Harvey Weinstein scandal

[Arctish]

Is Corey Feldman on the level?

I don't know. But there's more to the story than just Corey Feldman's word. Corey Haim talked about it on their show The Two Coreys, and Elijah Wood talked about pedophilia in Hollywood, too.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is Corey Feldman on the level?

I don't know. But there's more to the story than just Corey Feldman's word. Corey Haim talked about it on their show The Two Coreys, and Elijah Wood talked about pedophilia in Hollywood, too.

I wonder if Elijah Wood is still approach by pedophiles? I mean... he doesn't look like a grown man, does he?

 

[repoman]

I don't know. But there's more to the story than just Corey Feldman's word. Corey Haim talked about it on their show The Two Coreys, and Elijah Wood talked about pedophilia in Hollywood, too.

I wonder if Elijah Wood is still approach by pedophiles? I mean... he doesn't look like a grown man, does he?

Yeah, but emotionally and mentally he seems to be as mature as a 70 year old Mark Twain. Wood is one of the best.

 

[LordKiran]

I wonder if Elijah Wood is still approach by pedophiles? I mean... he doesn't look like a grown man, does he?

Yeah, but emotionally and mentally he seems to be as mature as a 70 year old Mark Twain. Wood is one of the best.

Ehh, if recent events should teach you anything, its that you shouldn't act like you know people you don't actually know at all.

 

[Arctish]

One of the two men Feldman named is Jon Grissom, an actor who appeared in 2 movies with Feldman and Haim. According to a couple of news outlets, he has a criminal record for "performing lewd or lascivious acts with a child aged 14 or 15 years old".

The other guy Feldman named, Marty Weiss, was a child talent manager. He was convicted on child molestation charges in 2012 and served 6 months in prison. According to a report at the time of his arrest, police suspect there were more victims.

 

[repoman]

Low hanging fruit.

 

[Arctish]

Low hanging fruit.

Not exactly.

It's not clear the Feldman knew Grissom had a conviction on his record. The newspaper I got that from (The Sun) said Grissom had failed to register as a sex offender in California. Feldman may have thought it was going to be just his word against Grissom's.

The other guy appears to be the one who threw parties where young actors were 'passed around'. I think he was one of the ones Feldman was worried about ruining his career and suing him for everything he's got.

And anyway, it's not easy for someone who was victimized to admit it publicly. I give Feldman a lot of credit for being an advocate, and I'm willing to cut him some slack if he's defensive and a bit erratic.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I wonder if Elijah Wood is still approach by pedophiles? I mean... he doesn't look like a grown man, does he?

Yeah, but emotionally and mentally he seems to be as mature as a 70 year old Mark Twain. Wood is one of the best.

Overcompensating?

 

[DrZoidberg]

BTW, are we all forgetting that working in the entertainment industry used to have low status? It used to attract all manner of misfits that didn't fit in to the rest of society. Pedophiles being one such category. Being an actress used to be on par with being a prostitute. Getting big in Hollywood used to be high status. But not as high status as being a honoured scientist or businessman. Even in the 50'ies being a houswife had way higher status than being a female movie star. And below Hollywood status was quite low indeed. Slowly slowly that all shifted. And today being an actress, even at a local theatre stage is no longer seen as, basically, being a prostitute.

What I remember is that the 70'ies and 80'ies was the shift. In the 80'ies being an actor was mostly NOT glamorous. It was assumed that most actors were sexual deviants and predators of one sort or another. Or masochists. It was first in the 90'ies where being an actor became high status and the idea suddenly arose that actors and actresses deserve respect. Any respect.

And now being an actress is seen just like any job really. And are deserving of the same rights as the rest of us.

It makes the whole thing... of judging people... for past crimes a bit iffy. Yeah, I know, doing things that are illegal are still illegal even if everybody is doing them. But if everybody is doing them, it does somewhat the moral character of those judged. I mean... everybody knew/assumed Hollywood and Broadway was a haven for pedophiles in the 40'ies, 50'ies, 60'ies, 70'ies, 80'ies and 90'ies. People still watched the movies. So those who watched the movies share in the guilt IMHO.

