CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media - Page 43

post #2101 of 4867
I'm not sure what people expected Parker to say in that interview. If he believes he's innocent, that means someone not only falsely accused him of rape, but is retroactively ruining his career from the grave. I wouldn't have warm feelings toward that person to say the least. Or if he's guilty he still has to stick to that narrative.
post #2102 of 4867
True. Though I wouldn't put past these Internet "journalists" thinking he'd burst into tears, raise his fists for cuffing and scream "God forgive me!"


Still, I'm firmly on the victim's side here.
post #2103 of 4867
I think everybody is on the side of people who are sexually abused. The issue is no one really knows what happened, so you have an art vs. the artist scenario...again. Where does your accountability as a viewer begin and end? Can art transcend all? Even potentially horrible, barbaric acts?
post #2104 of 4867
Those are all the right questions that I haven't seen anyone but you asking (no surprise, you're a smart dude) and I honestly don't know how to answer them.

At this moment I can't see myself watching the film.
post #2105 of 4867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

I think everybody is on the side of people who are sexually abused. The issue is no one really knows what happened, so you have an art vs. the artist scenario...again. Where does your accountability as a viewer begin and end? Can art transcend all? Even potentially horrible, barbaric acts?

I don't know why but I can disconnect from the artist when im watching art. I will see Birth of a Nation. I can watch a Polanski film and I like the Jeepers Creepers movies and we know for a fact both of those men are guilty. Yet I would be ok with both of them falling in a wood chipper. Now stand up comedy? Hmmm I don't know. That is a much more personal experience. I don't know which way I would fall if that happened to a stand up I like. I was never a fan of Cosby so I can't test my resolve there.

post #2106 of 4867
If I'm interested, nothing will stop me.
post #2107 of 4867

Whoa, whoa...what about the Jeepers Creepers movies?

post #2108 of 4867
NOTHING WILL STOP ME
post #2109 of 4867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post
 

Whoa, whoa...what about the Jeepers Creepers movies?

The director had sex with that boy from Clown House and I think he recorded it. 

post #2110 of 4867
Now, there's a Victor Silva film I definitely don't want to see.
post #2111 of 4867
that will stop me
post #2112 of 4867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

I think everybody is on the side of people who are sexually abused.

That's not really true though.  That's pretty much why people are so passionate and adamant about giving the victims more the benefit of the doubt than they used to (particularly for women who are sexually abused).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

I'm not sure what people expected Parker to say in that interview. If he believes he's innocent, that means someone not only falsely accused him of rape, but is retroactively ruining his career from the grave. I wouldn't have warm feelings toward that person to say the least. Or if he's guilty he still has to stick to that narrative.
 

Did you read the summary of the court documents/witness testimonies?  This really wasn't a he-said-she-said kind of case.  It really seems like Parker was acquitted (unlike his friend) simply because he and his accuser had consensual sex the previous day.  That's the only difference.  And the way people and the courts think and speak about consensual sex has shifted since then.

 

I think the main thing is that Parker said EXACTLY what people 'expected' him to say in such a situation.  And that situation by its very nature is really troublesome and gross.  It came off as such blatant PR spin...  the way he barely refers to his accuser really reminded me of the way Brock Turner and his family and friends' letters to the judge barely referred to Turner's victim and her pain.  

 

And just like with Parker's case, you can say... "Well, yeah... they're trying to protect their son's well being by not even addressing the way Turner ruined her life with a mere 20 MINUTES OF ACTION.  What else do people expect them to say?"  

 

Doesn't make it any less disturbing.


Edited by mcnooj82 - 8/21/16 at 12:14am
post #2113 of 4867
Which is why I can't bring myself to watch his film.

With Polanski, it's clear he knows he did something inexcusable - his very flight is an admission of guilt - and his victim's position toward the case makes it something else entirely.

Parker can't even seem to fathom how someone may thing he's done something wrong. That his accuser killed herself after years of inner turmoil is even more damning.

