How many accusers need to come forward before you believe the accused is guilty?

[ruby sparks]

Therapist's notes in 2012 that say she described an attack by boys from an elitist boys' school.

Another therapist's notes in 2013 that say she described a rape attempt in her teens. (This sure is an elaborate, long planned conspiracy!)

A friend who says she told her in 2013 she was almost raped by a federal judge, that she was trapped in a room with two drunken guys and then escaped.

A friend who says she told him 2016 that she was assaulted in high school by someone who became a federal judge.

Another friend in 2017 saying she told her she was attacked as a teen by someone who is now a federal judge.

Source?

 

[ruby sparks]

So as soon as anybody famous is accused, I'm extra critical.

By the same token it could be argued that celebrity and power can easily combine to both enable and protect abusers.

Jimmy Saville for example:

Jimmy Savile child abuse investigation shows the power of celebrity enabled stars to be predators
https://www.smh.com.au/world/jimmy-...ed-stars-to-be-predators-20160226-gn407e.html

Celebrity culture forces abuse victims into silence
https://www2.mmu.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/story/?id=2296

 

[DrZoidberg]

So as soon as anybody famous is accused, I'm extra critical.

By the same token it could be argued that celebrity and power can easily combine to both enable and protect abusers.

Jimmy Saville for example:

Jimmy Savile child abuse investigation shows the power of celebrity enabled stars to be predators
https://www.smh.com.au/world/jimmy-...ed-stars-to-be-predators-20160226-gn407e.html

Celebrity culture forces abuse victims into silence
https://www2.mmu.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/story/?id=2296

Yes, it can. I didn't say discount anybody coming forward. I just require more people doing it. And stronger cases.

The way people behave around celebrities makes these sorts of thing super complicated. We often adore celebrities, which means failing to speak up when we should. That's not the celebrities fault. Celebrities are in an impossible position. They're on top of that often held to impossible standards. People who have seen them on TV often approach them as if they're old friends. Even though they've never met before. And so on.

That's the reason Jimmy Savile could get away with it for so long. I also think it's unfixable. If we insist on having a celebrity culture, then this is the result.

Add to that the type of celebrities we chose. Today we pick our celebrities from among our artists... ie the worst possible candidates for behaving well. That's just asking for trouble.

 

[ruby sparks]

I didn't say discount anybody coming forward. I just require more people doing it. And stronger cases.

How is that (and being more critical of such a claim) not discounting?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I didn't say discount anybody coming forward. I just require more people doing it. And stronger cases.

How is that (and being more critical of such a claim) not discounting?

If you discount the claims it doesn't matter how many come forward. It's just dismissal out of hand.

 

[Jarhyn]

So as soon as anybody famous is accused, I'm extra critical.

By the same token it could be argued that celebrity and power can easily combine to both enable and protect abusers.

Jimmy Saville for example:

Jimmy Savile child abuse investigation shows the power of celebrity enabled stars to be predators
https://www.smh.com.au/world/jimmy-...ed-stars-to-be-predators-20160226-gn407e.html

Celebrity culture forces abuse victims into silence
https://www2.mmu.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/story/?id=2296

Yes, it can. I didn't say discount anybody coming forward. I just require more people doing it. And stronger cases.

The way people behave around celebrities makes these sorts of thing super complicated. We often adore celebrities, which means failing to speak up when we should. That's not the celebrities fault. Celebrities are in an impossible position. They're on top of that often held to impossible standards. People who have seen them on TV often approach them as if they're old friends. Even though they've never met before. And so on.

That's the reason Jimmy Savile could get away with it for so long. I also think it's unfixable. If we insist on having a celebrity culture, then this is the result.

Add to that the type of celebrities we chose. Today we pick our celebrities from among our artists... ie the worst possible candidates for behaving well. That's just asking for trouble.

Hey now, I married an artist! (My favorite artist, in fact)

 

[ruby sparks]

I didn't say discount anybody coming forward. I just require more people doing it. And stronger cases.

How is that (and being more critical of such a claim) not discounting?

If you discount the claims it doesn't matter how many come forward. It's just dismissal out of hand.

Ok so just increased doubt then.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you discount the claims it doesn't matter how many come forward. It's just dismissal out of hand.

Ok so just increased doubt then.

Yes, exactly. And I think it's warranted.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you discount the claims it doesn't matter how many come forward. It's just dismissal out of hand.

Ok so just increased doubt then.

Yes, exactly. And I think it's warranted.

And speaking of when doubt is warranted, even given your increased doubt when "fame and attention" could be ulterior motives to accusations, would you support, say, the awarding of a person so accused with a role in a movie about the evils of sexual assault before the allegations were cleared by investigation?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, exactly. And I think it's warranted.