What people cared about back then was avoiding scandal. Everybody knew that 99% of all the men in the Broadway musical were gay in the 50'ies. They were fine about that. What they didn't want was them being open about it.

Here's an example of how recent this was.

In 1975 the famous and established British actor Peter Wyngarde was arrested for gross indecency in a public lavatory. Ie, he was a gay man cruising for sex and was caught. This was how British gays got laid. It killed his career completely. One day he had roles. The other day he didn't. And this is for committing a crime that hurt nobody. Being gay was legal then, but God help them if they actually tried getting laid.

In 1979 when Mike Hodges was filming the 1980'ies Flash Gordon he offered the role of Klytus to Peter Wyngarde. This was a momentous thing to do. Quite the watershed. For those handful of people who don't know, Flash Gordon is the gayest movie ever made. It's gayer than most gay porn. If you missed the plethora of gay references, you must be completely blind. The whole film is basically a drag show. Where even the decor is fabulously gay. Is the theme (sung by Freddy Mercury) about Flash Gordon or about the courage of being a gay man in a homophobic society? And to top it off they gave one of the roles to an openly gay actor. Albeit wearing a mask throughout. Just to lessen the controversy.

1980 isn't that long ago. It's living memory. But it still wasn't until the 90'ies when any person could come out as gay and keep their job.

I think it's unfair to judge people of crimes committed in the bad old days with today's standards. Instead... lets just be happy that the times have changed.

 

[couch_sloth]

BTW, are we all forgetting that working in the entertainment industry used to have low status? It used to attract all manner of misfits that didn't fit in to the rest of society. Pedophiles being one such category. Being an actress used to be on par with being a prostitute. Getting big in Hollywood used to be high status. But not as high status as being a honoured scientist or businessman. Even in the 50'ies being a housewife had way higher status than being a female movie star. And below Hollywood status was quite low indeed. Slowly slowly that all shifted. And today being an actress, even at a local theatre stage is no longer seen as, basically, being a prostitute. ...

Maybe from the strictest of moral beliefs of the 1950's, this was true. But in the general U.S. culture of the time, no. I would bet that many MANY ordinary housewives of that period would have chosen to be a Hollywood star, if it was offered to them.
Being a star, a celebrity, has always been an attractive lifestyle.

...1980 isn't that long ago. It's living memory. But it still wasn't until the 90'ies when any person could come out as gay and keep their job...

The view of homosexuals in filmed changed slowly, with the film industry being more progressive than the general public.
There were films with openly gay (and sympathetic) characters before 1980 (e.g The Boys in the Band, La Cage aux Folles).

It seem to me that the biggest change in the U.S., towards the acceptance of homosexuals has happened fairly recently (In the last 10 to 15 years).

 

[Underseer]

BTW, are we all forgetting that working in the entertainment industry used to have low status? It used to attract all manner of misfits that didn't fit in to the rest of society. Pedophiles being one such category. Being an actress used to be on par with being a prostitute. Getting big in Hollywood used to be high status. But not as high status as being a honoured scientist or businessman. Even in the 50'ies being a houswife had way higher status than being a female movie star. And below Hollywood status was quite low indeed. Slowly slowly that all shifted. And today being an actress, even at a local theatre stage is no longer seen as, basically, being a prostitute.

What I remember is that the 70'ies and 80'ies was the shift. In the 80'ies being an actor was mostly NOT glamorous. It was assumed that most actors were sexual deviants and predators of one sort or another. Or masochists. It was first in the 90'ies where being an actor became high status and the idea suddenly arose that actors and actresses deserve respect. Any respect.

And now being an actress is seen just like any job really. And are deserving of the same rights as the rest of us.

It makes the whole thing... of judging people... for past crimes a bit iffy. Yeah, I know, doing things that are illegal are still illegal even if everybody is doing them. But if everybody is doing them, it does somewhat the moral character of those judged. I mean... everybody knew/assumed Hollywood and Broadway was a haven for pedophiles in the 40'ies, 50'ies, 60'ies, 70'ies, 80'ies and 90'ies. People still watched the movies. So those who watched the movies share in the guilt IMHO.

What people cared about back then was avoiding scandal. Everybody knew that 99% of all the men in the Broadway musical were gay in the 50'ies. They were fine about that. What they didn't want was them being open about it.