And yet The Hollywood Reporter published an article saying that the resurfacing of this case is "eerily suspicious" now that he has a high profile film coming out, implying there's an anti-black conspiracy to take him down before his film is even out. As if we all had a reason to dwell on his alleged crimes before he'd made the most high profile project in his career until now.

The world is not entirely on his supposed (I use the word lightly) victim's side at all.
post #2114 of 4867
I read most of the relevant material. It doesn't really change anything. No one knows what happened and its all speculation, no matter how "right" people think they are based on a few court documents. No one but the jury saw all the evidence and heard all the testimony. There's a reason a jury has to hear and see absolutely everything in a case. Otherwise they'd get a cliffs notes version and save the county some money. I can't speculate either way since I wasn't on the jury, its a waste of my time.

The relevant topic is about art vs. artist. People have already made up their mind about Parker one way or another. So what do these people bring to the table as far as dealing with a situation like this? Is it right? What if they were in a similar situation of being accused of something they claim they didn't do? At what point does "shoe on the other foot" come into play? Should people use that to inform their stance or does art not operate on that level?
post #2115 of 4867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

I read most of the relevant material. It doesn't really change anything. No one knows what happened and its all speculation, no matter how "right" people think they are based on a few court documents. No one but the jury saw all the evidence and heard all the testimony. There's a reason a jury has to hear and see absolutely everything in a case. Otherwise they'd get a cliffs notes version and save the county some money. I can't speculate either way since I wasn't on the jury, its a waste of my time.

The relevant topic is about art vs. artist. People have already made up their mind about Parker one way or another. So what do these people bring to the table as far as dealing with a situation like this? Is it right? What if they were in a similar situation of being accused of something they claim they didn't do? At what point does "shoe on the other foot" come into play? Should people use that to inform their stance or does art not operate on that level?

 

"Similar situation" I think is tough in this case because even the best case scenario here seems sordid at best, with the main question being whether said sordid conduct crossed the line into criminal. I think it would be different if his guilt was clear-cut (ala Polanski/Salva) or if his defense was one of complete innocence (i.e. OJ) versus the degree to which the victim was intoxicated and/or he let his friend take advantage of her. The "what would I do if a drunken gang-banging went bad" scenario might be a difficult one for people to wrap their heads around. Which is not to say that in the objective sense he should be punished for a crime he was legally exonerated of, but I don't think it's a stretch to see how people might be uncomfortable.

 

As for the art vs. artist debate, I don't think it's ever going to break down along anything other than subjective lines. Some people can't separate the two. Some people can. Some people (I'm one of these) go on a case by case basis that stems from nothing more than gut instinct. 

post #2116 of 4867

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/young-british-heritage-society-launch

 

Quote:
 

The problems only started when they opened their mouths. The biggest bogeyman stalking the hall was feminism. "They're nothing like the original feminists who just wanted to vote," one told me. "They seem to be actively anti-male." Another explained his admiration for Donald Trump. "He's getting rid of this horrible third-wave feminism movement that's perpetuating racism and sexism. The only way racism will end is if we stop talking about it."

 

A lot of those I spoke to didn't want their names used, and seemed deeply suspicious of the media. A young Gujarati woman explained that "if you visit India, you visit China, you visit Japan – they all have their distinct cultures. I think that's lacking today in the west." As an example, she offered the new James Bond film, which is "totally left-wing". As it happens, I didn't agree with her, or with many of those that I spoke to – but don't they still have the right to their opinions? Don't they have a right to free speech?

 

...

 

Free speech here doesn't really mean free speech. These are, after all, people from the same alt-right milieu who in " Gamergate" threw an extended tantrum over video-game journalists writing things they didn't approve of, with the implicit prescription that these things should not be allowed to be written, and then another one over an all-womenGhostbusters film, with the implicit prescription that this film should not be allowed to have been made.

 

Multiple speakers brought up student union no-platform policies, under which people such as Peter Tatchell and Germaine Greer have been disinvited from giving talks at universities. This is inconvenient, but it's hardly censorship – I haven't yet been invited to speak at a university, but my free speech is still broadly intact. However, most of the complaints were entirely non-specific; a censorship that wasn't coming from governments or institutions, but everywhere.

