loses his husband, but gets to rebuild him as a total lookalike "robot" with all the information about him being downloaded from his social accounts, so the doppelganger behaves as him. There is a scene that pretty much sums up everything I've been talking about in this post.

https://youtu.be/4yUPyjdVyds?t=40m25s

Now why would any self-respecting person would want to live with someone like this? It's boring, it's fake, it's "trust women", it's uhhh.

I don't understand why you're rambling on and on about this guy just for saying "trust women." What exactly is the issue here?

Women have been saying that since forever, because for years the default mindset for most people (especially men) has been the OPPOSITE. A woman comes forward to tell people that she was sexually assaulted, and the general response was just equivocating cowardly bullshit like: "Well, IF that really is true, fine, I agree that's terrible, but honestly, we shouldn't jump to conclusions because, after all, women lie too ya know. It's not like women are perfect. In fact, that attitude is just another kind of sexism! Plus the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. So, for now let's just assume this woman is a liar by default until I see irrefutable proof to the contrary." The pervasiveness of this mentality has resulted in a culture that, by default, doesn't give a shit about what happens to women. It's half the reason sexual assault is so under-reported. "What's the point? No one will believe me anyway."

The whole attitude needs to change, which is why women have been saying some variation of "start believing women" "trust women" for so long. The default reaction needs to stop being "You're a liar until proven otherwise."

[allegro]

That’s really true. I had no problem with the Twitter guy “trust women” comment, in itself, wasn’t offended by it, didn’t see it as degrading or disempowering women etc. I don’t know that it’s chivalry, although there’s nothing wrong with chivalry.

But it’s BECAUSE women haven’t been trusted (or have been igonored) in these matters for so long that when a celebrity says that to his masses, I tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to not trust him, wondering his motives (or if he’s the next one in line on the abuser chopping block). It’s an anxiety based on that general mistrust that society has exhibited about these issues.

I follow Anthony Bourdain on Twitter and he’s been posting a LOT about these assholes but Bourdain’s GF is Asia Argento and he’s feeling her pain; he admits that he worked in the restaurant business that was FULL of sexual harassment. I follow Ronan Farrow who wrote the New Yorker piece, and he admits that he ignored his own sister’s abuse (by his father) for years and feels bad about that, so much of his motivation for this piece was to give these victims a voice.

A male voice, because another female voice probably wouldn’t have had the same impact. That’s part of what’s so screwed up about all this, but it’s reality.

[cashpiles (closed)]

Legally in most states, it's not sexual assault (requires actual physical contact)* but, that aside, isn't he saying that it's kinda WORSE that he USED his position of power and the knowledge of same (that these people admired him) to do it? It's like he's saying that the combo of his position of power and that "audience" was WHY he did it, like the masturbating in front of them COMBINED WITH that position of power is the whole power-fuckery to him? (To MOST: That’s exactly HOW harassment happens.)

Sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual misconduct ... NONE of them are REALLY about "sex" and are EVERYTHING about power.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/slightly-blighty/201711/what-is-the-link-between-sex-and-power-in-sexual-harassment

*Most sources are referring to it as sexual misconduct (https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/sex-crimes/sexual-misconduct/).

You are sayng none of these activities are based on sexual excitement/thrill/pleasure? I can attest to that not being true.

I think the victim would feel it as a loss of power. a definite violation of freedom, self-ownership... it's definitely about power from the victim's side.. but the perpetrator could have many reasons for engaging in sexual misconduct. There's a good book called PERV, by Jesse Bering. subtitle: the sexual deviant in all of us

[allegro]

I can attest to that not being true.

Of course you would.

[Volband]

I don't understand why you're rambling on and on about this guy just for saying "trust women." What exactly is the issue here?

Women have been saying that since forever, because for years the default mindset for most people (especially men) has been the OPPOSITE. A woman comes forward to tell people that she was sexually assaulted, and the general response was just equivocating cowardly bullshit like: "Well, IF that really is true, fine, I agree that's terrible, but honestly, we shouldn't jump to conclusions because, after all, women lie too ya know. It's not like women are perfect. In fact, that attitude is just another kind of sexism! Plus the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. So, for now let's just assume this woman is a liar by default until I see irrefutable proof to the contrary." The pervasiveness of this mentality has resulted in a culture that, by default, doesn't give a shit about what happens to women. It's half the reason sexual assault is so under-reported. "What's the point? No one will believe me anyway."

The whole attitude needs to change, which is why women have been saying some variation of "start believing women" "trust women" for so long. The default reaction needs to stop being "You're a liar until proven otherwise."
His tweet implies that on 1 on 1 accusations, we should trust the women, because they are women. Giving a shit and immidietly assume that women are saying the truth are not the same. If he wants to say the former, then word it accordingly.

[Volband]

Well that's hard to believe considering some of the things he has said and done in recorded interviews. There was the classic Howard Stern interview and, I believe, something very recent.
We have:
- him saying it wasn't an issue that an adult took advantage of him when he was 13, because he thought the guy was attractive
- him admitting to grabbing dicks without consent because some people are shy
- him jerking off a nervous dude, on camera, while explaining that Brad isn't watching
I just googled and watched the last one. What. The. Living. Fuck.

So, is that funny and okay because he's gay? Seems like there were some issues before that allegation as well.

edit: ok, read about the context. still fucked up, but... better, I suppose.

[marodi]

Anthony Edwards says he was molested, as a child, by producer Gary Goddard (https://www.thewrap.com/anthony-edwards-says-he-was-molested-by-gary-goddard-as-a-child/).

Of course Goddard denies it. But Goddard was one of the men accused alongside Bryan Singer in 2014. The suit was later dropped.

[Mantra]

His tweet implies that on 1 on 1 accusations, we should trust the women, because they are women.

Uh, no, his statement very clearly stated that he was referring to the FOUR women who came out against Roy Moore, so I'm not sure where you're getting this "1 on 1 accusations" thing from. There's nothing wrong with what that tweet. He's 100% right: all of those women who have spoken out against Roy Moore should be trusted.

[cashpiles (closed)]

Anthony Edwards says he was molested, as a child, by producer Gary Goddard (https://www.thewrap.com/anthony-edwards-says-he-was-molested-by-gary-goddard-as-a-child/).

Of course Goddard denies it. But Goddard was one of the men accused alongside Bryan Singer in 2014. The suit was later dropped.

Not that it matters, but I believe Anthony. Besides, it would be extremely evil to make up such a claim.

[Mantra]

You are sayng none of these activities are based on sexual excitement/thrill/pleasure?

I think it's impossible to draw a clean line between the power dynamics and the sexual excitement because the power trip IS the very thing that they get off to. Saying that they didn't do it for the power but simply for the sexual thrill is like arguing over what came first, the chicken or the egg.

[allegro]

Uh, no, his statement very clearly stated that he was referring to the FOUR women who came out against Roy Moore, so I'm not sure where you're getting this "1 on 1 accusations" thing from. There's nothing wrong with what that tweet. He's 100% right: all of those women who have spoken out against Roy Moore should be trusted.

Is THAT what he was talking about, specifically? Well, then, in that case, fuck yeah!!! The evidence against Moore is too strong to discount.

This guy, wtf: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/09/alabama-state-official-defends-roy-moore-citing-joseph-and-mary-they-became-parents-of-jesus/?utm_term=.bf43f3c240f0

[Volband]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJYb0Yom5UQ&feature=youtu.be

Oh. Okay then.

[Volband]

He is a popular figure in our internet generation. Gay, sassy, outspoken and hates Trump? You can't even manufacture someone more likeable in this age and day for those who agree with his views. So if he turns out to be a hypocrite, then you, a follower might feel threatened that it will taint everything he stood up for. Maybe if Takei will fall from grace, then suddenly gay acceptance will be hindered or something.

I am indifferent about the guy, because if someone uses his sexuality to identify him- or herself, then I immediately lose interest in everything he or she might preach. There were a few gay personalities I had to stop following or watching, because as time went on, all their videos revolved around "I LOVE COCKS XDDD IM A GUY XDDD" - amazing, but I don't really care.

[cashpiles (closed)]

I think it's impossible to draw a clean line between the power dynamics and the sexual excitement because the power trip IS the very thing that they get off to. Saying that they didn't do it for the power but simply for the sexual thrill is like arguing over what came first, the chicken or the egg.

I'm sure for some people, the power trip is what they get off to sexually.... however for some people it's just pure sexual excitement or something else other than power. The best way to know is to ask the perpetrators directly. You will see interviews where perpetrators mention power as the motivating factor. But not all of them. Some point to the sexual thrill.

[allegro]

We didn’t bring up “why” as a point of discussion, it would drift this thread too much and get into the deep weeds of law and psychology. It was only brought up because somebody complained about the wording of Louie CK’s apology letter. In any of these situations, if the power did not exist then the “sexual thrill” would not occur. Put Louie CK in a room full of drunk MMA fighters and tell him to jack off for the “sexual thrill.”

[botley]

It's utterly amazing to me that this lily-livered piece of self-puffery is still being framed as an "apology", as if it contained a shred of atonement in any way for his previous repeated denials and dismissal of his responsibilities, rather than painting himself as the "real" sufferer and worthy of sympathy for feeling bad about his awful behaviour (oh yeah he even asked them if it was okay to wilfully ignore all sense of propriety or power dynamic, as if somehow merely asking fucking dissolves everything — oh and lest we forget how much he's admired).

[allegro]

It's utterly amazing to me that this lily-livered piece of self-puffery is still being framed as an "apology", as if it contained a shred of atonement in any way for his previous repeated denials and dismissal of his responsibilities, rather than painting himself as the "real" sufferer and worthy of sympathy for feeling bad about his awful behaviour (oh yeah he even asked them if it was okay to wilfully ignore all sense of propriety or power dynamic, as if somehow merely asking fucking dissolves everything — oh and lest we forget how much he's admired).

Again, I don't think that ANY apology will be adequate from somebody like this. I didn't read his apology statement as the disingenuous egotistical puffery that you did, I don't know why that is, could be lots of reasons ranging from my being female to my being in law and seeing "apologies" all the time, but one big thing I DO know is that the vast majority of people who do this shit don't KNOW "why" they did it. Only a professional could really get to the source of "why."

Just like my ex-husband, found guilty of a misdemeanor (violating an Order of Protection) was "sentenced" to a year of mandatory counseling. Because the Court and my advocates assigned to me in the Court were fully aware that until you get him to figure out the basis of WHY he was doing what he was doing (the basis of that "power"), then he'll never stop doing what he's doing.

And I sincerely doubt that Louis CK knows "why" he has this dark side; he DID, however, touch on a lot of the "why" in his apology letter, whether he knew it or not. And, I really think he's addressing some of the SHIT that one of the accusers (Jen Kirkman) is getting on Twitter right now; they're completely ignoring his actions and blaming HER for it, and I think his apology letter is explaining the dynamics of WHY more than "hey, sorry folks, the end."


At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly.

To me, he's trying to explain why, not so much in his own defense but also in their defense, as to why somebody would say "okay" if somebody asks if he can whip out his dick.

If you want a genuine and satisfying mea culpa that's "good enough" for his fans to forget what he did, pigs will fly first. And it's not really ABOUT his fans; admitting that he did it IS to stop his fans from "wondering" if these women were lying, but an apology shouldn't be for fans, it should be for the women who accused him of doing it. However ...

Sometimes an apology or an explanation is enough for victims and sometimes nothing short of prison is enough and that's still not enough, it depends on the individual. But, it's not for us to decide. OUR concerns should be that he gets help, so that he doesn't continue doing this. Whether or not we can ever like the guy again is not and should not be as important as making sure the guy gets his shit together and stops doing it.

[botley]

Of course you're right. Just pointing out that the bar is set SO LOW for abusive men to "redeem" themselves that something where he doesn't even apologise — for ANY of it — is nevertheless framed as a public apology.

[richardp]

Probably gonna get dragged for this real hard, but it's really been bothering me lately. For me personally, I don't see the point in letting some of these people's actions ruin the work that I PERSONALLY enjoy from them. Jesse Lacey from Brand New, for example. I see a fuck ton of people stating they'll never listen to Brand New again, who a few days ago would probably have an endless debate about which Brand New album is their best. I don't feel like I have to personally stop listening to this music that has been super important to me over the years just because of something this dude did on his own time. What he did is obviously suuuuper shitty and I'm never going to make excuses for it, but as for an album that literally helped me get through some of the rougher patches of my life, why should I all of sudden pretend that those albums are flawed pieces of shit?

I don't know. Yeah it really sucks watching your public figure idols crash and burn with all of these allegations, but jesus, at this point, every famous person ever is going to have allegations about them. If we stop listening to or watching the things from all these people, will we even have any form of entertainment left for us?

Like I said, I feel like I'm going to get dragged for my opinions here, or possibly even be labeled an excuser (which I'm not) but I don't personally feel like I'm defending these people's actions by continuing to engage in their body of work. There are certain situations where it is appropriate (Cosby for example, who spent his entire career based on fatherly advice, only for it to be revealed a sham to hide his true actions), but for instances here like Jesse Lacey, where he has genuinely spent the last ten plus years writing songs about how he's done shitty things and has already long ago sought therapy and tried to turn his life around, like... do we really need to burn all of our Brand New t-shirts?

It's just frustrating to see so many people who a few days ago would state that Brand New is their favorite band now say that they're garbage or something. Is the band's music ACTUALLY garbage all of a sudden, or is the music still the same emotional experience for you, and that the actions of the front man are garbage?

[allegro]

In the case of a BAND, the entire band isn't made up of that one pedo or abuser or whatever; there's a dynamic of affecting a bunch of people vs. just that one asshole.

My husband and I were talking about this the other night re Papa John's pizza or even Domino's pizza back in the day: the Papa John's founder is getting a lot of shit (https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2017/11/10/16633694/papa-john-nfl-protests-ratings) (and the founder and former owner of Domino's suddenly became SUPER Catholic and pro-life), so people are / were boycotting the pizza etc. Except, these individual pizza places are owned and operated by franchisees, and they and their employees have NOTHING to do with the actions of Tom Monoghan (Domino's) or John Schnatter (Papa John's). So by punishing the asshole, you also could be punishing a bunch of innocent people who were totally unconnected to the asshole.