Here's an example of how recent this was.

In 1975 the famous and established British actor Peter Wyngarde was arrested for gross indecency in a public lavatory. Ie, he was a gay man cruising for sex and was caught. This was how British gays got laid. It killed his career completely. One day he had roles. The other day he didn't. And this is for committing a crime that hurt nobody. Being gay was legal then, but God help them if they actually tried getting laid.

In 1979 when Mike Hodges was filming the 1980'ies Flash Gordon he offered the role of Klytus to Peter Wyngarde. This was a momentous thing to do. Quite the watershed. For those handful of people who don't know, Flash Gordon is the gayest movie ever made. It's gayer than most gay porn. If you missed the plethora of gay references, you must be completely blind. The whole film is basically a drag show. Where even the decor is fabulously gay. Is the theme (sung by Freddy Mercury) about Flash Gordon or about the courage of being a gay man in a homophobic society? And to top it off they gave one of the roles to an openly gay actor. Albeit wearing a mask throughout. Just to lessen the controversy.

1980 isn't that long ago. It's living memory. But it still wasn't until the 90'ies when any person could come out as gay and keep their job.

I think it's unfair to judge people of crimes committed in the bad old days with today's standards. Instead... lets just be happy that the times have changed.

If everyone is doing it, then the group influences our brains far more than we think:



However, while their Hollywood peers may have been doing the same thing, the fact that they worked to keep these things hidden means that they knew damn well that what they were doing was wrong. So they were aware that the larger group (society as a whole) was against what the smaller peer group was doing, and thus they had every reason to understand that what they were doing was wrong.

We can unthinkingly let the group think for us (that's more or less what happened in the Stanford prison experiment), but that still doesn't absolve you of responsibility for participating in an immoral or illegal act. It's really important to be aware of when the group is influencing your judgment, because if something like fascism sweeps through society again, you're going to regret not being this guy:

I think the Stanford prison experiment is really relevant to this discussion. If you get caught up in group dynamics like that, not only can you convince yourself that what the group is doing is acceptable, but you might actually do the bad things yourself either to convince yourself that the group is not bad or to convince the group to accept you. When the group goes bad, our social instincts work against us. Otherwise good people can do monstrous things.

And I think that's why it's extra important to not accept the "everyone was doing it" defense (which is not all that different from "I was just following orders"), and further to have public discussions about how unacceptable it is, because maybe the next time someone is part of a group that is going bad, they might be more aware of how the group is influencing them and do something about it. It's important to have this discussion and tell people that "but everyone is doing it" is not an acceptable defense, nor does it diminish moral culpability. The whole point to morals is to influence the behavior of members of the group, and we can't afford to tolerate this.

 

[repoman]

Hiring PIs? This is as bad as Scientology.

 

[DrZoidberg]

BTW, are we all forgetting that working in the entertainment industry used to have low status? It used to attract all manner of misfits that didn't fit in to the rest of society. Pedophiles being one such category. Being an actress used to be on par with being a prostitute. Getting big in Hollywood used to be high status. But not as high status as being a honoured scientist or businessman. Even in the 50'ies being a houswife had way higher status than being a female movie star. And below Hollywood status was quite low indeed. Slowly slowly that all shifted. And today being an actress, even at a local theatre stage is no longer seen as, basically, being a prostitute.

What I remember is that the 70'ies and 80'ies was the shift. In the 80'ies being an actor was mostly NOT glamorous. It was assumed that most actors were sexual deviants and predators of one sort or another. Or masochists. It was first in the 90'ies where being an actor became high status and the idea suddenly arose that actors and actresses deserve respect. Any respect.

And now being an actress is seen just like any job really. And are deserving of the same rights as the rest of us.

It makes the whole thing... of judging people... for past crimes a bit iffy. Yeah, I know, doing things that are illegal are still illegal even if everybody is doing them. But if everybody is doing them, it does somewhat the moral character of those judged. I mean... everybody knew/assumed Hollywood and Broadway was a haven for pedophiles in the 40'ies, 50'ies, 60'ies, 70'ies, 80'ies and 90'ies. People still watched the movies. So those who watched the movies share in the guilt IMHO.