And speaking of when doubt is warranted, even given your increased doubt when "fame and attention" could be ulterior motives to accusations, would you support, say, the awarding of a person so accused with a role in a movie about the evils of sexual assault before the allegations were cleared by investigation?

What has that got to do with anything? A piece of art gets it's value from the artistic value of the piece. Only. Art isn't a popularity contest. I don't care if an actor regularly rapes little puppies in the ass. I'd see it anyway. I literally don't care what artists opinions are on anything. Or what they do when off camera. Art stands on its own. It's completely separate from any moral considerations.

We have this recent bad habit of seeing successful artists and actors as being approved, morally and socially. I love watching Klaus Kinsky on screen. Everybody who met him agree that he was a bonafide psychopath. He probably raped many women. He was famous in an age he could get away with it. As far as enjoying his work on screen, I don't care what he's done.

But here's what makes me special. I don't admire film actors. I think it's a job like any other. In my eyes they have the same social status as prostitutes. Bartenders. Policemen. The CEO of the company I work. They're not special people. Neither are musicians. Or painters.

I don't care if the guy was caught in the act, convicted and admitted to it. If he's good at his job as an actor I'm ok with it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The only reasons artists have high status today is because of absurdly bloated copyright laws. If we would adjust them to a reasonable level being an artist would go back to being a low status job, which it is what it should be. While entertainment and inspiration is important, on Maslows hierarchy of needs, it's the least important. Every other function in society should be valued accordingly and given the respect it deserves. The market would sort itself out if we let it. These long copyrights is basically subsidese for societies least productive sector. They certainly don't need these absurd levels of subsidise.

If actors had low status in society they wouldn't get away with rape any longer. Yay. Everybody wins

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The only reasons artists have high status today is because of absurdly bloated copyright laws. If we would adjust them to a reasonable level being an artist would go back to being a low status job, which it is what it should be. While entertainment and inspiration is important, on Maslows hierarchy of needs, it's the least important. Every other function in society should be valued accordingly and given the respect it deserves. The market would sort itself out if we let it. These long copyrights is basically subsidese for societies least productive sector. They certainly don't need these absurd levels of subsidise.

If actors had low status in society they wouldn't get away with rape any longer. Yay. Everybody wins

The value of art and the status of artists is and always has been completely subjective. It has the respect (or lack thereof) based entirely on how much people decide to respect them.

You may as well say that chefs don't merit all that much respect because a nutritional sludge is actually all that's required to sustain us and having things which taste good isn't an important need.

 

[Jarhyn]

The only reasons artists have high status today is because of absurdly bloated copyright laws. If we would adjust them to a reasonable level being an artist would go back to being a low status job, which it is what it should be. While entertainment and inspiration is important, on Maslows hierarchy of needs, it's the least important. Every other function in society should be valued accordingly and given the respect it deserves. The market would sort itself out if we let it. These long copyrights is basically subsidese for societies least productive sector. They certainly don't need these absurd levels of subsidise.

If actors had low status in society they wouldn't get away with rape any longer. Yay. Everybody wins

The value of art and the status of artists is and always has been completely subjective. It has the respect (or lack thereof) based entirely on how much people decide to respect them.

You may as well say that chefs don't merit all that much respect because a nutritional sludge is actually all that's required to sustain us and having things which taste good isn't an important need.

More, it would take so much cultural loading to divorce being seen (in a film) from being venerated (as an individual), particularly among a species strongly geared to wanting to feel important, that it is pointless to approach the problem from that direction. In reality, the text is always joined by context.

Also, I think it's a really shitty thing to allow the potential for placing an image of a woman's rapist in front of her. I could only imagine how much of a hell it would be to see the face of your rapist every day because of a culture venerating the rapist for their art completely agnostic to the hell this creates for her. I can only imagine this was the motivating factor behind Ford coming out. Or for that matter subjecting any woman to the face of any rapist, in their knowledge that they raped, given the empathetic reaction that would trigger in most people. Whenever I see Kavanaugh I get sick and angry and sad all at once for Ford's sake. And knowing he will take that "rape is OK if you can get away with it" attitude to the bench makes it worse still

 

[Worldtraveller]

So the answer to the thread seems to be:

If it's a white guy: 1.
Lying bitches (which is all of them): Just can't be trusted.

So, status quo, then.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[DrZoidberg]

The only reasons artists have high status today is because of absurdly bloated copyright laws. If we would adjust them to a reasonable level being an artist would go back to being a low status job, which it is what it should be. While entertainment and inspiration is important, on Maslows hierarchy of needs, it's the least important. Every other function in society should be valued accordingly and given the respect it deserves. The market would sort itself out if we let it. These long copyrights is basically subsidese for societies least productive sector. They certainly don't need these absurd levels of subsidise.

If actors had low status in society they wouldn't get away with rape any longer. Yay. Everybody wins

The value of art and the status of artists is and always has been completely subjective. It has the respect (or lack thereof) based entirely on how much people decide to respect them.