We've had this discussion about guys like John Lennon (people can't reconcile his admitting that he hit his wife when he was in his late-teens, for which he apologized but for some that is not enough -- never mind that the guy is long dead and his money is going to his widow and kid and philanthropic organizations), or guys like Woody Allen (are we disrespecting his daughter who was sexually abused if we continue watching his films?)

And, really, it's still these guys' faults for putting us and the industry and partners around them in this position of having to deal with this cognitive dissonance.

I think if it makes you feel a bit guilty listening the music of a band whose lead singer is a pedo or whatever, then it at least indicates that you have a moral compass? But, at least you are not a victim of the actual crime; worrying about whether or not you can still enjoy the music is barely a problem, relatively speaking.

[allegro]

Of course you're right. Just pointing out that the bar is set SO LOW for abusive men to "redeem" themselves that something where he doesn't even apologise — for ANY of it — is nevertheless framed as a public apology.

See, I haven't seen it framed as a public apology ... I've seen the headlines saying he "admits to sexual misconduct" or he "responds to accusations" or "acknowledges sexual misconduct" etc.

The only people I've seen claiming it's an "apology" = SOME OF HIS FANS. "Now, see, there, he apologized. That's nice of him. Now I can rid myself of this cognitive dissonance by continuing to think he's funny etc. and I'll not be bothered

[Mantra]

@richardp (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=139) ...When I think about the question of how we judge artists who do terrible things and whether we can separate the individual from their art, I guess I take it on a case by case basis, and I judge them based on a number of factors...

First...Is this an individual artist or was this a collaborative project? I've specifically thought about this with the films of Roman Polanski. The guy should be ostracized from the film scene forever, but how should we look at his films in retrospect, films that were the result of many different people's talents? For example, Mia Farrow is a huge part of why Rosemary's Baby is great. I'd argue it's her best performance and that her life's work doesn't deserve to be sacrificed because of Polanski. It's not fair to punish someone unrelated. Polanski doesn't OWN the entire film. I contrast this with the poet Ezra Pound, who was a fascist who literally gave speeches cheering on the genocide of Jews. He's a "solo" artist, so I'm fine saying that we should condemn him and his work. That said, this isn't always an easy question, because a piece of art may be somewhat collaborative and yet heavily dominated by one person. House of Cards is a collaborative project, but Spacey is the center of the whole thing, so I personally couldn't watch the show and ignore him. And like Allegro said, this may or may not also be the case with certain bands.

Second...How much of the art itself directly overlaps with the artists wrong doing? For example, I was absolutely horrified to learn that Miles Davis beat his wives. I haven't listened to his music much since learning that, and I haven't decided how to think about it. That said, instrumental jazz music really has no obvious direct relation to domestic violence, so I can at least see the potential for someone arguing that this music can be enjoyed despite the terrible actions of the artist. I'm not saying that someone is wrong for condemning the work of Miles Davis, but I'm just saying I feel that it's somewhat easier to argue for the separation of the art from the person when the art itself is so thematically unrelated. Contrast that with Louis CK, whose work addresses masturbation, and it's just too close for comfort. Like how am I supposed to tune that out or not make an instant connection between his comedy bits and his real life actions? Or, for example, I could never listen to R. Kelly's music given that I'd be listening to a bunch of sex jams by a person who is a pathological rapist/abuser of minors. I literally can't imagine a worse choice of an artist to have soundtrack your sexual experiences.

Third...What capacity is there for complexity in this artist's work, specifically with regard to their own wrong doing? What I mean is, is this person's art still worthwhile for the sake of understanding the very thing that they did wrong? One example I can think of is the southern gothic writer Flannery O'Connor. In some of her personal letters, she wrote some fairly racist stuff. And yet I think her own fiction writing is still important for the purpose of condemning southern racism and critiquing the hypocrisy of southern culture as a whole. Her stories directly confront racism within her own culture, the passing along of racism from generation to generation, etc. So I feel like it's fair to say that Flannery O'Connor was a complicated person who, depsite her flaws, did something good by attacking the very things that compromised herself. I don't feel that this is the case with, say, John Wayne, who was a gross racist shithead and who never contributed to any piece of art that tried to address racism or that might complicate our understanding of him, so I say fuck him.

I could write more but... I'm just trying to explain that, for me, it's a complicated thing that I judge on a case by case basis and I think about it from LOTS of different angles. And I also fully admit that some of my ideas may be wrong. My position on this stuff is far from perfect, nor is it static.

[richardp]

@richardp (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=139) ...When I think about the question of how we judge artists who do terrible things and whether we can separate the individual from their art, I guess I take it on a case by case basis, and I judge them based on a number of factors...

First...Is this an individual artist or was this a collaborative project? I've specifically thought about this with the films of Roman Polanski. The guy should be ostracized from the film scene forever, but how should we look at his films in retrospect, films that were the result of many different people's talents? For example, Mia Farrow is a huge part of why Rosemary's Baby is great. I'd argue it's her best performance and that her life's work doesn't deserve to be sacrificed because of Polanski. It's not fair to punish someone unrelated. Polanski doesn't OWN the entire film. I contrast this with the poet Ezra Pound, who was a fascist who literally gave speeches cheering on the genocide of Jews. He's a "solo" artist, so I'm fine saying that we should condemn him and his work. That said, this isn't always an easy question, because a piece of art may be somewhat collaborative and yet heavily dominated by one person. House of Cards is a collaborative project, but Spacey is the center of the whole thing, so I personally couldn't watch the show and ignore him. And like Allegro said, this may or may not also be the case with certain bands.

Second...How much of the art itself directly overlaps with the artists wrong doing? For example, I was absolutely horrified to learn that Miles Davis beat his wives. I haven't listened to his music much since learning that, and I haven't decided how to think about it. That said, instrumental jazz music really has no obvious direct relation to domestic violence, so I can at least see the potential for someone arguing that this music can be enjoyed despite the terrible actions of the artist. I'm not saying that someone is wrong for condemning the work of Miles Davis, but I'm just saying I feel that it's somewhat easier to argue for the separation of the art from the person when the art itself is so thematically unrelated. Contrast that with Louis CK, whose work addresses masturbation, and it's just too close for comfort. Like how am I supposed to tune that out or not make an instant connection between his comedy bits and his real life actions? Or, for example, I could never listen to R. Kelly's music given that I'd be listening to a bunch of sex jams by a person who is a pathological rapist/abuser of minors. I literally can't imagine a worse choice of an artist to have soundtrack your sexual experiences.

Third...What capacity is there for complexity in this artist's work, specifically with regard to their own wrong doing? What I mean is, is this person's art still worthwhile for the sake of understanding the very thing that they did wrong? One example I can think of is the southern gothic writer Flannery O'Connor. In some of her personal letters, she wrote some fairly racist stuff. And yet I think her own fiction writing is still important for the purpose of condemning southern racism and critiquing the hypocrisy of southern culture as a whole. Her stories directly confront racism within her own culture, the passing along of racism from generation to generation, etc. So I feel like it's fair to say that Flannery O'Connor was a complicated person who, depsite her flaws, did something good by attacking the very things that compromised herself. I don't feel that this is the case with, say, John Wayne, who was a gross racist shithead and who never contributed to any piece of art that tried to address racism or that might complicate our understanding of him, so I say fuck him.

I could write more but... I'm just trying to explain that, for me, it's a complicated thing that I judge on a case by case basis and I think about it from LOTS of different angles. And I also fully admit that some of my ideas may be wrong. My position on this stuff is far from perfect, nor is it static.

This was all great, dude. Lots of good points. I agree with the case by case logic, definitely. To continue using Brand New as an example, in the instance of case by case with this one, I personally feel like through the fact that Jesse Lacey already recognized his wrong doing years ago and has already been involved in group and individual therapy for a while now, coupled with the fact that basically their last three albums all lyrically wrestled with his own personal inner demons, there's no reason to just like all of a sudden burn all your Brand New shirts. And to reiterate my statement earlier, if the music itself wasn't trash a few days ago, why would it be trash now. It's the actions of one quarter of a whole here that people are reacting to. The other three members of Brand New helped contribute to the project just as much, and they all have families to support. Why should we all punish those guys now, because of Jesse's actions 15 years ago?

There's obviously a lot to chew on here, but I loved everything you offered in the discussion. I'm actually really happy that we're all able to have an actual discussion here about this, as everyone on my fucking facebook seems to have the mindset that any emotional reaction to an allegation isn't immediately "NOPE IM FUCKING DONE FOREVER FUCK THIS NEVER AGAIN" is defending the actions of those accused. I think during all of these allegations on anyone, it's still important to actually weigh the worth of the person's body of work, and sort of like you stated above, how much of it overlaps with the reality set by these predators, rather than outright say you'll never listen to or watch anything by them ever again. But I get it, it's super easy to be reactionary as hell with every allegation coming out, and some of them do genuinely warrant those extreme reactions. But in terms of Jesse Lacey, who has already sought treatment long before his allegations came out, making the choice to better himself already, I would not say it's exactly necessary for Brand New to be deemed "garbage" just yet.

[Mantra]

This was all great, dude. Lots of good points. I agree with the case by case logic, definitely. To continue using Brand New as an example, in the instance of case by case with this one, I personally feel like through the fact that Jesse Lacey already recognized his wrong doing years ago and has already been involved in group and individual therapy for a while now, coupled with the fact that basically their last three albums all lyrically wrestled with his own personal inner demons, there's no reason to just like all of a sudden burn all your Brand New shirts. And to reiterate my statement earlier, if the music itself wasn't trash a few days ago, why would it be trash now. It's the actions of one quarter of a whole here that people are reacting to. The other three members of Brand New helped contribute to the project just as much, and they all have families to support. Why should we all punish those guys now, because of Jesse's actions 15 years ago?

There's obviously a lot to chew on here, but I loved everything you offered in the discussion. I'm actually really happy that we're all able to have an actual discussion here about this, as everyone on my fucking facebook seems to have the mindset that any emotional reaction to an allegation isn't immediately "NOPE IM FUCKING DONE FOREVER FUCK THIS NEVER AGAIN" is defending the actions of those accused. I think during all of these allegations on anyone, it's still important to actually weigh the worth of the person's body of work, and sort of like you stated above, how much of it overlaps with the reality set by these predators, rather than outright say you'll never listen to or watch anything by them ever again. But I get it, it's super easy to be reactionary as hell with every allegation coming out, and some of them do genuinely warrant those extreme reactions. But in terms of Jesse Lacey, who has already sought treatment long before his allegations came out, making the choice to better himself already, I would not say it's exactly necessary for Brand New to be deemed "garbage" just yet.
Right.

I don't know Brand New's music, but there's something else to consider too: How would my response make the victim feel, and how does it make OTHER victims feel who have been hurt in similar ways? In fact, I really should have made this the very FIRST thing I mentioned, cause we have to think about this from their point of view. Like, if someone raped you or assaulted you, how would it feel to see tons of people talking about what a great person he was? How would it feel if you had already told people about what happened and they still thought the world of your abuser. To me, it's gonna feel like everyone values this person's creative output more than they value you as a human being. Now imagine instead that people are like "Wow that is fucked, I'm so sorry to hear that, man FUCK that guy forever." That would, hopefully, make you feel like the world is not an absolute fucking nightmare filled with people who don't care for each other. Hopefully.

So yeah, that's another thing I think about. EMPATHY. How do the people who are most hurt by this feel? With the writer Flannery O'Connor, I question myself because I think, "How would a black person feel about her? If I say 'Oh I love her work' is that gonna make someone else feel like shit?" Likewise, many years ago my mom was beaten up horrifically by my father on a regular basis, and so was I. If we encountered someone who knew all about it and was like "That's terrible, but still, your dad is such a great dude! He's so funny!!" I would feel like "Come on, where are your priorities? Do you not care about what he did?" And so, when I think about whether I should be cool with Miles Davis or not, one of the things that makes me doubt myself is that I think, "Yeah, but how would how would his ex-wife feel if she was right here and she saw me jamming out to this music? What would my own mother think if I was like "Yeah, it's too bad he beat the shit out of his wife, but man, what a genius musician!" For that matter, I'm a grown man who used to get pounded and beat on as a little child, so how does it feel to enjoy the music of a man who is similar to the very person who fucked me up so much? Like, does that mean I'm full of shit? Am I inadvertently contributing to the very culture of gross, rotten masculinity that harmed me?

And yet...we like what we like, right? I like Miles' music. I like the sound of it. I especially like On The Corner and In a Silent Way. I can't deny that they sound nice to my ears. So what am I supposed to do with that? How am I supposed to reconcile all of this fucking shit?

Again, these are fucking DIFFICULT questions, and I don't know the right answers. This is just some of the shit that passes through my head sometimes.

[richardp]

Right.

I don't know Brand New's music, but there's something else to consider too: How would my response make the victim feel, and how does it make OTHER victims feel who have been hurt in similar ways? In fact, I really should have made this the very FIRST thing I mentioned, cause we have to think about this from their point of view. Like, if someone raped you or assaulted you, how would it feel to see tons of people talking about what a great person he was? How would it feel if you had already told people about what happened and they still thought the world of your abuser. To me, it's gonna feel like everyone values this person's creative output more than they value you as a human being. Now imagine instead that people are like "Wow that is fucked, I'm so sorry to hear that, man FUCK that guy forever." That would, hopefully, make you feel like the world is not an absolute fucking nightmare filled with people who don't care for each other. Hopefully.

So yeah, that's another thing I think about. EMPATHY. How do the people who are most hurt by this feel? With the writer Flannery O'Connor, I question myself because I think, "How would a black person feel about her? If I say 'Oh I love her work' is that gonna make someone else feel like shit?" Likewise, many years ago my mom was beaten up horrifically by my father on a regular basis, and so was I. If we encountered someone who knew all about it and was like "That's terrible, but still, your dad is such a great dude! He's so funny!!" I would feel like "Come on, where are your priorities? Do you not care about what he did?" And so, when I think about whether I should be cool with Miles Davis or not, one of the things that makes me doubt myself is that I think, "Yeah, but how would how would his ex-wife feel if she was right here and she saw me jamming out to this music? What would my own mother think if I was like "Yeah, it's too bad he beat the shit out of his wife, but man, what a genius musician!" For that matter, I'm a grown man who used to get pounded and beat on as a little child, so how does it feel to enjoy the music of a man who is similar to the very person who fucked me up so much? Like, does that mean I'm full of shit? Am I inadvertently contributing to the very culture of gross, rotten masculinity that harmed me?