What people cared about back then was avoiding scandal. Everybody knew that 99% of all the men in the Broadway musical were gay in the 50'ies. They were fine about that. What they didn't want was them being open about it.

Here's an example of how recent this was.

In 1975 the famous and established British actor Peter Wyngarde was arrested for gross indecency in a public lavatory. Ie, he was a gay man cruising for sex and was caught. This was how British gays got laid. It killed his career completely. One day he had roles. The other day he didn't. And this is for committing a crime that hurt nobody. Being gay was legal then, but God help them if they actually tried getting laid.

In 1979 when Mike Hodges was filming the 1980'ies Flash Gordon he offered the role of Klytus to Peter Wyngarde. This was a momentous thing to do. Quite the watershed. For those handful of people who don't know, Flash Gordon is the gayest movie ever made. It's gayer than most gay porn. If you missed the plethora of gay references, you must be completely blind. The whole film is basically a drag show. Where even the decor is fabulously gay. Is the theme (sung by Freddy Mercury) about Flash Gordon or about the courage of being a gay man in a homophobic society? And to top it off they gave one of the roles to an openly gay actor. Albeit wearing a mask throughout. Just to lessen the controversy.

1980 isn't that long ago. It's living memory. But it still wasn't until the 90'ies when any person could come out as gay and keep their job.

I think it's unfair to judge people of crimes committed in the bad old days with today's standards. Instead... lets just be happy that the times have changed.

If everyone is doing it, then the group influences our brains far more than we think:



However, while their Hollywood peers may have been doing the same thing, the fact that they worked to keep these things hidden means that they knew damn well that what they were doing was wrong. So they were aware that the larger group (society as a whole) was against what the smaller peer group was doing, and thus they had every reason to understand that what they were doing was wrong.

We can unthinkingly let the group think for us (that's more or less what happened in the Stanford prison experiment), but that still doesn't absolve you of responsibility for participating in an immoral or illegal act. It's really important to be aware of when the group is influencing your judgment, because if something like fascism sweeps through society again, you're going to regret not being this guy:

I think the Stanford prison experiment is really relevant to this discussion. If you get caught up in group dynamics like that, not only can you convince yourself that what the group is doing is acceptable, but you might actually do the bad things yourself either to convince yourself that the group is not bad or to convince the group to accept you. When the group goes bad, our social instincts work against us. Otherwise good people can do monstrous things.

And I think that's why it's extra important to not accept the "everyone was doing it" defense (which is not all that different from "I was just following orders"), and further to have public discussions about how unacceptable it is, because maybe the next time someone is part of a group that is going bad, they might be more aware of how the group is influencing them and do something about it. It's important to have this discussion and tell people that "but everyone is doing it" is not an acceptable defense, nor does it diminish moral culpability. The whole point to morals is to influence the behavior of members of the group, and we can't afford to tolerate this.

I guess it depends how pragmatic we want to be. Either we create laws around humans based on human psychology. Or we make laws around a morally perfect fantasy human.

People in showbiz were back then, and still are, outsiders. These aren't the coolest or most popular people. These are people, for whatever reason, don't fit into normal life. People in showbiz are way over-represented in all manner of mental problems. Which is ironic, because it's an industry, all about keeping up appearances. Those in showbiz are aware of this and help each other out to keep up appearances. They protect each other and are very loyal. Also... there's so many in the industry who want fame and will never get it. That it makes loyalty even more important. Because it can be a ticket into the industry, and the only way to stay hot.

Your critique is basically a version of Sartre's authentic human argument. It's total bullshit. Because it assumes that anybody following their own heart will do better than those joining in. Well... I recommend you see the film Chickenhawk. It's a documentary of NAMBLA. A bunch of pedophiles who all see themselves just like that guy in the Nazi pic who refuses to salute. In their minds they're the victims of persecution and the good guys. People refusing to join in is no guarantee of more moral behaviour. Rather the opposite. Group think and group social pressure, I'm pretty sure, keeps us being better people than we otherwise would be.

There's nothing wrong about joining in and doing what the others are doing. We're a social species. It's what we do. The whole idea that if you're not a one in a million hero, prepared to sacrifice everything and everyone for what is good, you're evil or morally corrupt... it's such fucking bullshit. How the hell did you get so arrogant that you think that you're the best moral judge out there. It's easy being brave if you have nothing to lose and nothing is at stake. How does it feel up their on your high horse? All snug and comfy?

