|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 18:16:20 GMT -5
i dont like kobe bryant and will probably never like him and he's a talented sports guy, but i cant get over the sexual assault stuff. there was some ridic salsa that went down with the trail but he went to trail for the rape, he went to civil court and settled with woman and he did make a statement where he apologized and said he understood why she brought the charges and that it wasnt consensual for her. as much as people have the right to be mad that he got off pretty easy and is still a super famous basketball guy, it can be separated because at least his crimes werent completely glossed over just because he plays basketball really good.
like if you watch/support/like polanski's stuff to a degree you are condoning his actions. you're putting aside what he did because of the quality of his work. i dont care if its still beautiful or valid or whatever, thats not a good enough reason to continuing praising and giving money to someone who raped a child and got away with it.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 18:26:00 GMT -5
i disagree with bandit about these things being similar because one is awful views and the other is raping someone. in no way the same thing. I agree but I only compared Chick-fil-A Guy and Mel Gibson, who never raped anyone; they are both just awful people with awful views. Also, penne, I get that the CEO of Chick-fil-A doesn't make the chicken, but without him there wouldn't be a restaurant to begin with. I mostly agree with everything Terry has said on this. While a piece of art is usually made to represent its creator in some way, that doesn't mean the admirer's enjoyment of it has to be the same. After all, the creator doesn't matter at all in the appreciation of art, so there's no reason to alter your views on it after you've found out who it was created by. There is still debate about whether the Iliad was really written by Homer, but no matter what we can all agree that it's a brilliant and influential piece of literature. We would of course prefer to attribute it to The Great Homer instead of some as-of-yet-unknown lowlife murderer, but I'm sure it would still be read and revered either way. i agree with all of that. but at the same time, liking guys like woody allen is problematic and enforces rape culture. you can love a persons work even if you know or later find out what they did, but you are giving props to someone who did salsaty things they didnt pay for. like go ahead but dont pretend thats not whats happening. also can we stop comparing things to rape that arent rape, thats not what i want to be discussing but i just hate all of your comparisons.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 27, 2014 18:29:49 GMT -5
You're acting as if I agreed to great artists getting a free-out-of-jail card, which I'm not. Actually we may be even in agreement on the main point (some of your afterthoughts are just obfuscating nonsense, though), only that you're looking at the other end of it: great for that person and their great art but i want to focus on the illegal thing they did and make sure they are accountable for it and that everyone knows this was an illegal thing and not okay. it's terrible of that person to do terrible deeds and they should be put in jail, but when the focus shifts on the art thing they did, their works don't automatically become illegal as well and shouldn't be thrown into jail or the garbage EDIT: also it's impolite to only talk about what you want, and this thread extends beyond rape culture. I was actually using worse crimes as examples than rape, namely hitler and geonocide, and it's not like all bad politicians go to jail. we'd have no politicians!
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 18:38:55 GMT -5
hey buddy, stop trying to argue about the way im saying stuff. it doesnt matter and i wasnt trying to say you were doing anything.
the focus shouldnt shift though, we shouldnt say oh too bad about that child getting raped, now lets watch this rapists' movies! thats what allows people like polanski and allen to get away with what they did. it is putting something above a person's suffering because its decided that the crime doesnt matter as much as the contribution the person makes. people allow their focus to shift and thats how althetes/rich people/artists get away with their crime. they want the focus to shift onto what they provide so people dont judge them for what they do.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 27, 2014 18:46:54 GMT -5
no modern court would accept someone using that as an argument. I'm not saying the focus should shift in court. other than that, don't tell people on what to focus. also fun fact, most artists are poor. It's rich people who are buying the most expensive lawyers to get them out of jail, and rich people are not limited to artists by any means. And we're back at the start of the discussion, because any art someone may have done just doesn't legally have anything to do with the person's crimes. and if you disagree on that, then we just have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 18:47:51 GMT -5
and anything polanski made since the 80's on is stuff he was able to make because he fled the united states because he raped a 13 year old. i dont think you can separate this from his movies because every film he was able to make after that is a film he was able to make because he ran away from being sentenced after he raped a 13 year old.
yeah his movies can still be good, yeah you can still enjoy them, but should it even come to that point? should anyone care what a man who raped a 13 year old girl and ran away from the consequences has to contribute to art? if the answer is still yeah but we can still separate his works from this incident, then okay. but at the same time its perfectly valid and i would say entirely potato ing necessary, that anytime someone does want to watch his movies or say good things about him that others are allowed to say YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TIME HE RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD?