And yet...we like what we like, right? I like Miles' music. I like the sound of it. I especially like On The Corner and In a Silent Way. I can't deny that they sound nice to my ears. So what am I supposed to do with that? How am I supposed to reconcile all of this fucking shit?

Again, these are fucking DIFFICULT questions, and I don't know the right answers. This is just some of the shit that passes through my head sometimes.

I've been thinking about the empathy part all day. For instance, I am pretty positive that at the end of the year, when all is said and done, the new Brand New album will top my AOTY list. And when I start posting that online, I keep wondering who is going to be super pissed off that I put that? Is anyone going to be genuinely offended? How many times am I going to have to defend my choice? I'm sure that a few of my friends probably won't ever listen to Brand New anymore, but I just hope those same people recognize that my personal choice to not let what he did affect how I listen to the music, is not a decision that supports the accused, but one that, I guess you could say, refuses to give the accused the power over me to stop enjoying the music for my own personal reasons. If that even remotely makes sense.

I think a lot of these allegations warrant the extreme reactions they've received, ESPECIALLY Weinstein. But please do correct me if I am wrong in saying this, but some of the situations could definitely be forgiven if the person accused has genuine interest and aspiration to right the wrong, and find growth from their own actions, you know? If you're genuinely willing to learn from your mistakes, seeking forms of therapy, and reaching out to those they've hurt in the past, if they go about it in an honest way, and not "oh I'm going to go to rehab for two weeks and be better", than we the public genuinely forgive them? Or are all of these people too far gone, beyond unforgivable?

[allegate]

Whoopsie...
https://twitter.com/MikeDelMoro/status/930163409357819905

[sweeterthan]

I've been thinking about the empathy part all day. For instance, I am pretty positive that at the end of the year, when all is said and done, the new Brand New album will top my AOTY list. And when I start posting that online, I keep wondering who is going to be super pissed off that I put that? Is anyone going to be genuinely offended? How many times am I going to have to defend my choice? I'm sure that a few of my friends probably won't ever listen to Brand New anymore, but I just hope those same people recognize that my personal choice to not let what he did affect how I listen to the music, is not a decision that supports the accused, but one that, I guess you could say, refuses to give the accused the power over me to stop enjoying the music for my own personal reasons. If that even remotely makes sense.

I think a lot of these allegations warrant the extreme reactions they've received, ESPECIALLY Weinstein. But please do correct me if I am wrong in saying this, but some of the situations could definitely be forgiven if the person accused has genuine interest and aspiration to right the wrong, and find growth from their own actions, you know? If you're genuinely willing to learn from your mistakes, seeking forms of therapy, and reaching out to those they've hurt in the past, if they go about it in an honest way, and not "oh I'm going to go to rehab for two weeks and be better", than we the public genuinely forgive them? Or are all of these people too far gone, beyond unforgivable?
I think if you like their music, then you should keep liking it. You are not condoning their actions. We talked about this in one of the other threads, maybe the jeordie white one. Separate the art from the artist. It's ok to do that. My favorite examples are Jim Morrison and Elvis. They were both womanizers who, without consequence, took advantage of underage women. While i'm sure many frowned upon it at the time, their stature in the pop culture is untouchable because of their art.

[thevoid99]

And now added to the list: Tom Sizemore: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tom-sizemore-was-removed-movie-set-allegedly-violating-11-year-old-girl-1057629

& James Woods: http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/elizabeth-perkins-james-woods-me-too-march-1202613595/

[allegate]

Why is Roy Moore "threatening" to sue? If the allegations were false wouldn't he just sue them instead of posturing?

Oh yeah. Posturing.

[Vertigo]

And now added to the list: Tom Sizemore: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tom-sizemore-was-removed-movie-set-allegedly-violating-11-year-old-girl-1057629

& James Woods: http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/elizabeth-perkins-james-woods-me-too-march-1202613595/

Really shouldn't be surprised about either of them. The Tom Sizemore headline made me feel sick though. What's wrong with that guy?

[thevoid99]

I feel unclean over reading about what Tom Sizemore did.

[cashpiles (closed)]

Here is the unfair side of the power lying accusers (I’m just talking about the lying ones. I’m not saying all accusers are liars.) now have:

https://pitchfork.com/news/the-gaslamp-killer-sues-over-rape-allegations/

It seems that these people are lying, but it may yet still turn out to be true.

[icklekitty]

I've been thinking about the empathy part all day. For instance, I am pretty positive that at the end of the year, when all is said and done, the new Brand New album will top my AOTY list. And when I start posting that online, I keep wondering who is going to be super pissed off that I put that? Is anyone going to be genuinely offended? How many times am I going to have to defend my choice? I'm sure that a few of my friends probably won't ever listen to Brand New anymore, but I just hope those same people recognize that my personal choice to not let what he did affect how I listen to the music, is not a decision that supports the accused, but one that, I guess you could say, refuses to give the accused the power over me to stop enjoying the music for my own personal reasons. If that even remotely makes sense.

I think a lot of these allegations warrant the extreme reactions they've received, ESPECIALLY Weinstein. But please do correct me if I am wrong in saying this, but some of the situations could definitely be forgiven if the person accused has genuine interest and aspiration to right the wrong, and find growth from their own actions, you know? If you're genuinely willing to learn from your mistakes, seeking forms of therapy, and reaching out to those they've hurt in the past, if they go about it in an honest way, and not "oh I'm going to go to rehab for two weeks and be better", than we the public genuinely forgive them? Or are all of these people too far gone, beyond unforgivable?


I guess step 1 is admitting to and apologising for what you did. Which is not so much happening with the cases we have heard about.

[elevenism]

I feel unclean over reading about what Tom Sizemore did. did you not expect it? I swear to god I've suspected him of doing something REAL fucked up for a hot minute. You can straight up see the sickness and evil in that motherfucker's face.

[allegate]

https://i.imgur.com/U1F57d4.gif

[Mantra]

please do correct me if I am wrong in saying this, but some of the situations could definitely be forgiven if the person accused has genuine interest and aspiration to right the wrong, and find growth from their own actions, you know? If you're genuinely willing to learn from your mistakes, seeking forms of therapy, and reaching out to those they've hurt in the past, if they go about it in an honest way, and not "oh I'm going to go to rehab for two weeks and be better", than we the public genuinely forgive them? Or are all of these people too far gone, beyond unforgivable?
I've been thinking about this post since I read it a couple days ago and trying to think of a decent response, but honestly, I don't have a very good answer for you because these are some fucking epic questions, you know? The question of whether redemption or forgiveness or personal transformation is possible, I mean that's gotta be the subject of most literature, art, not to mention religion, psychology, etc. I don't think I can post anything that could do those questions justice.

I used to know a guy who murdered someone back when he was a teenager. He killed a fellow teenager in a gang related crime, and then served a very long prison sentence. When I first met him he was much older, in his forties I think, and he actually had become close friends with the mother of the kid he had killed after she chose to get in touch with him back when he was in prison. Now they both work together in an anti-violence organization with a strong emphasis on restorative justice (which is how I met them). I thought it was a pretty amazing, and I feel like the guy deserves to be forgiven for what he did. But the thing is, he didn't just post an apology on facebook or whatever and hope everything would get back to normal. He has devoted the rest of his entire existence to rectifying the harm he once caused. It's a lifelong thing. And that kind of redemption takes time, years.

With this Brand New guy, idk. I guess it's nice that he said he's been going to therapy, but still, what he did was so fucking extreme. Reading the details of it was stomach churning. We're talking about predatory behavior against minors. To me, that indicates something that's fucked up in his mind on a very deep level, and I don't think he can just apologize it away. I think it's natural that everyone is going to be horrified and feel like they'll never be able to enjoy that music ever again. And here's the thing, I get the feeling that you think people are being reactionary or maybe posturing when they claim they'll never listen to Brand New again (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth), but I doubt that's true. When I say I can't stand listening to R. Kelly's music after reading about all the creepy shit he's done, it's not like there's this part of me that secretly loves the music but I'm forcing myself to pretend I don't out of some obligatory sense of moral duty. I very genuinely can't listen to that music without thinking "Predator. This is the music of a predator. I am listening to a creepy predator singing about sex. Fuck." The thoughts are just pounding through my head. It's not some calculated, performative reaction. It's a visceral response that I truly can not help. And I think a lot of people who are saying they'll never listen to Brand New again are feeling the same way. You just know that post that Tony made in the Brand New thread came from the heart because he is genuinely disgusted. People can't just turn their brains off and pretend they don't know what they do. The connection has already been burned into their mind. They press play and hear the voice of a predator. And even though he's apologized and talked about getting therapy, I don't think that's enough to offset the magnitude of what's he's done and erase connotations that Brand New's music now holds in their minds.

[Deepvoid]

You can now add Mark Schwahn (http://www.businessinsider.com/one-tree-hill-stars-accuse-series-creator-mark-schwahn-of-sexual-harassment-2017-11) to the list of alleged predators.
He was the showrunner for One Tree Hill and now The Royals.

[cashpiles (closed)]

You can now add Mark Schwahn (http://www.businessinsider.com/one-tree-hill-stars-accuse-series-creator-mark-schwahn-of-sexual-harassment-2017-11) to the list of alleged predators.
He was the showrunner for One Tree Hill and now The Royals.

Clear lines are going to have to be drawn. Shoulder touching? I think that depends on what kind of shoulder touching. My female friend often touches my arms or shoulders. I think the person who wants to touch should ask.

[allegro]

Clear lines are going to have to be drawn. Shoulder touching? I think that depends on what kind of shoulder touching. My female friend often touches my arms or shoulders. I think the person who wants to touch should ask.

Trying to give shoulder massages to coworkers, or petting the hair of coworkers, is inappropriate at work. Since the 80s, anyway. I wouldn't personally call that "predatory," but it's definitely not appropriate and these days falls into the "harassment" category for making people feel uncomfortable.

Here is the EEOC (U.S.) definition of sexual harassment: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-sex.cfm

The basic rule, now, is to remember that you are in a professional environment.

Here's AT&T's employee policy re sexual harassment, which was a pretty big deal when they issued it back in the 80s: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/09/business/archives-of-business-sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace-at-t-policy.html

[richardp]

With this Brand New guy, idk. I guess it's nice that he said he's been going to therapy, but still, what he did was so fucking extreme. Reading the details of it was stomach churning. We're talking about predatory behavior against minors. To me, that indicates something that's fucked up in his mind on a very deep level, and I don't think he can just apologize it away. I think it's natural that everyone is going to be horrified and feel like they'll never be able to enjoy that music ever again. And here's the thing, I get the feeling that you think people are being reactionary or maybe posturing when they claim they'll never listen to Brand New again (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth), but I doubt that's true. When I say I can't stand listening to R. Kelly's music after reading about all the creepy shit he's done, it's not like there's this part of me that secretly loves the music but I'm forcing myself to pretend I don't out of some obligatory sense of moral duty. I very genuinely can't listen to that music without thinking "Predator. This is the music of a predator. I am listening to a creepy predator singing about sex. Fuck." The thoughts are just pounding through my head. It's not some calculated, performative reaction. It's a visceral response that I truly can not help. And I think a lot of people who are saying they'll never listen to Brand New again are feeling the same way. You just know that post that Tony made in the Brand New thread came from the heart because he is genuinely disgusted. People can't just turn their brains off and pretend they don't know what they do. The connection has already been burned into their mind. They press play and hear the voice of a predator. And even though he's apologized and talked about getting therapy, I don't think that's enough to offset the magnitude of what's he's done and erase connotations that Brand New's music now holds in their minds.

All great points here. Earlier I was talking with my girlfriend about Jesse's allegations, and it starting veering into talking about how we both know Jesse Lacey isn't the only one who has now been known to have predatory behavior towards their fans in the pop-punk scene back in the day. Obviously we weren't just openly assuming every pop-punk musician has acted this way, but we could remember quite a few rumors and instances of allegations online about musicians in the scene. Pete Wentz was on record about dating an underage girl, and even wrote songs about it in Fall Out Boy, if I remember correctly. And we both could remember hearing instances of the singer of Taking Back Sunday doing things as well as dudes in New Found Glory (who, if I remember correctly actually had a band member get busted for child pornography), Lostprophets (obviously) and Say Anything, to name a few . So we started talking about how many other pop-punk bands engaged in the exact same type of behavior as Jesse. This whole scene was born on these young ass white dudes who all started around like 18 years old or so, and developed all these fanbases of suuuuper young girls. You put a bunch of insecure and unstable young dudes in a position of power like that, going out and feeling like they can literally do whatever the fuck they want with the world in their hands. As we were talking about it it started dawning on us how that whole genre is possible steeped in behavior just as bad. So again, we started discussing like, is it the nature of the scene and being so young with no consequences that drove him to the behavior? Or was there a much much deeper underlying issue underneath the surface.

Like has been said countless times throughout our discussion, there are just so many extremely hard and uncomfortable questions that you have to confront when trying to wrap your head around something like that.

[october_midnight]

Val Kilmer (with his kids) speaks for the first time on camera since his tracheal surgery. (https://consequenceofsound.net/2017/12/val-kilmer-reveals-how-throat-cancer-changed-him-in-first-on-camera-interview-since-trachea-surgery-watch/)

[NotoriousTIMP]

Val Kilmer (with his kids) speaks for the first time on camera since his tracheal surgery. (https://consequenceofsound.net/2017/12/val-kilmer-reveals-how-throat-cancer-changed-him-in-first-on-camera-interview-since-trachea-surgery-watch/)

Man, that was somewhat difficult to watch (I'm a big fan of his and his voice), but at the same time I'm glad he's on the road to recovery.

[thevoid99]

Neil Diamond has Parkinson's and is now officially retired from touring: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/diamond-parkinsons-retires-touring-52536875?cid=social_twitter_abcn

[october_midnight]

Stan Lee rushed to hospital in serious condition with an irregular heartbeat. NOOOOOOOO.

[Conan The Barbarian]

Stan Lee rushed to hospital in serious condition with an irregular heartbeat. NOOOOOOOO.

He is in stable condition

[october_midnight]

Just saw...thank fuck!

[kel]

what the fuck is going on with rose mcgowan?

[thevoid99]

what the fuck is going on with rose mcgowan?

I think it's that time of the month...

OK, that was a joke.