What we should stop doing is adoring actors for skillfully reading lines they didn't write. How about not seeing these people as the pinnacle of human ability, and just seeing them for what they are, a dysfunctional bunch of people? I think it was Peggy Ashcroft who said in an interview with a fawning journalist that "I'm not really the queen. It's just pretend". Giving insecure people the keys to the kingdom and endless respect... is perhaps the problem?

edit: The Stanford prison experiment had methodological problems. It wasn't a free experiment. The guards were encouraged to mistreat the prisoners. And they knew that the prisoners were there willingly and could leave at any time. The experiment is interesting for a number of reasons. But I don't think it shows so much about human moral corruption.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hiring PIs? This is as bad as Scientology.

This worse, much much worse. This feels like the tip of the iceberg. The companies Weinstein was using are used by others as well. This is a Hollywood Thriller movie script in real life.

 

[Bronzeage]

Hiring PIs? This is as bad as Scientology.

This worse, much much worse. This feels like the tip of the iceberg. The companies Weinstein was using are used by others as well. This is a Hollywood Thriller movie script in real life.

If there was ever a rational reason for limiting the pay of corporate CEOs , this would have to be it. Besides paying his lawyers, Weinstein paid people to actually create personal relationships with his victims, gain their trust, and gather information which could be used against them. The same treatment was given to reporters who were working on the stories.

I have no idea how much that costs, but anyone who can afford that kind of thing is definitely overpaid.

 

[Underseer]

Gays and lesbians are climbing over each other to savage Kevin Spacey. Good.

 

[Underseer]

This worse, much much worse. This feels like the tip of the iceberg. The companies Weinstein was using are used by others as well. This is a Hollywood Thriller movie script in real life.

If there was ever a rational reason for limiting the pay of corporate CEOs , this would have to be it. Besides paying his lawyers, Weinstein paid people to actually create personal relationships with his victims, gain their trust, and gather information which could be used against them. The same treatment was given to reporters who were working on the stories.

I have no idea how much that costs, but anyone who can afford that kind of thing is definitely overpaid.

Bingo!

- - - Updated - - -

If everyone is doing it, then the group influences our brains far more than we think:



However, while their Hollywood peers may have been doing the same thing, the fact that they worked to keep these things hidden means that they knew damn well that what they were doing was wrong. So they were aware that the larger group (society as a whole) was against what the smaller peer group was doing, and thus they had every reason to understand that what they were doing was wrong.

We can unthinkingly let the group think for us (that's more or less what happened in the Stanford prison experiment), but that still doesn't absolve you of responsibility for participating in an immoral or illegal act. It's really important to be aware of when the group is influencing your judgment, because if something like fascism sweeps through society again, you're going to regret not being this guy:

I think the Stanford prison experiment is really relevant to this discussion. If you get caught up in group dynamics like that, not only can you convince yourself that what the group is doing is acceptable, but you might actually do the bad things yourself either to convince yourself that the group is not bad or to convince the group to accept you. When the group goes bad, our social instincts work against us. Otherwise good people can do monstrous things.

And I think that's why it's extra important to not accept the "everyone was doing it" defense (which is not all that different from "I was just following orders"), and further to have public discussions about how unacceptable it is, because maybe the next time someone is part of a group that is going bad, they might be more aware of how the group is influencing them and do something about it. It's important to have this discussion and tell people that "but everyone is doing it" is not an acceptable defense, nor does it diminish moral culpability. The whole point to morals is to influence the behavior of members of the group, and we can't afford to tolerate this.

I guess it depends how pragmatic we want to be. Either we create laws around humans based on human psychology. Or we make laws around a morally perfect fantasy human.

People in showbiz were back then, and still are, outsiders. These aren't the coolest or most popular people. These are people, for whatever reason, don't fit into normal life. People in showbiz are way over-represented in all manner of mental problems. Which is ironic, because it's an industry, all about keeping up appearances. Those in showbiz are aware of this and help each other out to keep up appearances. They protect each other and are very loyal. Also... there's so many in the industry who want fame and will never get it. That it makes loyalty even more important. Because it can be a ticket into the industry, and the only way to stay hot.