 

The anti-PC brigade aren't angry that they can't say what they want; they're angry that when they do say what they want, other people sometimes disagree with them. The society is a protest against the unacceptable censorship of people edging away from them at parties when they start holding forth about how feminism poisons everything; it's a fury against the fact that people get offended when you're offensive to them.

post #2117 of 4867
.
Edited by Agentsands77 - 5/10/17 at 6:23pm
post #2118 of 4867
I normally detest "Vice" but that's a pretty good article.
post #2119 of 4867
More and more, one realizes that we don't even need religion to get all religious!
post #2120 of 4867
It's interesting how quickly the term 'Alt-Right' has spread in recent months. I've yet to be convinced that it actually represents any kind of coherent, unified ideology - in my experience if you ask ten people to define it, you'll get ten different answers. My feeling is what it really means is: the opposite side to whatever "SJW"s are in the trenches of internet tribal warfare.
post #2121 of 4867

heheheh, everything is a reaction to a reaction to a reaction!

 

I don't even think any kind of label 'needs' to be coherent.  All that matters is that it gains some kind of traction to achieve some minor sense of 'legitimacy' at a time it's so hard to get people to take notice of anything amidst all the noise and distraction.

post #2122 of 4867
Funny thing is, the people who throw "alt-right" around tend to be the exact types who'll swear up and down that "SJW" doesn't mean anything.

Personally I think both terms are both necessary and kind of meaningless. There probably does need to be a term that describes the types who worship the likes of Milo Yannapolis and Sargon Of Akkad, who in some ways don't fit the mainstream right-wing/conservative template from a decade ago or before. There's something going on there and we're only just starting to understand it, so yeah it helps to have a name.

At the same time I think there probably does need to be a term for the identity politics/intersectionality crowd, who to my mind have a very specific set of values and priorities that, again, only has so much overlap with your standard liberal from ten years ago. I think it's silly to pretend there's no 'scene' there. "SJW" is a pretty shitty name for it, but again for the sake of talking about it it would be helpful if it had a name. I'm surprised no one's tried to coin it as "Alt-Left" yet.

In practice all these terms mostly turn out to just mean "those people over there who I don't like and don't agree with", and stretch conveniently wide enough so you can group all your opponents in one tidy basket.
post #2123 of 4867

yeah, both are simple labels to toss out as an attack!  So it makes sense that it lumps together a bunch of people who aren't coherent as a group.

 

The funny thing about SJW is that it feels fairly easy to deduce the viewpoints of anyone who uses that term derisively as opposed to the 'SJW' it was being directed at.

 

I don't feel that 'alt-right' is anywhere near that yet... probably because I'm really only starting to hear it tossed around now.  But I HAVE FAITH that we'll get there too!

 

 

Also... tangentially related...

 

from a friend's fakeblock (who along with most of my friends-list is pretty damned liberal/progressive... pretty much everyone I've connected with through CHUD):

 

Quote:
 This just happened in a group I'm a part of. I'm tempted to say that the word "delicious" is offensive to people with no tastebuds.
 

Edited by mcnooj82 - 8/21/16 at 1:26pm
post #2124 of 4867
I don't think SJW has a negative connotation anymore. I've heard SJWs use the term.
post #2125 of 4867

Yeah, as Paul said... it was a dumb one of its originators to make stick.  

 

But it can still have negative connotations... if you're amongst the 'right' people... ohohoho

post #2126 of 4867
.
Edited by Agentsands77 - 5/10/17 at 6:23pm
post #2127 of 4867
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

yeah, both are simple labels to toss out as an attack!  So it makes sense that it lumps together a bunch of people who aren't coherent as a group.

 

The funny thing about SJW is that it feels fairly easy to deduce the viewpoints of anyone who uses that term derisively as opposed to the 'SJW' it was being directed at.

 

I don't feel that 'alt-right' is anywhere near that yet... probably because I'm really only starting to hear it tossed around now.  But I HAVE FAITH that we'll get there too!