Honestly, I think she's gotten this idea of being a crusader but associating with a channel that caters to the lowest common denominator isn't going to help her cause.

[kel]

she went on a bizarre tirade at a barnes and noble, aimed at a trans woman. then went on colbert and seemed so ... off.

[thevoid99]

she went on a bizarre tirade at a barnes and noble, aimed at a trans woman. then went on colbert and seemed so ... off.

So, she's now become a self-righteous whack-job. Didn't she and Trent had a thing for a while?

[Swykk]

No. She dated Marilyn Manson during the Mechanical Animals period (1998 or 99).

She is 1000000000000% correct about suits, though. Whomever came up with the status centered concept of wearing them was a fucking asshole that was comprised of 20% substance and 80% bullshit presentation.

She has not had things easy. Grew up in a cult as you saw (I had a big crush on her after seeing The Doom Generation in 1997 or 98 and did some research/read/saw interviews).

Her cause is good (she means well) and yeah, she’s damaged as a result of what she’s been through. I would be a hypocrite (not to mention wrong) to attack her.

[kel]

No. She dated Marilyn Manson during the Mechanical Animals period (1998 or 99).

She is 1000000000000% correct about suits, though. Whomever came up with the status centered concept of wearing them was a fucking asshole that was comprised of 20% substance and 80% bullshit presentation.

She has not had things easy. Grew up in a cult as you saw (I had a big crush on her after seeing The Doom Generation in 1997 or 98 and did some research/read/saw interviews).

Her cause is good and yeah, she’s damaged as a result of what she’s been through. I would be a hypocrite (not to mention wrong) to attack her.

did you watch the footage from her barnes and noble meltdown? or her corbert interview? apparently she's called off all of her future engagements.

i saw her q&a, thought the confrontation was uncomfortable, but not without provocation. she just took it too far. i whole heartedly support her cause, but i don't know if she's in okay shape mentally to be doing appearances like that.

[Swykk]

She’s booked for Real Time on Friday.

Saw Colbert and it wasn’t that bad. Didn’t see the Barnes and Noble thing.

[WorzelG]

Is there some irony in Rose McGowan having been damaged by growing up in a cult and then starting her own Rosearmy cult? To be honest I find it a bit disturbing. Also I really want Weinstein and his enablers to face actual consequences for their actions rather than just losing a career and I think she is harming the cause by making people just totally associate her with it, when many women are involved

[allegro]

I saw her on The View. I feel bad for her, she has some serious emotional stuff going on right now.

[playwithfire]

Yeah, agreed. Like, she has some deeply problematic views, and that's bad, but she's also clearly in need to support and help for her mental health. It's sad.

[allegro]

Yeah, agreed. Like, she has some deeply problematic views, and that's bad, but she's also clearly in need to support and help for her mental health. It's sad.

She’s been through hell.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-army-of-spies

[playwithfire]

Yeah, I remember when that article came out. Also like, getting positioned as a "figurehead" of sorts when what she needs is to heal, and then like, her probably also wanting the validation that came from that, and, ugh. It's just rough. Sure, she has some incredibly wrong and shitty opinions about trans people and does white feminist bullshit. But like, she needs help. It's sad.

[playwithfire]

Man, so, weird as fuck update to this that I can't go into much detail over because the NYC queer community is a small place, but it turns out that the woman who Rose flipped out over and I have a couple of shared connections. Since she's been accused of sexual assault by like, multiple people, that's concerning, but I don't think I'm in a position to really do much. They're pretty widespread already. Sexual assault accusations within tiny communities are always a mess. :(

[allegro]

ROSE was accused of sexual assault? Or a woman Rose has been “flipping out” over?

[playwithfire]

The latter. I have no idea how much of it is gross alt-right TERF bullshit. It's super weird and shitty. There's also some fairly damning stuff in there but it's being shared by like transphobic assholes. It sucks.

[allegro]

Oh, so it's, like, a real thing but being used in the wrong way to promote the wrong thing.

Regarding Rose (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/02/05/after-hurling-abuse-at-transgender-woman-rose-mcgowan-blames-conspiracy-to-discredit-her/): I don't think the world insisting on labeling people who have been sexually assaulted is really helping anybody right now, either. I know that labels help people with various causes but sometimes labels divert people with their own traumas and they just help to further divide instead of heal. Rose is still full of anger and hate and rage, and maybe her movement is fueled by that, and maybe people need to understand that? Her entire career was destroyed by one person, deliberately. It wasn't fair, and she's literally obsessed with it and I guess I can't really blame her. Do I think it's healthy? No. But can I blame her for trying to help others from being a victim, too? No. Do I think that's her only motive? No. Do I sit around thinking about Rose? No. But am I going to chase her around at book fairs hurling questions at her to bait her? No.

There is going to be a lot of feminist/trans/cis-women clashes for a long time until it's worked out, that's a given, because females have been suffering as women for a long long time and it's like a lot of feminists have been wearing hair shirts and are, like, now saying "hey, fuck, we've been treated like shit, here and in lots of other countries since the beginning of time, and if you want our sympathy you got it but when you join our club then welcome to the club of being treated like shit, it's why we have a club in the first place." Rose has her own way of dealing with things right now that's really far from any "official" feminist stance on anything, and really there isn't any official feminist stance on anything. There really never was. And feminists have been fighting with various groups (including gay guys) since the beginning of feminism. I don't know that it's ever really gonna change, either. It's like the in-fighting between gays and lesbians, and how the "LGBs" don't really get all that excited about protecting the Ts, it's just typical territorial "live in my shoes" suffering stuff. I think this will take a lot of time, this stuff doesn't get worked out overnight. Relatively speaking, even the woman's movement is pretty new.

And because Rose is still REALLY fucking paranoid, having been arrested at the airport before the LAST Women's march for having cocaine when she swears she doesn't DO cocaine, that she only smokes pot, and that somebody (meaning WEINSTEIN) was behind the whole thing, and she now seems to believe that pretty much every thing she does has some kind of conspiracy behind it against her. Which may or not be true, I don't know.

But, yes, Rose is obviously emotionally damaged and is a walking wounded person and I don't think she should be as out there dealing with this stuff as much as she is, and I feel bad for her. She is having some kind of emotional break right now, and it's not going to turn out well unless she steps away for a little while.

There is so much crazy shit going on right now, I just wanna wake up in about 20 years and pretend it was a nightmare and wake up in Shangri La.

[october_midnight]

Amazon officially fires Jeffrey Tambor from 'Transparent'. (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jeffrey-tambor-officially-fired-transparent-wake-harassment-claims-1085236)

They apparently finished their investigation in to the accusations and found them to be credible.

[october_midnight]

Director Kevin Smith suffers massive heart attack. (https://www.facebook.com/YesThatKevinSmith/photos/a.77596326929.88348.6985046929/10155051695906930/?type=3&theater)

Damn, almost lost another great one.

[october_midnight]

Rick Ross apparently on life support. (https://www.bet.com/music/2018/03/02/rick-ross-hospitalized-pneumonia.html?linkId=48762568)

NOT THE BAWSE...

[allegate]

Director Kevin Smith suffers massive heart attack. (https://www.facebook.com/YesThatKevinSmith/photos/a.77596326929.88348.6985046929/10155051695906930/?type=3&theater)

Damn, almost lost another great one.
https://twitter.com/Delivery_Dan/status/969460703978438656

[mfte]

Rick Ross apparently on life support. (https://www.bet.com/music/2018/03/02/rick-ross-hospitalized-pneumonia.html?linkId=48762568)

NOT THE BAWSE...

Heard he is ok now. He lost a lot of weight. The internet thinks he was cloned.

[onthewall2983]

https://twitter.com/Delivery_Dan/status/969460703978438656

Got to admit I think it's funny, and I guess Kevin himself liked it too.

[neorev]

Damn, I wish Jas Shaw the best and hope he beats this...

Simian Mobile Disco cancel tour after Jas Shaw is diagnosed with rare disease
http://www.nme.com/news/music/simian-mobile-disco-cancel-tour-after-jas-shaw-is-diagnosed-with-rare-disease-2274364

[Jord]

Nickelodeon parts ways with Dan Schneider following abuse rumours:

http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/nickelodeon-producer-possibly-given-s7-million-pay-out-amid-abuse-rumors-news.46651.html

I know rumours have swirled around for years regarding this guy, and are fucked up. He did however mastermind a lot of the cornerstone TV shows of my youth, so it's extra screwed reading these reports. They say it might lead to a Weinstein 2.0

[thevoid99]

Nickelodeon parts ways with Dan Schneider following abuse rumours:

http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/nickelodeon-producer-possibly-given-s7-million-pay-out-amid-abuse-rumors-news.46651.html

I know rumours have swirled around for years regarding this guy, and are fucked up. He did however mastermind a lot of the cornerstone TV shows of my youth, so it's extra screwed reading these reports. They say it might lead to a Weinstein 2.0

"Sorry about your mom Ricky". I also heard about the fact that he always yelled at the kids and shit. He was an asshole.

[Frozen Beach]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/arianelange/john-kricfalusi-ren-stimpy-underage-sexual-abuse?utm_term=.eaQor94rZ#.rwRyjqAja (https://www.buzzfeed.com/arianelange/john-kricfalusi-ren-stimpy-underage-sexual-abuse?utm_term=.eaQor94rZ#.rwRyjqAja)

Not surprised. Guy has always been a creep.

[Dryalex12]

Ted Nugent....please do us all a big favor

Go fuck yourself

[wizfan]

Damn, I wish Jas Shaw the best and hope he beats this...

Simian Mobile Disco cancel tour after Jas Shaw is diagnosed with rare disease
http://www.nme.com/news/music/simian-mobile-disco-cancel-tour-after-jas-shaw-is-diagnosed-with-rare-disease-2274364

Oh, fuck. I'm a fan, and I've seen them live (they were friggin' excellent). Hope for the best, too.

[miss k bee]

Morrissey confirms arsehole status



https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/apr/17/morrissey-denounces-halal-meat-as-evil-attacks-theresa-may-diane-abbott-sadiq-khan-isis-for-britain (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/apr/17/morrissey-denounces-halal-meat-as-evil-attacks-theresa-may-diane-abbott-sadiq-khan-isis-for-britain)

[thevoid99]

Morrissey confirms arsehole status



https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/apr/17/morrissey-denounces-halal-meat-as-evil-attacks-theresa-may-diane-abbott-sadiq-khan-isis-for-britain (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/apr/17/morrissey-denounces-halal-meat-as-evil-attacks-theresa-may-diane-abbott-sadiq-khan-isis-for-britain)

I remember the time he insulted David Bowie a long time ago after opening for Bowie in late '95/early '96 or something and said Bowie was more about business than music (not exactly true) and shit. If I ever come across Morrissey, I'd like to kick him in the nuts and say "that's for Bowie you wanker".

[elevenism]

It looks like the Kanye West robot is malfunctioning again. It's tweeting pro trump messages.
I think the need to come get it and take it to the "hospital" and reprogram it.
:p

[october_midnight]

Well this definitely does not look good.

Lead singer Scott Hutchinson of the band Frightened Rabbit is now missing after sending out two troubling tweets. (https://pitchfork.com/news/frightened-rabbits-scott-hutchinson-reported-missing/?mbid=social_facebook)

[allegro]

Well this definitely does not look good.

Lead singer Scott Hutchinson of the band Frightened Rabbit is now missing after sending out two troubling tweets. (https://pitchfork.com/news/frightened-rabbits-scott-hutchinson-reported-missing/?mbid=social_facebook)

Oh, no. :-(

[Louie_Cypher]

rally good jre https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB9JHwzzyX4
-Louie

[october_midnight]

Well this definitely does not look good.

Lead singer Scott Hutchinson of the band Frightened Rabbit is now missing after sending out two troubling tweets. (https://pitchfork.com/news/frightened-rabbits-scott-hutchinson-reported-missing/?mbid=social_facebook)

Fuckssakes...I'll post it in the thread I really didn't want to...

[october_midnight]

Eight women accuse Morgan Freeman of sexual harrassment. (https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/entertainment/morgan-freeman-accusations/index.html)

[Louie_Cypher]

i would find his deposition hilarious, not to cast judgement in any direction but, i can't do impressions but, the young black man is Hollywood, seeks the white pussy and will attempt to get it by what ever means.
-Louie

[elevenism]

Eight women accuse Morgan Freeman of sexual harrassment. (https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/entertainment/morgan-freeman-accusations/index.html)
Ok.
With this one, at this point, I think he might have trouble reading social cues or something; as in, he maybe thought he was flirting with these women.
Obviously, admittedly, I REALLY don't want to accept this. I generally don't give these people the benefit of the doubt. (But I'm giving it to Freeman.) And I may well be wrong.

This one's gonna be interesting. I don't think I'm going to be the only one who is crying "does not compute" on this one.

The only person who I think is more unimpeachable than Freeman is Tom Hanks.

My prediction? True or not, for better or worse, people aren't gonna buy this or at least will downplay it.

[Piko]

If Hanks goes down, Hollywood truly is a rotten place to the core and there's no hope for them or anyone period.

[playwithfire]

Ok.
With this one, at this point, I think he might have trouble reading social cues or something; as in, he maybe thought he was flirting with these women.

I’m sure he was. Unwanted and/or persistent flirting in a workplace is literal sexual harassment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment

[elevenism]

I’m sure he was. Unwanted and/or persistent flirting in a workplace is literal sexual harassment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment
Quite naturally!
I'm sorry for the lack of clarity; pardon me.
I guess what I mean is more like that he thought they were BOTH flirting, or at least that his advances weren't unwanted.

This is what I mean by "trouble reading social cues."
I don't think there was anything sinister behind it
I would guess that the man is currently thinking "OH SHIT! I TOTALLY misread those situations! I'm so embarrassed!" vs. "Oh fuck, those dumb bitches told on me."

Of course playwithfire : I hope you understand what I meant now, but keep in mind- I said these things with a LOT of caveats. I DAMN sure could be TOTALLY wrong; I realize that.

BUT:
This is crossing into rough territory for me.
I see Freeman as a shining paragon of what it means to be a good human being and he's the first of the accused in that ballpark for me. He's up there with Tom Hanks, Nelson Mandela, Obama, and Saint Paul (seriously.)

[october_midnight]

Agreed. He's one of those 'surely his name will never get called'. See also: Clooney, Denzel, Tom Hanks...