You may as well say that chefs don't merit all that much respect because a nutritional sludge is actually all that's required to sustain us and having things which taste good isn't an important need.

For good or for worse, we have more respect för rich people than poor people. The respect Trump has is my evidence for this. Before we hiked up copyright lengths most artists didn't have high status jobs.

We've bloated the respect artists get artificially. Also worth noting... for no reason. I fail to see the benefits to society of doing so. I actually think it's directly damaging because we want to encourage people to get into fields where they might help the world.

Before we hiked up copyright lengths engineers and scientists were among our most high status peers. Which of those do you think is the most useful for society? Young people flock to the humanities instead of engineering educations. It's already an obviously broken system.

Chefs aren't subsidised by the state, so I don't understand why you brought them up? I think chefs get about the respect they deserve. We know this because we haven't artificially fucked with that supply and demand.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, most artists are broke or spend all day working a job so that they can do their art at night, so society has already structured the industry the way you want it, despite the small percentage at the top who can actually make a living at it and the smaller percentage of that small group who are able to get rich in the industry.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The only reasons artists have high status today is because of absurdly bloated copyright laws. If we would adjust them to a reasonable level being an artist would go back to being a low status job, which it is what it should be. While entertainment and inspiration is important, on Maslows hierarchy of needs, it's the least important. Every other function in society should be valued accordingly and given the respect it deserves. The market would sort itself out if we let it. These long copyrights is basically subsidese for societies least productive sector. They certainly don't need these absurd levels of subsidise.

If actors had low status in society they wouldn't get away with rape any longer. Yay. Everybody wins

The value of art and the status of artists is and always has been completely subjective. It has the respect (or lack thereof) based entirely on how much people decide to respect them.

You may as well say that chefs don't merit all that much respect because a nutritional sludge is actually all that's required to sustain us and having things which taste good isn't an important need.

More, it would take so much cultural loading to divorce being seen (in a film) from being venerated (as an individual), particularly among a species strongly geared to wanting to feel important, that it is pointless to approach the problem from that direction. In reality, the text is always joined by context.

Also, I think it's a really shitty thing to allow the potential for placing an image of a woman's rapist in front of her. I could only imagine how much of a hell it would be to see the face of your rapist every day because of a culture venerating the rapist for their art completely agnostic to the hell this creates for her. I can only imagine this was the motivating factor behind Ford coming out. Or for that matter subjecting any woman to the face of any rapist, in their knowledge that they raped, given the empathetic reaction that would trigger in most people. Whenever I see Kavanaugh I get sick and angry and sad all at once for Ford's sake. And knowing he will take that "rape is OK if you can get away with it" attitude to the bench makes it worse still

We're absolutely inundated with different types of media today, with sophisticated methods of filtering what we see. I think that a woman who has been raped by a movie star would have zero trouble filtering out any of those movies from her life. I think it's a non-issue. If the issue is about protecting the feelings of the rape victim. So I don't think that is what you are talking about, is it?

You can't compare Kavanaugh with an actor. A movie star is a clown on a stage. They say the words on the paper in front of them. An idiot could do that job.

Kavanaugh was up for the supreme court. His morals and his character actually matter for the job. The morals and character of an actor are irrelevant.

I think you're all over the place

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If we would adjust them to a reasonable level being an artist would go back to being a low status job, which it is what it should be. While entertainment and inspiration is important, on Maslows hierarchy of needs, it's the least important. Every other function in society should be valued accordingly and given the respect it deserves.

Given that it's generally regarded that the difference between homo and the rest of Animalia is the capacity for abstract thought, wouldn't this approach neuter that which gives us joy and insight as humans?

You're right that food is more important in the short-term. But a world without art is not one I'd be interested in experiencing, precisely because I'm not a pig supping at a trough. Both making and enjoying art are human activities that lend richness to a life that would otherwise be one of an overlarge, abstracting brain starved of mental nutrition.

For all the necessities of life, it's not a good thing to overlook the inspirations that drive our creative approach to survival, in my opinion.

Sometimes value cannot be measured by numbers alone.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Before we hiked up copyright lengths engineers and scientists were among our most high status peers. Which of those do you think is the most useful for society? Young people flock to the humanities instead of engineering educations. It's already an obviously broken system.

lol, you think kids pass up careers in engineering or information technology because of the allure of making a mint in art? Look at the numbers of successful engineers, then look at the numbers of successful artists, and while you're at it, maybe you could post some stats about BSE degrees handed out compared to MFAs?

I can tell you right now, as a copyrighted songwriter, a copyright doesn't guarantee shit. Or more to the point, it does guarantee shit: shitty jobs, a shitty standard of living, and shitty treatment by people who are happy to consume art but unhappy to pay for it, much less produce it themselves.