 

 

Also... tangentially related...

 

from a friend's fakeblock who (along with most of my friends-list is pretty damned liberal/progressive... pretty much everyone I've connected with through CHUD):

 

 

 

What I'd like to know is if any of these people would chastise someone for being "ableist" when said person uses an adjective like "crazy" in real life and in mixed company. I somehow doubt they do. You can only get away with that shit if you're on the internet or surrounded by like-minded people who you know won't challenge, clown the shit out of you, or whip your ass senseless. 

post #2128 of 4867
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

Also... tangentially related...

 

from a friend's fakeblock who (along with most of my friends-list is pretty damned liberal/progressive... pretty much everyone I've connected with through CHUD):

 

God those must be some of the worst people on earth to hang out with.

post #2129 of 4867

HEY NOW

 

they're trying!  they're actually policing themselves!!!  holding themselves to the illusion of a moral standard on social media: the only life worth living!

post #2130 of 4867
Thread Starter 

On a related note, I ran across this several months ago. http://forward.com/sisterhood/310505/really-mindy-kaling-your-recent-instagram-photo-is-not-sophies-choice/

 

There are three levels of hilarious going on. One is the article itself, which is riddled with righteous nonsense, then there is the expected response by reasonable people who rightly shit all over the writer, capped off by said writer closing the article for comments after only 12 posts. If you lack the courage of your convictions, then perhaps you should check the real estate value of the hill you're looking to die on before you purchase the plot. 

post #2131 of 4867

FUN!

post #2132 of 4867

That's some OG social justice warrioring.  It could be heralding a move that says Jews are sick of feminists getting all this sensitivity limelight.  They did this undermining free speech thing first, dammit!  The Saints/Ramones to their Sex Pistols.  The Friendster to their Facebook.  Better recognise.  Which is going to cause some insulting-nickname-riffing problems if they're going to carve out some space for themselves in the twitter morass again.  Everyone will forget their role in establishing the style so the nickname will be retroactive.  But ...Jewinazis?  That's even going to give Rush pause.

Still, seed it in the right places and Trump will probably use it.

post #2133 of 4867
Thread Starter 
I try not to use PC or SJW as a pejorative because people I fundamentally dislike more than progressives who assume an authoritarian, evangelistic pose, are rightwing crypto-fascists who use those pejoratives as a way to validate their bigotry and ask for their baseless falsehoods to be treated as an "alternate perspective" worthy of consideration.

I loathe evangelism in all its forms. It's nothing more than a way of treating feelings and nebulous belief systems like laws that must be respected at all costs.
post #2134 of 4867
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

More and more, one realizes that we don't even need religion to get all religious!

 

 

I think the best way I saw it put was "you don't need to be righteous to be self-righteous" 

post #2135 of 4867
Best comment on that Kaling article: I don't know whether to make fun of this article, or ignore it. A real Sophie's Choice!
post #2136 of 4867

Good article mcnooj posted. My fave part:

 

Quote:
 it's just that what he wants more than anything is for you to know who he is, and he shouldn't be allowed to get it.

 

The cult of personality around this guy is quite disturbing. I've spent far too much time reading tweets and youtube comments and entire articles by his Alt Right groupies/acolytes, if it was merely about trolling SJWs on social media and being as anti-PC as possible then it wouldn't be so bad, but too often it feels like a real nascent movement, where the ugliest old racist/sexist attitudes are being given a cool new presentable makeover. He's not a dumb redneck or some old white Klansman, he's an outrageous gay dude with passable debate skills who uses "logic" (actually only the illusion of logic), so it must be okay.

post #2137 of 4867
Thread Starter 

Just to cap off the Mindy Kaling thing; I find it unsettling that prominent female entertainers like Amy Schumer and herself are targeted and held to some impossible standard by alleged fans who out the other side of their mouths, yap about women being held to other impossible standards. Awhile back there was that brouhaha over the "anal sex" episode of The Mindy Kaling Project and people lost their shit over it as if she somehow owed them a depiction of that situation that would align with their idea of consent and healthy sexual relationships, instead of something that was appropriate for the character she was playing. Then there's the Schumer / Metzger issue. Two days ago, WIRED published an article titled: "When Inside Amy Schumer Comes Back, It Needs to Address This." 