Your critique is basically a version of Sartre's authentic human argument. It's total bullshit. Because it assumes that anybody following their own heart will do better than those joining in. Well... I recommend you see the film Chickenhawk. It's a documentary of NAMBLA. A bunch of pedophiles who all see themselves just like that guy in the Nazi pic who refuses to salute. In their minds they're the victims of persecution and the good guys. People refusing to join in is no guarantee of more moral behaviour. Rather the opposite. Group think and group social pressure, I'm pretty sure, keeps us being better people than we otherwise would be.

There's nothing wrong about joining in and doing what the others are doing. We're a social species. It's what we do. The whole idea that if you're not a one in a million hero, prepared to sacrifice everything and everyone for what is good, you're evil or morally corrupt... it's such fucking bullshit. How the hell did you get so arrogant that you think that you're the best moral judge out there. It's easy being brave if you have nothing to lose and nothing is at stake. How does it feel up their on your high horse? All snug and comfy?

What we should stop doing is adoring actors for skillfully reading lines they didn't write. How about not seeing these people as the pinnacle of human ability, and just seeing them for what they are, a dysfunctional bunch of people? I think it was Peggy Ashcroft who said in an interview with a fawning journalist that "I'm not really the queen. It's just pretend". Giving insecure people the keys to the kingdom and endless respect... is perhaps the problem?

edit: The Stanford prison experiment had methodological problems. It wasn't a free experiment. The guards were encouraged to mistreat the prisoners. And they knew that the prisoners were there willingly and could leave at any time. The experiment is interesting for a number of reasons. But I don't think it shows so much about human moral corruption.

I was in no way implying that all who go against the group are moral.

 

[LordKiran]

If there was ever a rational reason for limiting the pay of corporate CEOs , this would have to be it. Besides paying his lawyers, Weinstein paid people to actually create personal relationships with his victims, gain their trust, and gather information which could be used against them. The same treatment was given to reporters who were working on the stories.

I have no idea how much that costs, but anyone who can afford that kind of thing is definitely overpaid.

Bingo!

- - - Updated - - -

If everyone is doing it, then the group influences our brains far more than we think:



However, while their Hollywood peers may have been doing the same thing, the fact that they worked to keep these things hidden means that they knew damn well that what they were doing was wrong. So they were aware that the larger group (society as a whole) was against what the smaller peer group was doing, and thus they had every reason to understand that what they were doing was wrong.

We can unthinkingly let the group think for us (that's more or less what happened in the Stanford prison experiment), but that still doesn't absolve you of responsibility for participating in an immoral or illegal act. It's really important to be aware of when the group is influencing your judgment, because if something like fascism sweeps through society again, you're going to regret not being this guy:

I think the Stanford prison experiment is really relevant to this discussion. If you get caught up in group dynamics like that, not only can you convince yourself that what the group is doing is acceptable, but you might actually do the bad things yourself either to convince yourself that the group is not bad or to convince the group to accept you. When the group goes bad, our social instincts work against us. Otherwise good people can do monstrous things.

And I think that's why it's extra important to not accept the "everyone was doing it" defense (which is not all that different from "I was just following orders"), and further to have public discussions about how unacceptable it is, because maybe the next time someone is part of a group that is going bad, they might be more aware of how the group is influencing them and do something about it. It's important to have this discussion and tell people that "but everyone is doing it" is not an acceptable defense, nor does it diminish moral culpability. The whole point to morals is to influence the behavior of members of the group, and we can't afford to tolerate this.

I guess it depends how pragmatic we want to be. Either we create laws around humans based on human psychology. Or we make laws around a morally perfect fantasy human.

People in showbiz were back then, and still are, outsiders. These aren't the coolest or most popular people. These are people, for whatever reason, don't fit into normal life. People in showbiz are way over-represented in all manner of mental problems. Which is ironic, because it's an industry, all about keeping up appearances. Those in showbiz are aware of this and help each other out to keep up appearances. They protect each other and are very loyal. Also... there's so many in the industry who want fame and will never get it. That it makes loyalty even more important. Because it can be a ticket into the industry, and the only way to stay hot.