[playwithfire]

I mean, I don't think this makes it okay but like... "winning women over" is totally, at least historically, a reinforced dynamic when it comes to flirting. It's gross and shitty, but like, Mad Men, etc, yeah? Freeman is 80. I don't know how much he cares if the other women were "interested" but what I would posit is that he likely thought his behavior was fine, especially given mentions in the article of him getting all weird when he was asked to stop. Just some gross "good old boy" shit.

And like, I think this is a great example of why this shit all exists on a spectrum. Freeman is not Weinstein. He still deserves to be called out. It's a different kind of bad.

The few remaining folks who would really hurt for me are Hanks, James Gunn, Bourdain, Trent, Rollins, I think.

[elevenism]

I mean, I don't think this makes it okay but like... "winning women over" is totally, at least historically, a reinforced dynamic when it comes to flirting. It's gross and shitty, but like, Mad Men, etc, yeah? Freeman is 80. I don't know how much he cares if the other women were "interested" but what I would posit is that he likely thought his behavior was fine, especially given mentions in the article of him getting all weird when he was asked to stop. Just some gross "good old boy" shit.

And like, I think this is a great example of why this shit all exists on a spectrum. Freeman is not Weinstein. He still deserves to be called out. It's a different kind of bad.

Good points here.
I think you're probably absolutely spot on.


As for me, I'm terrified of David Lynch being accused. He often seems a little overly affectionate with his actresses. But at the same time, they seem to ADORE him and often work with him repeatedly.
Still, I've worried about him being accused.
Trent: dear god, no, that can't happen. That would create a fucking existential crisis for me.

And Hanks: dear god, is there ANYONE who doesn't like him?
Him turning out to be some sort of predator would take away all of my remaining faith in humanity.

Hell, this Morgan Freeman business is bad enough.

[theimage13]

I mean, I don't think this makes it okay but like... "winning women over" is totally, at least historically, a reinforced dynamic when it comes to flirting. It's gross and shitty, but like, Mad Men, etc, yeah? Freeman is 80. I don't know how much he cares if the other women were "interested" but what I would posit is that he likely thought his behavior was fine, especially given mentions in the article of him getting all weird when he was asked to stop. Just some gross "good old boy" shit.

The problem with rationalizing it this way is that many, many, many people STILL teach the lesson of "if at first you don't succeed, just keep trying even harder to win someone over" instead of "if at first you don't succeed, respect that decision and move on with your life". So reducing it to being less of a problem because that's the climate he grew up in means reducing it for pretty much everyone who engages in that behavior, regardless of age. Just go see a new movie or watch a current sitcom. "Keep trying" is still the predominant mantra told to men when they get turned down. Until that changes on a massive cultural level - which I think will take decades, sadly - using that as an excuse to be disrespectful to people just doesn't work.

[theimage13]

And Hanks: dear god, is there ANYONE who doesn't like him?.

A colleague walked by today and mentioned the Freeman thing. When I said "who's next, Tom Hanks?" he just said "yeah, but I wouldn't mind".

I stared at him.

He just looked at me and said "what? Fuck Tom Hanks."

I'm usually anti-death penalty, but that kid needs the chair.

[playwithfire]

The problem with rationalizing it this way is that many, many, many people STILL teach the lesson of "if at first you don't succeed, just keep trying even harder to win someone over" instead of "if at first you don't succeed, respect that decision and move on with your life". So reducing it to being less of a problem because that's the climate he grew up in means reducing it for pretty much everyone who engages in that behavior, regardless of age. Just go see a new movie or watch a current sitcom. "Keep trying" is still the predominant mantra told to men when they get turned down. Until that changes on a massive cultural level - which I think will take decades, sadly - using that as an excuse to be disrespectful to people just doesn't work.

Oh, I'm absolutely not rationalizing it or saying it's "less of a problem." Just because something is explainable doesn't mean it's excusable, but it's absolutely a datapoint. In fact, I'd say that a continuous problematic part of discussions around this is that people frame this behavior as surprising or "acting out" when the fact is that culturally, this behavior is supported and systemic. Societally, while we're certainly evolving, this shit is normalized and men get tons of messaging that supports this kind of behavior and that absolutely was even more extreme years ago (see the slow push to outlaw marital rape, etc.).

To frame men being guilty of harassment and an abuser as "wow, didn't see this coming" is dismissing how commonplace and pathological these sets of behaviors are. Similarly, it's important to allow for a spectrum when it comes to how we deal with this shit because otherwise, we can't effectively reckon with how this shit happens and how we change, if the ruler by which we measure only allows for the most extreme of violations. That shit allows us to distance ourselves from the fact that we're all so often complicit in how fucked these dynamics are, and the need for thorough changes in how we relate to this.

Elevenism insinuated that he hoped Freeman may have meant well or thought his behavior was reciprocal (correct me if I interpreted that wrong, elevenism), to which I'd say, I'm sure that's possible. That's not *rationalizing it* any more than it's rationalizing the way white people in the south thought it was normal and okay to have black household servants. Positive intent can still be incredibly harmful, and is often cemented in systemic oppression.

I'm surprised, given my post history and the fact that we occupy enough threads together, that you interpreted my post that way.

[onthewall2983]

Good points here.
I think you're probably absolutely spot on.


As for me, I'm terrified of David Lynch being accused. He often seems a little overly affectionate with his actresses. But at the same time, they seem to ADORE him and often work with him repeatedly.
Still, I've worried about him being accused.
Trent: dear god, no, that can't happen. That would create a fucking existential crisis for me.

And Hanks: dear god, is there ANYONE who doesn't like him?
Him turning out to be some sort of predator would take away all of my remaining faith in humanity.

Hell, this Morgan Freeman business is bade enough.

The whole business with Pete Townshend 15 years ago toughened me up to the fact that my heroes are as vulnerable to being pulled down in the shit (whether it's deserved or not) as anyone else. He was ultimately proven innocent of anything beyond the very stupid mistake of giving his bank information to the rotten people he had hoped to take down himself.

[elevenism]

The whole business with Pete Townshend 15 years ago toughened me up to the fact that my heroes are as vulnerable to being pulled down in the shit (whether it's deserved or not) as anyone else. He was ultimately proven innocent of anything beyond the very stupid mistake of giving his bank information to the rotten people he had hoped to take down himself.
Yeah I hear that.
I kind of try to separate the artist from the work as a rule.
I went to see type o negative when I was like 16 or 17 and they kept trying to get my girlfriend and her friend backstage, without me of course.
Of course, the band may not have known they were underage, but I have a feeling that they wouldn't have cared.

[playwithfire]

Sleeping with underage women was once suuuuuper normalized to a degree that we don't acknowledge now, I think. Like, people got so mad that Bowie slept with an underage groupie (and let's be real, there were definitely multiple instances of shit like that) but they dismiss that... so did Iggy Pop, so did lots of people. Is it okay? Fuck no. Was it considered socially acceptable to a greater degree then, than it is now? Yes.

[october_midnight]

Something's definitely not right with Stan Lee. (http://comicbook.com/comics/2018/05/31/stan-lees-twitter-account-has-been-scrubbed-of-almost-all-of-its/)

[polski]

I remember reading about what was essentially a coup over Lee's estate, that his caring longterm assistant/right hand guy was canned and the person now running his day-to-day life doesn't have his interests at heart.

[Maximilian]

If you're a nearly a century old and start losing your faculties, there are people willing to step in and take advantage. It's nothing new, but sad to see for someone as brilliant and imaginative as Stan Lee.

[Space Suicide]

Courtney Love is at it again

https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/8458718/courtney-love-lawsuit-frances-bean-cobain-ex-husband-sam-lutfi

[Vertigo]

Jesus. Anyone know anything about this Sam Lutfi guy?

[Jon]

Jesus. Anyone know anything about this Sam Lutfi guy?

A little gossip, a little chat...

He's a leech. Apparently preys on "unstable" women: Britney Spears, Amanda Bynes, and this.

[october_midnight]

Something's definitely not right with Stan Lee. (http://comicbook.com/comics/2018/05/31/stan-lees-twitter-account-has-been-scrubbed-of-almost-all-of-its/)

And it continues... he's now filed a restraining order against his business manager. (http://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/06/13/stan-lee-restraining-order-keys-morgan-marvel-studios/)

[ickyvicky]

Poor Kurt is rolling in his grave

[Swykk]

Add Chris Hardwick to the list. This is painful.

https://medium.com/@skydart/rose-colored-glasses-6be0594970ca

[october_midnight]

No fucking way. Uuuuuuggghhh....

[ltrandazzo]

I think Dana says it best here to sum up my long term feelings about Chris Hardwick -
1007613933643972608

[Swykk]

I enjoyed Midnight (a decent for what it was show that gave comedians a bit of a spotlight) but moreover, appreciated that he built Nerdist. I couldn’t give less of a shit about The Walking Dead, a poorly written shit show, so it’s pretty uninteresting seeing people talk about it.

I thought he was a good dude but was obviously very wrong.

I hesitate to head in this direction because to be perfectly honest, I don’t know the definitive answer and know some folks will attack but fuck it, I have always been willing to be open here, so:

Are there levels to this? Can some people (Dan Harmon comes to mind immediately), be forgiven if they acknowledge the huge mistakes made and pledge to be better moving forward? There was no sexual assault involved with Harmon and the person he wronged (former Community writer Megan Ganz) accepted his apology so I accepted that result too as a way forward.

I will never give Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein the same consideration. Sounds like Hardwick is pretty deep into No Forgiveness territory. What about Louis CK? He exposed himself to several female comedians and denied it for years despite this being the worst kept secret. He did apologize and disappear, but who knows if he will return. I’m leaning heavily toward, “No Forgiveness” but I also haven’t gotten rid of my stand up DVDs or Louie seasons 1 and 2. I haven’t watched them since but I think I needed this challenge to what I thought was a solid moral compass. What about Aziz Ansari? That’s a more complicated situation.

I have taken to looking at my own life and decisions as a result.

Listen, I’ve lost friends. Cut people out of my life for what I still think are valid reasons but I’m also still very shaken by those choices. How long before it’s just me? And I’m not perfect by any stretch but...I don’t know anymore.

So I am asking for help. For perspectives.

[playwithfire]

I think what Aziz did, provided he makes positive change, is something I can move past with him. I think it was wrong, and I think it was assault, but I think many, many men have probably done something similar at some point. That's what I found so fucking frustrating about the Aziz thing, how normal it was kept people from realizing it was wrong. But like, we're not going to get anywhere if our only options are to decide someone is a monster or to excuse their behavior. There's so much shit between those two points.

I'd recommend you read a bit about restorative justice to see some paths forward for people who did awful things, but where it seems like parties involved can make a change. Also, I don't know if you talk to a therapist but there are some great apps for that these days. I think you struggle really hard with stuff like this sometimes, and with your connections with folks, so it might be helpful?

[Swykk]

I do see a therapist but he’s an older guy. I think some peer perspectives would be helpful too. Sorry to derail the thread but didn’t know where to place it as it relates to these headlines.

[playwithfire]

I didn't find your post derailing! It just seems like you really struggle with this stuff sometimes, not just about this subject but like, worrying about how you treat people in general.

Here's a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice <---- though I know in NYC communities people are usually just inept about that shit and make it worse.

[Swykk]

There is pain and struggle in trying to be the best version of yourself possible. At least that’s the only reality I’ve known!

[ltrandazzo]

I think you have to look at a few factors here, especially in the instances of George Takei and Aziz Ansari regarding who you should cancel and who you should maybe press pause on before casting them aside. I mention the two of them intentionally and for the reasons below -

1. Both men have only had one accuser come forward about their behavior. Others like Weinstein, Spacey, Lauer, Louis CK, etc. have either had multiple accusers and/or multiple witnesses come forward to corroborate stories and claims.
2. In the case of George Takei, follow up interviews with the accuser yielded a changing story and interpretation of events. His accuser conceded that all he wanted was an apology for a night gone wrong. The claim about drugs was disputed by multiple medical experts since the accuser's claim about roofies didn't line up with the actual effects of roofies.
3. In the case of Aziz Ansari, you have the story of a man who crossed the line into sexual assault due to his misinterpretation of signals, even though the accuser's description of events would make it hard to understand why he received such signals. In the story itself, Aziz communicates an apology to the woman for his behavior and the way it made her feel. There has been zero reported follow up on this since the accusation came out. Side note: the writer at Babe.net did the accuser ZERO favors with the way they wrote the article and needed an editor badly because it had difficulty parsing out important details from insignificant ones.

I think Chris Hardwick is cancelled. Chloe details a long-term pattern of abuse that is sickening and all too familiar. She is also being corroborated by a few industry folks so expect the floodgates to open on Hardwick. Louis CK is cancelled because he tends to fall back on the Bill Clinton excuse of using the women he's helped prop up as a way to justify masturbating in front of them. He's plotting a comeback. Barf. Matt Lauer is cancelled solely because he had a fucking button installed in his office to lock the door from the outside. He's also plotting a comeback. Barf.

[bobbie solo]

I think the one reason Louis CK will persevere in his comeback unlike the others you mentioned is b/c his talent level is so high. How many people really give a shit about Chris Hardwick and Matt Lauer? WHat is so great about what they do? Nothing.

What CK did was disgusting, but he will continue to fall on his sword over it when he comes back into the public eye, and the fact that he is a master of his crafts (stand-up, writing, directing) means he will get more chances and people will pay attention. And I don't think that's my fan bias talking.

Aziz is already out doing small gigs here in NYC. I don't think there's a chance at all that he won't be back and do fine.

[BRoswell]

I really like Chris Hardwick, so I'm already biased, and whatever my thoughts are on him now don't mean shit.

Okay, with that out there, here's what I think anyway: what his ex described sounds horrific, but having heard Hardwick describe himself and his behavior, I am having trouble seeing him as being that controlling of a person. I don't know him obviously. I'm just a fan who has listened to him a lot, so it's not as if I was owed 100% truth by him, but based on that, it is hard to see him as the person she describes. That said, it's obviously different when you are that intimate with someone, and she says she has physical proof of her claims, so it's hard to deny that she believes very strongly in what she has described. I would hope that, if it's true, he would be honest about it and receive the appropriate consequences, whatever they may be.