|
|
|
Post by Teleram on Jan 27, 2014 18:50:10 GMT -5
It's a slightly different story for me, I still eat Chick-fil-A chicken even though the owner is a weirdo, but I don't watch Allen or Polanski movies (anymore) because of the filmmakers's wrongdoings.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 18:55:03 GMT -5
no modern court would accept someone using that as an argument. also fun fact, most artists are poor. It's rich people who are buying the most expensive lawyers to get them out of jail, and rich people are not limited to artists by any means. And we're back at the start of the discussion, because any art someone may have done just doesn't legally have anything to do with the person's crimes. and if you disagree on that, then we just have to agree to disagree. accept using what? i dont remember saying anything about the way to try cases in court. fun fact though, a lawyer saying that a women bruised her cervix from loofahing too hard was an accepted court tactic to let a nyc cop be found not guilty of rape, so all kinds of crazy salsa is accepted in court every day. this relates because if cops and famous dudes can rape away, this says something about rape, namely that we dont care about it so feel free to do it! i dont think i quite get why being rich or poor matters if you rape someone. i know ive been saying stuff about people other than artists because my point is: if you rape someone, you should be held accountable. it doesnt matter who you are or how much merit your works have. like are you not acknowledging that being well loved artists is what makes it easy for allen and polanski to escape judgement? so thats why it matters if you say well this has nothing to do with their art. because it does since their art is what gives them their pass.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 27, 2014 19:15:13 GMT -5
no modern court would accept someone using that as an argument. accept using what? i dont remember saying anything about the way to try cases in court. I was replying literally to the last thing you wrote: thats how althetes/rich people/artists get away with their crime. they want the focus to shift onto what they provide so people dont judge them for what they do. and, um, you seem to be saying the exact same thing again: so thats why it matters if you say well this has nothing to do with their art. because it does since their art is what gives them their pass. so. It really doesn't. because it's irrelevant. i dont think i quite get why being rich or poor matters if you rape someone. I thought I made myself clear when I said that "rich people can afford buying the most expensive lawyers to get them out of jail" and poor people obviously cannot. Also i know ive been saying stuff about people other than artists because my point is: if you rape someone, you should be held accountable. this is what you have been saying and steering discussions to in many threads before, always with the conviction as if anyone was disagreeing on that point. This thread is not the rape culture thread, and there are other crimes than rape, believe it or not. Ultimately it doesn't matter which crime when it comes to the criminal's other endeavors. Like, if it wasn't art, but scientific theories, would you disregard them as well if newly discovered evidence found that Einstein was a murderer, child molester or whatever? No, maybe you'd tear down any statues that've been built in his honour, but his scientific ideas are still valid. Please don't repeat now that they should be still put in jail, because yes you're right but that's not the point.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 19:37:17 GMT -5
EDIT: also it's impolite to only talk about what you want, and this thread extends beyond rape culture. I was actually using worse crimes as examples than rape, namely hitler and geonocide, and it's not like all bad politicians go to jail. we'd have no politicians! okay but we seem to be comparing various awful things against real things certain artists have done and like its not relevant? whether people have done worse is not the issue. like with the musicians who murdered people in the past, many things were done differently in the past. that doesnt excuse people now. also again politicians being idiots is different than the guy in pen's initial post, who molested someone. like comparing polanski and allen's crimes against genocide or hitler pales in comparison yes, but so what. why should they be allowed to still make movies and go free just because they arent hitler? i mean i know this wasnt your point and as i have said every time, i wasnt saying the quality of their art is bad because of what theyve done. i just dont think it should be separated by these guys who didnt pay for their crimes. also also like yeah murder is bad, torture is bad but i dont actually think either of those are blanket worse than rape. especially to the person who is suffering because of rape. so how bad rape is versus other things doesnt matter and comparing rape to things that are not like rape doesnt have a point either.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 20:03:20 GMT -5
ok im being a busy human with important things to do at the moment but "so. It really doesn't. because it's irrelevant." is not a valid argument. ive explained many times why i feel like it is relevant, no its not isnt a good enough answer. polanski and allen can get away with rape because they're good artists and people say oh this doesnt matter we like their art so we dont focus on their personal lives and they get to make money and keep making art and no one suffers except the girls they abused.
also i keep making it about rape because pen used woody allen and for me its what i cant overlook no matter what else a person may contribute.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 27, 2014 20:11:52 GMT -5
don't you get that this wouldn't hold up in court. any lawyer trying to convince the jury of anybody's innocence by the quality of their art would be shut down by the judge and laughed out of his job. so saying "they get away because they're good artists" is nonsense
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 20:20:17 GMT -5
the evidence isnt the only thing that makes up people's mind. im saying their crimes get less scrutiny because of who they are. what im saying is in no way nonsense. i suggested this should be used in court. in polanskis case he was guilty and im saying we overlook this and view his stuff anyway and thats dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 27, 2014 20:26:17 GMT -5
we're not the jury though
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Jan 27, 2014 20:47:18 GMT -5
we dont need to be in polanskis case.
|
|