 

"Needs to"? According to fucking who? Why is Amy Schumer responsible for a man's opinion simply because they worked together? They're not Abbott and Costello. They're not a two for one deal joined at the fucking hip. It is, in a way, it's own form of sexism, making other women, who are free-thinking individuals, responsible for upholding the gates of some oblique, continually evolving, moral and sociopolitical ideology. 

 

I've read about the Tig Notaro stuff and the allegations of joke theft, and none of that sounds great, but those are far more deserving nominees of "Schumer problems" than what Kurt Metzger thinks or says. I won't even get into how beneath the transgressive humor, I think Metzger has a valid point. That's another conversation. However, any person who tries to tie this to Amy Schumer, yet calls themselves supporting women having an equal role in what goes on in the entertainment industry, is a complete knob. You are utterly full of shit and an awful person.

 

No. Black celebrities shouldn't be expected to comment on or actively support #BlackLivesMatter.

No. A gay celebrity doesn't have to be out and be a voice for the LGBT community.

No. A female entertainer doesn't have to adhere to the tenets of third-wave feminism to have a valid perspective. 

post #2138 of 4867

In Schumer's case, as someone who I perceive to have somewhat accepted a kind of public mantle of feminist spokesperson, I think it's somewhat acceptable to hold her accountable to how she conducts her work similar to the way we hold any prominent public figure in the media.

 

Based on how she described her relationship with Metzger on that clip from Charlie Rose, she seems aware of how she would come off because of his antics outside of their work.  But she also seems to keep the guy on because she feels that his presence makes her show stronger.  And I can understand the tricky situation that puts her in these days.  Butting creative heads is good for the process!

 

But she has taken on (by choice or by momentum) a certain amount of celebrity via a feminism angle, which her show often explores openly.  And and far as I know, it is HER show, right?  So I think it's partly fair for people to hold her accountable to who she conducts business with in her public profession.  Not in a way where hounding her on Twitter is the right way to go about it.  But to at least address it.

 

Beyond the generic click-bait headline, I also don't think it's out of the ordinary for a fan of the show to feel that the next season of Schumer's show should address this situation.  But ideally in a way that Schumer thinks would make for a good show.  Even better if it finds a way to take the piss out of everyone involved in the back and forth to get them even more riled up... ohohohohoh...

 

 

Still... all that said, I agree with your point that women entertainers are held up to an impossible standard.  Because of practical reality as well as the direction of the current discourse on feminism in the media, most of them almost have no choice but to accept a role as a spokesperson and role model in order to maintain their success.  Same goes for any entertainer who is a part of any particular marginalized group.

post #2139 of 4867
Take the piss?

Seattle is not in the Commonwealth Nooj!
post #2140 of 4867
it's naw?

bloody'ehwl
post #2141 of 4867
I'd half expect Schumer to make a sketch about that article, actually.
post #2142 of 4867
Thread Starter 

Speaking of crypto-fascists, it seems fairly obvious to me that Milo Yiannopoulos is the three-way, Brundlefly remix, hate baby of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Paris Hilton (with a little bit of Andy Kaufman thrown in). I've been aware of him for awhile, sort of half paying attention to him, but the recent revelation of one, that he created a higher education "charity" called the Privilege Grant, meant for White Men Only, and then two, apparently pocketed the $100,000 raised since its creation, tells you everything you need to know about him.