Your critique is basically a version of Sartre's authentic human argument. It's total bullshit. Because it assumes that anybody following their own heart will do better than those joining in. Well... I recommend you see the film Chickenhawk. It's a documentary of NAMBLA. A bunch of pedophiles who all see themselves just like that guy in the Nazi pic who refuses to salute. In their minds they're the victims of persecution and the good guys. People refusing to join in is no guarantee of more moral behaviour. Rather the opposite. Group think and group social pressure, I'm pretty sure, keeps us being better people than we otherwise would be.

There's nothing wrong about joining in and doing what the others are doing. We're a social species. It's what we do. The whole idea that if you're not a one in a million hero, prepared to sacrifice everything and everyone for what is good, you're evil or morally corrupt... it's such fucking bullshit. How the hell did you get so arrogant that you think that you're the best moral judge out there. It's easy being brave if you have nothing to lose and nothing is at stake. How does it feel up their on your high horse? All snug and comfy?

What we should stop doing is adoring actors for skillfully reading lines they didn't write. How about not seeing these people as the pinnacle of human ability, and just seeing them for what they are, a dysfunctional bunch of people? I think it was Peggy Ashcroft who said in an interview with a fawning journalist that "I'm not really the queen. It's just pretend". Giving insecure people the keys to the kingdom and endless respect... is perhaps the problem?

edit: The Stanford prison experiment had methodological problems. It wasn't a free experiment. The guards were encouraged to mistreat the prisoners. And they knew that the prisoners were there willingly and could leave at any time. The experiment is interesting for a number of reasons. But I don't think it shows so much about human moral corruption.

I was in no way implying that all who go against the group are moral.

No but its easy to say that one should go against a group or be considered culpable when you aren't the one in their situation fighting their struggles.

Its just as easy to say to a salary man with a shitty boss "Hey why do you take crap from that guy, have some self respect and stand up to him!" when you're not the one who has to worry if his kids will eat that night. Facts are people have priorities. We can't all afford to fight every battle over every perceived wrong in this world. Those of us who can are indeed the lucky few.

Its hard to not come away from the average German who supported hitler with some empathy for their situation you know. In a time where all hope was lost and the pride and spirit of the German people was effectively broken, can you really blame the desperate masses for wanting, wishing for a miracle?

 

[bilby]

Bingo!

- - - Updated - - -

If everyone is doing it, then the group influences our brains far more than we think:



However, while their Hollywood peers may have been doing the same thing, the fact that they worked to keep these things hidden means that they knew damn well that what they were doing was wrong. So they were aware that the larger group (society as a whole) was against what the smaller peer group was doing, and thus they had every reason to understand that what they were doing was wrong.

We can unthinkingly let the group think for us (that's more or less what happened in the Stanford prison experiment), but that still doesn't absolve you of responsibility for participating in an immoral or illegal act. It's really important to be aware of when the group is influencing your judgment, because if something like fascism sweeps through society again, you're going to regret not being this guy:

I think the Stanford prison experiment is really relevant to this discussion. If you get caught up in group dynamics like that, not only can you convince yourself that what the group is doing is acceptable, but you might actually do the bad things yourself either to convince yourself that the group is not bad or to convince the group to accept you. When the group goes bad, our social instincts work against us. Otherwise good people can do monstrous things.

And I think that's why it's extra important to not accept the "everyone was doing it" defense (which is not all that different from "I was just following orders"), and further to have public discussions about how unacceptable it is, because maybe the next time someone is part of a group that is going bad, they might be more aware of how the group is influencing them and do something about it. It's important to have this discussion and tell people that "but everyone is doing it" is not an acceptable defense, nor does it diminish moral culpability. The whole point to morals is to influence the behavior of members of the group, and we can't afford to tolerate this.

I guess it depends how pragmatic we want to be. Either we create laws around humans based on human psychology. Or we make laws around a morally perfect fantasy human.

People in showbiz were back then, and still are, outsiders. These aren't the coolest or most popular people. These are people, for whatever reason, don't fit into normal life. People in showbiz are way over-represented in all manner of mental problems. Which is ironic, because it's an industry, all about keeping up appearances. Those in showbiz are aware of this and help each other out to keep up appearances. They protect each other and are very loyal. Also... there's so many in the industry who want fame and will never get it. That it makes loyalty even more important. Because it can be a ticket into the industry, and the only way to stay hot.