[hellospaceboy]

I think Chris Hardwick is cancelled. Chloe details a long-term pattern of abuse that is sickening and all too familiar. She is also being corroborated by a few industry folks so expect the floodgates to open on Hardwick. Louis CK is cancelled because he tends to fall back on the Bill Clinton excuse of using the women he's helped prop up as a way to justify masturbating in front of them. He's plotting a comeback. Barf. Matt Lauer is cancelled solely because he had a fucking button installed in his office to lock the door from the outside. He's also plotting a comeback. Barf.

Never underestimate how much white men can get away with :(
Look at Mel Gibson, we heard him tell his wife that "a pack of n...s will rape" her because she was dressed like a slut and there were multiple voicemails that were all creepy and terrifying. And he had that whole separate "jews started all the wars" DUI incident... only to have him sit front row at the Oscars a few years later as a nominee.

That said, I wouldn't be upset if Hardwick goes away for good.

[ltrandazzo]

Well, Nerdist is scrubbing Chris Hardwick from their website and is removing his content, so that's something. (https://news.avclub.com/nerdist-scrubs-chris-hardwick-from-its-website-pending-1826870327)

[ltrandazzo]

but having heard Hardwick describe himself and his behavior, I am having trouble seeing him as being that controlling of a person.

Not attacking you directly but this sentence and want to offer this counterpoint because I've seen this posted elsewhere - when you go into a job interview, do you talk about how you really are in person or do you talk yourself up as much as possible because you're trying to sell yourself in that situation?

There's a difference between a public persona and you.​

[BRoswell]

Not attacking you directly but this sentence and want to offer this counterpoint because I've seen this posted elsewhere - when you go into a job interview, do you talk about how you really are in person or do you talk yourself up as much as possible because you're trying to sell yourself in that situation?

There's a difference between a public persona and you.​

That's true. I'm at the point in my life where selling myself hasn't helped, so I do try to be as truthful as possible, but that's just me. Obviously a lot of people sell others on who they are without REALLY revealing themselves. I would hate for that to be the case here, but if that is THE truth, then I would have to accept it.

[Boots]

So tired of hearing about the Kardashians. They're the reason I don't buy magazines anymore. They ruined CNN, Rolling Stone and the NY Times for me. They pay publications and blogs to write about them. Every time you see an article about the Kardashians, it's actually an advertisement. I wish this stupid family would just go away already. Their 15 minutes of fame was up 5 years ago. No class. No talent. No education. Famous for nothing.

[thevoid99]

So tired of hearing about the Kardashians. They're the reason I don't buy magazines anymore. They ruined CNN, Rolling Stone and the NY Times for me. They pay publications and blogs to write about them. Every time you see an article about the Kardashians, it's actually an advertisement. I wish this stupid family would just go away already. Their 15 minutes of fame was up 5 years ago. No class. No talent. No education. Famous for nothing.

I think 15 minutes was too much for them to begin with. I don't even think they're human. I consider them to be something worse than shit.

[eachpassingphase]

So tired of hearing about the Kardashians. They're the reason I don't buy magazines anymore. They ruined CNN, Rolling Stone and the NY Times for me. They pay publications and blogs to write about them. Every time you see an article about the Kardashians, it's actually an advertisement. I wish this stupid family would just go away already. Their 15 minutes of fame was up 5 years ago. No class. No talent. No education. Famous for nothing.

I know this is petty in the grand scheme of things, but as somebody who loves makeup and beauty products I hate what the Kardashians have done to the beauty industry. Everybody wants the same look they have - from the heavy contour and overlined lips to more permanent things like lip fillers and butt implants.

On one hand, you do you. If you like that look then go for it. But a lot of that makeup style does NOT look good on everyday wear. That style of makeup was first popularized in theater and drag shows for a reason - because it's stage makeup technique.

Anyway, most makeup companies sell product with that look in mind now, and most makeup "gurus" on Youtube and Instagram use that look in all of their videos. I'm bored to death of it, and I'm ready for the industry to find something new to glom onto so we can move past the Kardashian look.

[Bachy]

So apparently this year has been so tough on Logan Paul that he’s going to make a documentary of it.

https://trib.al/JY6dDBz

https://media2.giphy.com/media/1456BVmlt3zRa8/giphy.gif

[Swykk]

eachpassingphase And that look is “Vapid.”

[eachpassingphase]

@eachpassingphase (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=6678) And that look is “Vapid.”

I don’t think the look indicates somebody is “vapid”. I just think it’s overdone to the point where I’m bored and want makeup companies to stop catering to the look.

[playwithfire]

@Swykk (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=285) Why vapid?
@eachpassingphase (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=6678) -- full coverage makeup just doesn't wear well on people having a normal day. I'm on board with the rest of the makeup style, contouring and heavy brows and cut creases and all that are cool but full coverage makeup just... doesn't hold up on a human with skin that moves in the world. I totally agree as far as full coverage + baking being "normalized."

Though I think lip fillers are pretty cool as long as they're done correctly -- they're temporary!

[Swykk]

I meant the Kardashians are vapid not those who use their products. Sorry I wasn’t very clear initially. I think they’re a bad example for humanity and I truly believe part of this anti-intellectualism “culture” we see these days was spotlighted if not birthed from reality television.

I am open to a different view but I have yet to hear one that makes sense.
The best I get is “You just don’t like reality TV.” It’s like they don’t hear or see the part where we ended up with a selfish vapid asshole reality TV guy as president. Or completely missed the cultural decline of the last 19 or so years. I remember Paris Hilton was kind of the first supposed hotttttt dumbass. It was never for me. Not just the shows but the people associated. See also: Jersey Shore.

I don’t have kids but I’d be bummed out if I had a daughter that idolized that family and thought less of herself if she didn’t look like they do (body wise). If it’s just the make up, fine I guess, I don’t know enough about make up to know if it sucks or not.

Are these reality stars adding anything good? I really do want to know. Not looking to fight.

[Volband]

I don't get the hatred towards Scarlett. An actress playing a role which is not her in real life; more news at 11. The putrid hate campaign she's getting is extremely ridiculous, and rather disingenuous coming from the group who otherwise murders you for the slightest criticism towards them.

[theruiner]

I don't get the hatred towards Scarlett. An actress playing a role which is not her in real life; more news at 11. The putrid hate campaign she's getting is extremely ridiculous, and rather disingenuous coming from the group who otherwise murders you for the slightest criticism towards them.

Completely disagree.

Here's the thing that most cis people seem to be missing here (at least as far as I've seen, because for some reason this has really ruffled the feathers of people outside of the trans community). Scarlett Johansson is a woman playing a man. Generally, in modern times, that's not something that's done. To use an example I saw that I think explains this perfectly, no one would be ok with Will Smith playing Wonder Woman. It would be absolutely ridiculous, right? Because Will Smith is a man and Wonder Woman is not and, more importantly, it would be a man taking a role from a woman, and there aren't very many huge Hollywood movies where women are the main character (I'm talking comic book movies and the like).

These same people have absolutely no problem with Scarlett Johansson playing a trans man. Why? Because to them it's interchangeable. A trans man, in their eyes, is just a woman playing dress up. A trans woman is just a man playing dress up. Who cares if a woman is playing a man?

THAT is the problem here. That's transphobic. And it's entirely inaccurate. And it perpetuates the idea that trans people aren't really the gender they say they are, that it's all just a big game of pretend. That is a HUGE issue that the trans community deals with literally on a daily basis. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen people try to invalidate trans people by saying we're just playing dress up. Yeah, you can call yourself a woman but you're not a REAL woman. When I hear cis people defending this, all I'm hearing is, yeah, we're kind of allies but not really. When it comes right down to it we don't understand your identity and we don't really think it's valid. And that's gross and wrong

On top of that, she's taking a role away from an already marginalized community that is barely represented as it is. As some trans actors themselves have pointed out, it would be different if trans people were up for cis roles. But they're not. Trans people don't play cis people. Ever. Trans people play trans people. And that's in the rare instance where a cis person hasn't nabbed the role for themselves.

[icklekitty]

Good points here.
I think you're probably absolutely spot on.


As for me, I'm terrified of David Lynch being accused. He often seems a little overly affectionate with his actresses. But at the same time, they seem to ADORE him and often work with him repeatedly.
Still, I've worried about him being accused.
Trent: dear god, no, that can't happen. That would create a fucking existential crisis for me.

And Hanks: dear god, is there ANYONE who doesn't like him?
Him turning out to be some sort of predator would take away all of my remaining faith in humanity.

Hell, this Morgan Freeman business is bad enough.


glad to be a Kylie fan :)

[elevenism]

glad to be a Kylie fan :)if you didn't quote the wrong post here, you've GOT to explain to me how these things are connected.

[icklekitty]

if you didn't quote the wrong post here, you've GOT to explain to me how these things are connected.


You’re worried about the people you like being revealed as sex offenders. Only one I gots to worry about is a tiny Australian.

[Swykk]

Completely disagree.

Here's the thing that most cis people seem to be missing here (at least as far as I've seen, because for some reason this has really ruffled the feathers of people outside of the trans community). Scarlett Johansson is a woman playing a man. Generally, in modern times, that's not something that's done. To use an example I saw that I think explains this perfectly, no one would be ok with Will Smith playing Wonder Woman. It would be absolutely ridiculous, right? Because Will Smith is a man and Wonder Woman is not and, more importantly, it would be a man taking a role from a woman, and there aren't very many huge Hollywood movies where women are the main character (I'm talking comic book movies and the like).

These same people have absolutely no problem with Scarlett Johansson playing a trans man. Why? Because to them it's interchangeable. A trans man, in their eyes, is just a woman playing dress up. A trans woman is just a man playing dress up. Who cares if a woman is playing a man?

THAT is the problem here. That's transphobic. And it's entirely inaccurate. And it perpetuates the idea that trans people aren't really the gender they say they are, that it's all just a big game of pretend. That is a HUGE issue that the trans community deals with literally on a daily basis. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen people try to invalidate trans people by saying we're just playing dress up. Yeah, you can call yourself a woman but you're not a REAL woman. When I hear cis people defending this, all I'm hearing is, yeah, we're kind of allies but not really. When it comes right down to it we don't understand your identity and we don't really think it's valid. And that's gross and wrong

On top of that, she's taking a role away from an already marginalized community that is barely represented as it is. As some trans actors themselves have pointed out, it would be different if trans people were up for cis roles. But they're not. Trans people don't play cis people. Ever. Trans people play trans people. And that's in the rare instance where a cis person hasn't nabbed the role for themselves.

The only thing I’d add is that the studio, producer(s) and casting agent(s) should receive the anger more than Scarlett. She could (and should) refuse the role but they’d probably just cast another well known face because well...Hollywood. Well crafted outrage toward the machine has a better chance of making a change than just going after an actor or actress.

[Volband]

Completely disagree.

Here's the thing that most cis people seem to be missing here (at least as far as I've seen, because for some reason this has really ruffled the feathers of people outside of the trans community). Scarlett Johansson is a woman playing a man. Generally, in modern times, that's not something that's done. To use an example I saw that I think explains this perfectly, no one would be ok with Will Smith playing Wonder Woman. It would be absolutely ridiculous, right? Because Will Smith is a man and Wonder Woman is not and, more importantly, it would be a man taking a role from a woman, and there aren't very many huge Hollywood movies where women are the main character (I'm talking comic book movies and the like).

These same people have absolutely no problem with Scarlett Johansson playing a trans man. Why? Because to them it's interchangeable. A trans man, in their eyes, is just a woman playing dress up. A trans woman is just a man playing dress up. Who cares if a woman is playing a man?

THAT is the problem here. That's transphobic. And it's entirely inaccurate. And it perpetuates the idea that trans people aren't really the gender they say they are, that it's all just a big game of pretend. That is a HUGE issue that the trans community deals with literally on a daily basis. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen people try to invalidate trans people by saying we're just playing dress up. Yeah, you can call yourself a woman but you're not a REAL woman. When I hear cis people defending this, all I'm hearing is, yeah, we're kind of allies but not really. When it comes right down to it we don't understand your identity and we don't really think it's valid. And that's gross and wrong

On top of that, she's taking a role away from an already marginalized community that is barely represented as it is. As some trans actors themselves have pointed out, it would be different if trans people were up for cis roles. But they're not. Trans people don't play cis people. Ever. Trans people play trans people. And that's in the rare instance where a cis person hasn't nabbed the role for themselves.
Every trans people were mistaken for the gender they are not for a certain period of their life. Ie. a transwoman who could finally dared/could/afford/etc to forego with changing her looks, life and papers, was once a bearded "dude" whom people might've laughed for saying that she is a she. That's why I believe that the role of a trans person is just as interchangeable as the role of a non-heterosexual one. Will Smith and Wonder Woman look nothing alike, but just by looking at someone, you can't perceive whether they are trans, nor are you aware of their sexuality. And this is a big thing.

I understand your justified issues with how the world downplays the whole trans movement, but it does no good if we are searching for an enemy at every corner. Assume Scarlett could play an amazing transgendered role in this movie and it would bring some more global understanding and maybe even acceptance from the general public. Would she or the directors be still criticized? I think it's great that movies with A-list actors are coming out which tackle the topic of transgenders.

The same rule applies backwards of course, trans people should be playing cis roles as well, because separation have never helped anyone. I wouldn't mind trans people playing cis roles in big movies, as long as they do a good job - but that's just true for every single actor and actress in every single movie.

[theruiner]

Every trans people were mistaken for the gender they are not for a certain period of their life. Ie. a transwoman who could finally dared/could/afford/etc to forego with changing her looks, life and papers, was once a bearded "dude" whom people might've laughed for saying that she is a she.

And?


That's why I believe that the role of a trans person is just as interchangeable as the role of a non-heterosexual one. Will Smith and Wonder Woman look nothing alike, but just by looking at someone, you can't perceive whether they are trans, nor are you aware of their sexuality.

First of all, sexuality and gender identity are completely different things. Second of all, nothing you said invalidates my argument. Women shouldn't be playing the role of trans men because, again, they're not men. What you're doing is perpetuating this idea that trans people aren't who they say they are, because apparently women can play trans men and men can play trans women and what does it matter because it's basically the same. It's not the same. At all.



I understand your justified issues with how the world downplays the whole trans movement, but it does no good if we are searching for an enemy at every corner.

Calling out a very real and pretty serious problem is not "looking for an enemy on every corner."


Assume Scarlett could play an amazing transgendered role in this movie and it would bring some more global understanding and maybe even acceptance from the general public. Would she or the directors be still criticized? I think it's great that movies with A-list actors are coming out which tackle the topic of transgenders.