 

He's a scam artist and his lure for soft-skulled, weak-egoed people is a rather ingenious mix of lifestyle and ideology porn. I am convinced that the alt-right, MRA adherent, "straight" white males who fawn over him are probably far more alt-right and MRA than they are straight. It would not surprise me if a lot of his fans secretly struggle with their sexuality and Yiannopoulos presents them with a highly-constructed, artificially aberrant image of a gay male that comes off like a personified amalgamation of the gay club scene of Weimar Germany and the bespoke, patriarchal fetishism of the Nazi Republic that supplanted it. I mean, he *is* The Emcee in CABARET. It is impossible to miss, but most of the lost morons who follow him seem to do so.

post #2143 of 4867
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Speaking of crypto-fascists, it seems fairly obvious to me that Milo Yiannopoulos is the three-way, Brundlefly remix, hate baby of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Paris Hilton (with a little bit of Andy Kaufman thrown in). I've been aware of him for awhile, sort of half paying attention to him, but the recent revelation of one, that he created a higher education "charity" called the Privilege Grant, meant for White Men Only, and then two, apparently pocketed the $100,000 raised since its creation, tells you everything you need to know about him.

He's a scam artist and his lure for soft-skulled, weak-egoed people is a rather ingenious mix of lifestyle and ideology porn. I am convinced that the alt-right, MRA adherent, "straight" white males who fawn over him are probably far more alt-right and MRA than they are straight. It would not surprise me if a lot of his fans secretly struggle with their sexuality and Yiannopoulos presents them with a highly-constructed, artificially aberrant image of a gay male that comes off like a personified amalgamation of the gay club scene of Weimar Germany and the bespoke, patriarchal fetishism of the Nazi Republic that supplanted it. I mean, he *is* The Emcee in CABARET. It is impossible to miss, but most of the lost morons who follow him seem to do so.

Holy shit, you completely made sense of the mess of angry thoughts I had regarding Yiannopoulos (and his supporters) in my head.
Edited by andrevellozo - 8/22/16 at 9:12am
post #2144 of 4867
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

Just to cap off the Mindy Kaling thing; I find it unsettling that prominent female entertainers like Amy Schumer and herself are targeted and held to some impossible standard by alleged fans who out the other side of their mouths, yap about women being held to other impossible standards.......Then there's the Schumer / Metzger issue. Two days ago, WIRED published an article titled: "When Inside Amy Schumer Comes Back, It Needs to Address This." 

 

"Needs to"? According to fucking who? Why is Amy Schumer responsible for a man's opinion simply because they worked together? They're not Abbott and Costello. They're not a two for one deal joined at the fucking hip. It is, in a way, it's own form of sexism, making other women, who are free-thinking individuals, responsible for upholding the gates of some oblique, continually evolving, moral and sociopolitical ideology. 

 

........However, any person who tries to tie this to Amy Schumer, yet calls themselves supporting women having an equal role in what goes on in the entertainment industry, is a complete knob. You are utterly full of shit and an awful person.

 

Funny that I just started listening to Malcolm Gladwell's REVISIONIST HISTORY podcast today.  I started with episode 1:

 

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/01-the-lady-vanishes

 

and it just happened to go into the very thing you talked about above.  Particularly in regards to the way the Australia's first female Prime Minister had to answer for one of her male colleague's sexist texts!   It also goes into the social psychology concept of 'moral licensing'.  Interesting stuff.

post #2145 of 4867

Found this on a friend's fakeblock wall.  The friend works in IT at a college business school, last I checked.  ehehehe

 

 

I just kept thinking of magic academy.

 

Interesting...

 

I wonder if my friend has come across the current millennial boogerman of the college experience!

post #2146 of 4867
.

Edited by Agentsands77 - 5/10/17 at 6:23pm
post #2147 of 4867
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
Funny that I just started listening to Malcolm Gladwell's REVISIONIST HISTORY podcast today. 

Does it start out on topic, then quickly meander off to barely related tangents based in Gladwell's internal associations rather than actual evidence? Asking for a friend who's read Gladwell's books.

post #2148 of 4867

It's a pretty tightly edited podcast, so it felt like it stayed on topic pretty well to me.

post #2149 of 4867
He proselytizes a bit in later episodes, but it's generally a great bit of investigation and critical thinking.
post #2150 of 4867
.
Edited by Agentsands77 - 5/10/17 at 6:23pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media