Again, she is a woman, she is not a man. A woman ≠ a trans man. Continuing to argue that they do, or that they may not technically be the same thing but it's ok if we just all act like they are, is part of the problem.

Also, transgenders isn't a word. Transgender is an adjective. So you would say, transgender man or transgender woman, but not transgenders.

[sick among the pure]

Hi, trans man here, there is 0 reason to cast a woman to play a man in this instance. Ruiner has done a wonderful job explaining why this is a problem and why people are mad about the decision, and if you can't understand after reading those messages, my far less calm tone isn't going to help.
Should we be mad at the higher-ups who made this decision? Yes. And we are. We aren't blaming Scarlett for the casting decision. We're blaming her for taking the role. And if she didn't, and some other woman was cast, we would be blaming her instead.

The character is a man. Do not cast a woman to play the part. Hard stop.

[elevenism]

glad to be a Kylie fan :)
Oh THAT Kylie. I got you. :p

[elevenism]

Let me say first that Scarlet Johansson has done some other things that have rubbed me the wrong way. She still wears clothes designed by Harvey Weinstein 's wife. She publicly defends Woody Allen. And her response to this controversy wasn't very fucking endearing. So I think she knows EXACTLY what she's doing and doesn't care. At first I thought the backlash was a bit much, but upon looking into it, it is deserved.

Ok here is my question: would it be better if a cis man played the role? I know it wouldn't be as good as an actual transgender person, but would it be a little more acceptable?

Please understand that this isn't a rhetorical question and I'm not trying to make some clever point.

I'm trying to educate myself.

[ltrandazzo]

Let me say first that Scarlet Johansson has done some other things that have rubbed me the wrong way. She still wears clothes designed by Harvey Weinstein 's wife. She publicly defends Woody Allen. And her response to this controversy wasn't very fucking endearing. So I think she knows EXACTLY what she's doing and doesn't care. At first I thought the backlash was a bit much, but upon looking into it, it is deserved.

Ok here is my question: would it be better if a cis man played the role? I know it wouldn't be as good as an actual transgender person, but would it be a little more acceptable?

Please understand that this isn't a rhetorical question and I'm not trying to make some clever point.

I'm trying to educate myself.

There is a growing pool of Trans actors and actresses who would be perfect for this role. ScarJo being snippy that people are coming after her for taking this role is classic Becky behavior. No cis people at all - hire Trans performers.

[Volband]

Please understand that this isn't a rhetorical question and I'm not trying to make some clever point.
I feel we shouldn't apologize for asking questions. It's not some educate yourself, fool, everyone knows this topic.

Btw, Meryl Streep gave a standing ovation to Roman Polanski and some people are still starstruck with her. At the very least Scarlett can just simply dig those clothes, which is far less worse, than clapping a rapist.

[theruiner]

Ok here is my question: would it be better if a cis man played the role? I know it wouldn't be as good as an actual transgender
person, but would it be a little more acceptable?

Absolutely.

I think it would be best if a trans man got the part, because we are very underrepresented, which I had mentioned before, but, as Sick Among The Pure said, the character is a man. So he should be played by a man. Period. There would still be discussion and debate and probably some controversy but it would eliminate a huge chunk of the problem here.

[sick among the pure]

Let me say first that Scarlet Johansson has done some other things that have rubbed me the wrong way. She still wears clothes designed by Harvey Weinstein 's wife. She publicly defends Woody Allen. And her response to this controversy wasn't very fucking endearing. So I think she knows EXACTLY what she's doing and doesn't care. At first I thought the backlash was a bit much, but upon looking into it, it is deserved.

Ok here is my question: would it be better if a cis man played the role? I know it wouldn't be as good as an actual transgender person, but would it be a little more acceptable?

Please understand that this isn't a rhetorical question and I'm not trying to make some clever point.

I'm trying to educate myself.

Yes, if they insisted on casting a cis actor for the role, it should be a cis man as the character is a man. I'm not saying "they need to cast a trans actor for every trans role ever forever the end" because I know that's just not going to happen right now. If they are going to cast a cis actor, at least cast a fucking man to play the role of a man.

[elevenism]

I feel we shouldn't apologize for asking questions. It's not some educate yourself, fool, everyone knows this topic.


Yeah, but I just wanted to make clear that it WAS an actual question. And I didn't apologize.

Dude there's nothing wrong with asking people who feel personally affected by an issue about their thoughts on said issue. I think it's a good thing.

[Volband]

Yeah, but I just wanted to make clear that it WAS an actual question. And I didn't apologize.

Dude there's nothing wrong with asking people who feel personally affected by an issue about their thoughts on said issue. I think it's a good thing.
Yeah. I don't agree with their reasoning, but I got my answers, so at least I am aware now.

[theruiner]

I feel we shouldn't apologize for asking questions. It's not some educate yourself, fool, everyone knows this topic.

Btw, Meryl Streep gave a standing ovation to Roman Polanski and some people are still starstruck with her. At the very least Scarlett can just simply dig those clothes, which is far less worse, than clapping a rapist.
Oh, so we should give her a pass on causing harm to a marginalized community becase it's not as bad as rape? Wat.

[Volband]

Oh, so we should give her a pass on causing harm to a marginalized community becase it's not as bad as rape? Wat.
Never said that. Merely grabbed the opportunity to shed some light on a hypocrisy. It's not either or.

[thevoid99]

Honestly, who cares who plays a transgender? It's just a film role. I can't believe people are getting angry over Scarlett Johansson playing a transgender man. Honestly, it's just a role. If they can get a man to play that part, fine. Still at the end of the day, it's a business. If you want people to watch a movie about a transgender pimp, get whoever you can that can bring a wide audience. I honestly don't know why people are really upset over this. If they can get a transgender person to play that role with a top-notch director with a certain pedigree. Fine. Stop with this political correctness bullshit. I'm fucking tired of you SJWs acting like whiny little bitches.

[theruiner]

I'm fucking tired of you SJWs acting like whiny little bitches.
Can I guess that you're cis? So you're telling people who are in a marginalized community that we're being "whiny little bitches"? You privilege is showing.

[thevoid99]

Can I guess that you're cis? So you're telling people who are in a marginalized community that we're being "whiny little bitches"? You privilege is showing.

What the fuck is a cis? Honestly, I can't keep up with all of this shit. Transgender, transsexual, cisgender? What's the fucking difference? It's like everyone saying they're this and that. Fuck this 21st Century correctness mentality.

[ltrandazzo]

What the fuck is a cis? Honestly, I can't keep up with all of this shit. Transgender, transsexual, cisgender? What's the fucking difference? It's like everyone saying they're this and that. Fuck this 21st Century correctness mentality.

Honestly, I can't facepalm you enough for these posts.

You're asking a community to relegate themselves to a "trend" and tell them to shut up and deal with it when a straight white female decides to take on a film role as a man who started off as a woman. Get out of here with that nonsense.

[theruiner]

What the fuck is a cis? Honestly, I can't keep up with all of this shit. Transgender, transsexual, cisgender? What's the fucking difference? It's like everyone saying they're this and that. Fuck this 21st Century correctness mentality.

Are you transgender? If not then you're cis.

Honestly, you complain about us whining but the only person I see having a meltdown in this thread is you. I'm so terribly sorry that the very real issues faced by trans people on a daily basis annoy you as a cis person. I can't even begin to imagine how hard that must be for you/ Here, have a tissue.

[thevoid99]

Honestly, I can't facepalm you enough for these posts.

You're asking a community to relegate themselves to a "trend" and tell them to shut up and deal with it when a straight white female decides to take on a film role as a man who started off as a woman. Get out of here with that nonsense.

I'm sorry but why do we have to label this and that? Weren't any of you the ones praising Bruce Jenner for being a woman or something when he hasn't done shit to support this community?

[theruiner]

Ok, first of all, it's Caitlyn Jenner and she. Secondly, do you also get pissed off at the label "straight" for heterosexuals?

[elevenism]

Goddamn thevoid99 . that's harsh talk.
these are your peers, man.

[Swykk]

What the fuck is a cis? Honestly, I can't keep up with all of this shit. Transgender, transsexual, cisgender? What's the fucking difference? It's like everyone saying they're this and that. Fuck this 21st Century correctness mentality.

Dude, you should try to keep up. I always try. I’m not always up on things and I don’t always do it correctly but if you don’t at least try and are so hateful toward something you don’t understand and don’t want to, you’re already the grouchy old man yelling at the kids on your lawn.

Please don’t be that guy. We’ve been friendly here for years.

[thevoid99]

Ok, first of all, it's Caitlyn Jenner and she. Secondly, do you also get pissed off at the label "straight" for heterosexuals?

No, it's Bruce. He/she will always be Bruce and we all know he changed his sex to avoid some manslaughter charge.

[sick among the pure]

No, it's Bruce. He/she will always be Bruce and we all know he changed his sex to avoid some manslaughter charge.


I’m at the gym right now so I don’t have the time to go off on how much of a fucking idiot you’re being right now. Do us both a favor and delete that dumbass bullshit before I get home and have the time to properly tear you several new ones.

oh, and suck my entire cock.

[Sarah K]

I'm so tired of this PC SJW BULLSHIT. If I am expected to refer to people with their correct gender pronouns, WHAT IS NEXT? Treating folks who have a different lived experience than me like people?! WHEN WILL IT STOP?!

[ltrandazzo]

No, it's Bruce. He/she will always be Bruce and we all know he changed his sex to avoid some manslaughter charge.

No, it's Caitlyn, and while I think she's generally short-sighted and kinda dumb, I still respect her name and her gender. It's common courtesy. Find some.

[elevenism]

DUDE! This is not the thevoid99 I've come to know here. What in the hell are you doing, man?
we all want to be treated with respect, to feel good about ourselves. And there are things that hurt and offend each of us.
And out of fucking nowhere, you are saying things that are hateful and cause hurt to, like I said, YOUR PEERS.

Why?

You're a liberal aren't you? A leftist?
And don't you have Latin blood? How would YOU feel if one of us started making nasty, racist comments about Hispanic folk? See, we wouldn't do that shit!

Why in the fuck are you doing this?
I'm genuinely shocked.

[marodi]

DUDE! This is not the @thevoid99 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=254) I've come to know here...

My feelings exactly. I don't know what going on but this is so not like the thevoid99 that I know and appreciate...

[elevenism]

My feelings exactly. I don't know what going on but this is so not like the @thevoid99 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=254) that I know and appreciate... is it possible that he's been hacked? I'm kind of stunned that he would even say SJW.

[eachpassingphase]

Honestly, who cares who plays a transgender? It's just a film role. I can't believe people are getting angry over Scarlett Johansson playing a transgender man. Honestly, it's just a role. If they can get a man to play that part, fine. Still at the end of the day, it's a business. If you want people to watch a movie about a transgender pimp, get whoever you can that can bring a wide audience. I honestly don't know why people are really upset over this. If they can get a transgender person to play that role with a top-notch director with a certain pedigree. Fine. Stop with this political correctness bullshit. I'm fucking tired of you SJWs acting like whiny little bitches.

People are frustrated by it because trans people have a hard enough time getting jobs. Not just in acting, but really everywhere. I googled a few minutes ago and the stats I'm seeing are really sad. Transgender folks have much higher rates of unemployment. So when influential art mediums like film choose to tell a story about a man who is trans and have an opportunity to hire a trans person for that role, it's insulting for them to choose a cisgendered woman. It's insulting to the trans community, it's insulting to the person who they are actually telling the story about too. It's not about "political correctness" or "SJW" anything - it's about being logical (story about a man who was trans? Hire a trans man to play the role, duh) but it's also about being gracious to a group of people who have been historically ignored at best and treated pretty viciously at worst.

To make the bite more painful - Hollywood makes a lot of money off the trends that the LGBT community set and the stories they tell, but it's unusual for that community to reap the financial benefits of their contributions to pop culture at large.

It doesn't harm you to learn about what other people deal with on a regular basis. Others speaking up out of concern for a marginalized group doesn't take anything from you. It doesn't cost anyone anything to be kind. That's all that's being requested here. Nobody is saying that we should cut Scarlett Johansson's head off - only that it was wrong that she got the role.

[sick among the pure]

No, it's Bruce. He/she will always be Bruce and we all know he changed his sex to avoid some manslaughter charge.


Ok, so you want to send me a PM about how I'm talking about things I don't know about, but you think I'll just let this shit slide? Ok then kiddo, let's play that game.
Tell me about how transitioning somehow negates a murder charge. Tell me all about how going through the years of paperwork beyond the medical things, tell me how in all that paperwork somehow makes it so you can get away with murder. Or fraud. Or any criminal act. You know we have to have our entire past combed through before the government will even look at our case? You know if we even have anything on the books, that makes it 100x harder to move forward because they're paranoid as fuck about the idea that we may be doing this to deceive anyone (I was warned that by simply HAVING loans would make my name change take longer and I would have to fight harder because "maybe you're doing this to circumvent your loan"). Do you actually know a single god damn thing about what trans people go through in order to transition, let alone the reasons why? You want to talk about speaking "about things you don't fucking know"? Because that's literally what you've been doing in here. And we ALL called you out on your bullshit. And now you're pissed. Maybe take the opportunity to learn from it instead of lashing out like a little kid.

No matter how much you wine and cry and throw a tantrum, Caitlyn is Caitlyn. She is not Bruce. She is not "he". She is she. Nothing you can say will change that truth.
I don't like her. Honestly, I fucking hate her. But she is who she is.


You don't know why she transitioned, and your attitude here has proven you probably don't know why ANY of us do. I know nothing I say will actually get through to you, and at the end of the day, I'm really just doing this so everyone else can see how completely pathetic your tantrum here was.
Trans people are real, their identity is valid, their experience is one you don't want to understand and I am ok with that. If someone wants to understand, if they want to communicate, if they want to learn, ask anyone: I am more than happy to talk and educate and help. But when you go around pulling this shit I will hold nothing back and roast your ass because I have had to protect my brothers and sisters in the streets, so I sure as hell will stand up for them online. Even if I hate the person, you will not try that bullshit transphobic talk about her in here and not get called the fuck out.

[playwithfire]

Also, her name is legally Caitlyn so that is literally JUST transphobia backing up that insipid, tired statement.

Also also, dude, where the fuck did this come from?

[BRoswell]

I hate to say it, but something that people are missing when it comes to the whole ScarJo thing is that...well...she got cast because she's going to put asses in seats. That's fucked up, but until people start making stars out of transgender actors and going to see the films they're already in, Hollywood is going to continue to cast non-transgender people in those roles in order to get an audience. Think about it: how many transgender actors can you think of that also have a big audience behind them? The only one that comes to my mind right now is Laverne Cox, and even then, her audience isn't nearly as big as ScarJo's. It's easy to point to what she's doing and call it out, but if you're not going to see transgender actors in the films they're already in, then you're never going to see a transgender actor in a big role like that. Most actors had to work their way to the top, and transgender actors are no different, even if the climb is much more treacherous than the one cisgender actors have to do.

TL;DR - Start making transgender actors famous by supporting them in films they're in rather than lamenting a role they didn't get.

[sick among the pure]

TL;DR - Start making transgender actors famous by supporting them in films they're in rather than lamenting a role they didn't get.

While I agree with your post, this is much less about "they cast a cis person for a trans role" and much MUCH more about "they cast a woman to play a trans man". They literally said, to the actual human that the character is based off, that they see him as a woman.
That's the something that I think people are missing about this...

[BRoswell]

I understand that frustration as well, but my point still stands. The solution is not giving people grief about playing these roles, but supporting the people who could inevitably play those roles in the future. Even if she ends up quitting the role (which I doubt will happen), the problem is still there. In this day and age, it's easier for us to tear people down than to build up the people up who could solve it later on.

[icklekitty]

Oh THAT Kylie. I got you. :p

OH. I see where you went before. Haha (god no, not that other one)

[Archive_Reports]

https://nypost.com/2018/07/10/lesean-mccoy-accused-of-beating-girlfriend-in-horrific-photo/

[aggroculture]

Let me say first that Scarlet Johansson has done some other things that have rubbed me the wrong way.

She's also been shitty on Israel/Palestine: https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-scarlett-johansson-and-sodas

[ltrandazzo]

I understand that frustration as well, but my point still stands. The solution is not giving people grief about playing these roles, but supporting the people who could inevitably play those roles in the future. Even if she ends up quitting the role (which I doubt will happen), the problem is still there. In this day and age, it's easier for us to tear people down than to build up the people up who could solve it later on.

Hollywood casting agencies and production studios are the ones who can fix this, and they've been slow to make this happen. Getting angry about ScarJo teaming with the same director who did Ghost In The Shell (whose movie appropriated Japanese culture and ultimately bombed for doing so) for casting her and ignoring trans actors is how we make them fix it. Her PR response was garbage - invoking Jeffrey Tambor, a man a lot of us hate right now, as precedent for her doing this is completely tone def.

ScarJo has done three Woody Allen movies to try and get that Oscar nom and it. has. not. happened. She's a fucking Avenger - she's not doing this for money - she's doing this to try and get nominated for awards and with the Academy just recently welcoming in new members who are diverse, does she think she's going to get one now that the old white men have been diluted? Please.

Also - has anyone actually seen the man she's going to be portraying? She's gonna wear a fatsuit too because she's not putting on 80 lbs. for this role.

1014891036890533890

[ltrandazzo]

Well then.

1017835056407035904 (https://twitter.com/thr/status/1017835056407035904?s=21)

[sick among the pure]

Hopefully they replace her with, oh idk, a guy?

[theruiner]

Not going to lie, that kind of made my Friday.

[ltrandazzo]

Her statement was MUCH better than the one given after the casting announcement.
1017848622631698432

[theimage13]

Even if she ends up quitting the role (which I doubt will happen)

Well this post aged well ;)


In this day and age, it's easier for us to tear people down than to build up the people up who could solve it later on.

The problem I see is that even with tearing down barriers, it's still a slow build up to the solution. So if you tried to take the civil approach and promote positivity while just letting shitty things continue to happen in the meantime, that buildup would be so painfully slow that people alive today may never even see the payoff. Sometimes bad things just need to be torn down to make way for good. And in this particular instance, convincing Johansson to step down isn't really tearing anyone down - it's not like she's never going to work again and her life is ruined or anything like that. (I will concede that some people were super shitty to her, but let's be honest: that will always happen, even to the most unbelievably wonderful people, because there will always be assholes in the world.)

[icklekitty]

Her statement was MUCH better than the one given after the casting announcement.
1017848622631698432



Good. Hollywood’s many exposed rapists could learn a thing or two about humility from this statement.

[eachpassingphase]

The problem I see is that even with tearing down barriers, it's still a slow build up to the solution. So if you tried to take the civil approach and promote positivity while just letting shitty things continue to happen in the meantime, that buildup would be so painfully slow that people alive today may never even see the payoff. Sometimes bad things just need to be torn down to make way for good. And in this particular instance, convincing Johansson to step down isn't really tearing anyone down - it's not like she's never going to work again and her life is ruined or anything like that. (I will concede that some people were super shitty to her, but let's be honest: that will always happen, even to the most unbelievably wonderful people, because there will always be assholes in the world.)

This is a really good point. Progress is messy because people are messy and sometimes there is no way to right wrongs without somebody taking some heat. It's important as a society not to attack another person's dignity as a human being when they screw up and do something wrong, but I don't think that means people shouldn't be forceful and vocal when they see something wrong occurring.

It was the wrong move for ScarJo to be cast in that role and to accept that role. I don't want to ruin her life or anything (and I'm pretty sure dropping this role won't), but I don't think it's a mistake for people to speak up and to do so loudly. Too often calls for civility have been used like a gag in the mouths of people who would otherwise instigate change with their words, which is part of why people get so frustrated when somebody says "well you may have a point, but you should ask nicer."

[Harry Seaward]

Has Elon Musk lost his fucking mind?

[elevenism]

Has Elon Musk lost his fucking mind?I think he's just childishly angry because that guy suggested he stick a submarine up his ass.

[Vertigo]

Probably also symptomatic of being under even more stress than usual. It was an appalling thing to tweet though, and came just days after mentioning in an interview that he's aware he needs to tone down his Twitter outbursts.

Honestly - Tesla is one of my favourite things in the world, and the things Elon Musk has achieved are amazing. More than any other Silicon Valley pioneer I think he has a real claim to making the world a better place. But, I really don't like the way he conducts himself. By choosing Twitter as his chosen medium, at the expense of "Mainstream Media", being hugely boastful and occasionally quite nasty and classless on there, there's a definite hint of Donald Trump in him.

[theimage13]

Has Elon Musk lost his fucking mind?

No, this seems about par for the course for him.

[playwithfire]

I wish he didn't feel the need to elon must

[Harry Seaward]

No, this seems about par for the course for him.

Really? I feel like I don't remember him saying and doing so much stupid shit so publicly and loudly until relatively recently. Am I just noticing it more because I'm mad at him for dating Grimes?

[theimage13]

Really? I feel like I don't remember him saying and doing so much stupid shit so publicly and loudly until relatively recently. Am I just noticing it more because I'm mad at him for dating Grimes?


Probably. We're talking about the guy who once told his wife that if she were an employee, he would have fired her. He rants on twitter a lot, and by his own admission, recently said that he needs to tone it down. I'd love to look the other way because SpaceX is so fucking cool, but...as booksmart as he is, he's not the "smartest" guy in a lot of other ways.

[Harry Seaward]

What a cock. It just seemed especially stupid to call a dude who's been more or less considered a hero across the world lately a 'pedo.'

[theimage13]

https://slate.com/culture/2018/07/supergirl-casts-activist-nicole-maines-as-tvs-first-transgender-superhero.html

Hot off the whole ScarJo thing, we have less shitty casting announcements.

[Volband]

Elon is a damned tool. A genius, sure, but if you've seen that video about him and his (ex?) family, you'd understand that he's pretty close to the autistic spectrum.

And no talk about the James Gunn incident? I only heard it today that he was fired for his 10 year old tweets. I'm all for being trigger-happy with famous people who sexually abused or just even threatened others, but shit's becoming crazy. At least I don't have to wait for the newest season of Black Mirror, because I'm living in it.

[theimage13]

Elon is a damned tool. A genius, sure, but if you've seen that video about him and his (ex?) family, you'd understand that he's pretty close to the autistic spectrum.

And no talk about the James Gunn incident? I only heard it today that he was fired for his 10 year old tweets. I'm all for being trigger-happy with famous people who sexually abused or just even threatened others, but shit's becoming crazy. At least I don't have to wait for the newest season of Black Mirror, because I'm living in it.

What incident?

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1020229342549413890/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwte rm%5E1020229342549413890&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnet.com%2Fnews%2Fdisney-reportedly-fires-guardians-of-the-galaxy-director-james-gunn-over-tweets%2F

This is DISNEY we're talking about here. Have you seen the rules for people who work at the park? Super strict. They're one of the biggest companies in the world and go to extraordinary measures to make sure that their brand is clean. I've never even heard of James Gunn, but after some quick reading, here's my take: sounds like a nice guy, but the things publicly linked to his name are in extreme conflict with the rules that Disney sets out for their employees. He didn't fit the corporate code of conduct, so he was let go. If my company heard me making comments like that, I'd expect to be fired too. (Also, for those bad at math, 2012 was not ten years ago.)

This isn't some Black Mirror shit. This is a private company disciplining an employee whose public comments go against their clearly stated standards.

[BRoswell]

What incident?

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1020229342549413890/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwte rm%5E1020229342549413890&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnet.com%2Fnews%2Fdisney-reportedly-fires-guardians-of-the-galaxy-director-james-gunn-over-tweets%2F

This is DISNEY we're talking about here. Have you seen the rules for people who work at the park? Super strict. They're one of the biggest companies in the world and go to extraordinary measures to make sure that their brand is clean. I've never even heard of James Gunn, but after some quick reading, here's my take: sounds like a nice guy, but the things publicly linked to his name are in extreme conflict with the rules that Disney sets out for their employees. He didn't fit the corporate code of conduct, so he was let go. If my company heard me making comments like that, I'd expect to be fired too. (Also, for those bad at math, 2012 was not ten years ago.)

This isn't some Black Mirror shit. This is a private company disciplining an employee whose public comments go against their clearly stated standards.

Did you read the tweets from the guy who dragged those tweets back out into the light? (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-cernovich-james-gunn-fired_us_5b5265cce4b0fd5c73c570ac) You might be singing a different tune if you did.

And make no mistake about it: Disney was aware of those tweets. They hired Gunn specifically because of his previous work and his edgy sense of humor. The only reason they fired him was because they didn't want backlash from the alt-right community.

[Volband]

They're one of the biggest companies in the world and go to extraordinary measures to make sure that their brand is clean.
How come extraordinary measures did not uncover these tweets for which he has already publicly apologized for? Now, I'm not saying you can say anything if you apologize after, but Disney hired this guy knowing he was an idiot ~10 years ago, and when someone digs it up, the first thing they do is throwing him under the bus.

It's Black Mirrorish to me, because we live in a word, where you can just make someone unemployed and a public enemy by digging in their long past, since even a monopoly giant like Disney would just pretend they can't work with him anymore, than standing by him. Reminds me of S02 E06, where people on twitter were literally choosing which famous, albeit flawed person should die, and everyone was fine with it until it got turned against them.

[Maximilian]

How come extraordinary measures did not uncover these tweets for which he has already publicly apologized for? Now, I'm not saying you can say anything if you apologize after, but Disney hired this guy knowing he was an idiot ~10 years ago, and when someone digs it up, the first thing they do is throwing him under the bus.

It's Black Mirrorish to me, because we live in a word, where you can just make someone unemployed and a public enemy by digging in their long past, since even a monopoly giant like Disney would just pretend they can't work with him anymore, than standing by him. Reminds me of S02 E06, where people on twitter were literally choosing which famous, albeit flawed person should die, and everyone was fine with it until it got turned against them.

Kind of reminds me of when I supported Roseanne because I liked her show after she had only made one offensive tweet, but a lot of people here facepalmed me. She didn't get to make the apology rounds on talk shows, nope. She was just shitcanned into infinity.

[Swykk]

Being a racist (repeatedly making racist comments) , posting a picture of yourself dressed as Hitler, and then claiming it’s a joke is not the same as dirtbags (one of which is an actual rapist) digging up decade old bad joke tweets to which Disney reacts to by shitting their pants and making a rash decision WITHOUT considering the sources or that they knew of these tweets before (Gunn apologized a long time ago).

This is a false equivalency. Roseanne hung herself bit by bit. Gunn? Not so much.

[marodi]

Being a racist (repeatedly making racist comments) , posting a picture of yourself dressed as Hitler, and then claiming it’s a joke is not the same as dirtbags (one of which is an actual rapist) digging up decade old bad joke tweets to which Disney reacts to by shitting their pants and making a rash decision WITHOUT considering the sources or that they knew of these tweets before (Gunn apologized a long time ago).

This is a false equivalency. Roseanne hung herself bit by bit. Gunn? Not so much.

Indeed. And don't forget that Gunn took full responsibility for those old tweets and never tried to blame them on having taken Ambien or all the other shitty excuses Roseanne has come up with.

Also, see this: http://www.vulture.com/amp/2018/07/james-gunn-is-not-roseanne-and-disney-should-know-it.html

[Swykk]

Here’s Bobcat Goldthwait being awesome and correct: https://www.instagram.com/p/BljB2QzHF-C/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=5hudynrcsyjr

[thelastdisciple]

Here's a good one worth reading that i saw Dave Bautista post on his twitter feed.

About the James Gunn stuff: https://geekmom.com/2018/07/james-gunns-firing-exposes-double-standards-danger-in-punishing-the-past/

[BRoswell]

One thing I've noticed is that these alt-right fuckheads are smearing/attacking comedians and artists who have been very vocal in their opposition to them over the past few years. This is definitely not a coincidence. It's a coordinated effort to silence their critics.

[ryanmcfly]

Demi Lovato was reportedly hospitalized due to a suspected heroin overdose.

[Jinsai]

I read the James Gunn tweets... Look, I'll be the first to say I don't get the "magic" here with these Guardians movies, I don't give a shit, I frankly hated the first one and only saw a little of the other...

But his SUPER OFFENSIVE TWEETS sound like drunk sleepy tweets, with nothing to really get riled about here other than "dude, you're drunk, go home!"

ALSO< FUCK YES TO BOBCAT! that was fucking amazing!!!!!