Your critique is basically a version of Sartre's authentic human argument. It's total bullshit. Because it assumes that anybody following their own heart will do better than those joining in. Well... I recommend you see the film Chickenhawk. It's a documentary of NAMBLA. A bunch of pedophiles who all see themselves just like that guy in the Nazi pic who refuses to salute. In their minds they're the victims of persecution and the good guys. People refusing to join in is no guarantee of more moral behaviour. Rather the opposite. Group think and group social pressure, I'm pretty sure, keeps us being better people than we otherwise would be.

There's nothing wrong about joining in and doing what the others are doing. We're a social species. It's what we do. The whole idea that if you're not a one in a million hero, prepared to sacrifice everything and everyone for what is good, you're evil or morally corrupt... it's such fucking bullshit. How the hell did you get so arrogant that you think that you're the best moral judge out there. It's easy being brave if you have nothing to lose and nothing is at stake. How does it feel up their on your high horse? All snug and comfy?

What we should stop doing is adoring actors for skillfully reading lines they didn't write. How about not seeing these people as the pinnacle of human ability, and just seeing them for what they are, a dysfunctional bunch of people? I think it was Peggy Ashcroft who said in an interview with a fawning journalist that "I'm not really the queen. It's just pretend". Giving insecure people the keys to the kingdom and endless respect... is perhaps the problem?

edit: The Stanford prison experiment had methodological problems. It wasn't a free experiment. The guards were encouraged to mistreat the prisoners. And they knew that the prisoners were there willingly and could leave at any time. The experiment is interesting for a number of reasons. But I don't think it shows so much about human moral corruption.

I was in no way implying that all who go against the group are moral.

No but its easy to say that one should go against a group or be considered culpable when you aren't the one in their situation fighting their struggles.

Its just as easy to say to a salary man with a shitty boss "Hey why do you take crap from that guy, have some self respect and stand up to him!" when you're not the one who has to worry if his kids will eat that night. Facts are people have priorities. We can't all afford to fight every battle over every perceived wrong in this world. Those of us who can are indeed the lucky few.

Its hard to not come away from the average German who supported hitler with some empathy for their situation you know. In a time where all hope was lost and the pride and spirit of the German people was effectively broken, can you really blame the desperate masses for wanting, wishing for a miracle?

That's August Landmesser in the picture. Wikipedia tells us what happened to him:

In 1935, when he became engaged to Irma Eckler (a Jewish woman), he was expelled from the [Nazi] party.
...
A now-famous photograph, in which a man identified as Landmesser refuses to give the Nazi salute, was taken on 13 June 1936.

In 1937, Landmesser and Eckler tried to flee to Denmark but were apprehended. She was again pregnant, and he was charged and found guilty in July 1937 of "dishonoring the race" under Nazi racial laws. He argued that neither he nor Eckler knew that she was fully Jewish, and was acquitted on 27 May 1938 for lack of evidence, with the warning that a repeat offense would result in a multi-year prison sentence. The couple publicly continued their relationship, and on 15 July 1938 he was arrested again and sentenced to two and a half years in the Börgermoor concentration camp.

Landmesser was discharged from prison on 19 January 1941. ... In February 1944 he was drafted into a penal battalion, the 999th Fort Infantry Battalion. He was declared killed in action, after being killed during fighting in Croatia on 17 October 1944.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Landmesser

A brave man, to be sure; But given his fate, it's hardly surprising that most ordinary Germans didn't choose to follow his example.

 

[LordKiran]

Bingo!

- - - Updated - - -

If everyone is doing it, then the group influences our brains far more than we think:



However, while their Hollywood peers may have been doing the same thing, the fact that they worked to keep these things hidden means that they knew damn well that what they were doing was wrong. So they were aware that the larger group (society as a whole) was against what the smaller peer group was doing, and thus they had every reason to understand that what they were doing was wrong.

We can unthinkingly let the group think for us (that's more or less what happened in the Stanford prison experiment), but that still doesn't absolve you of responsibility for participating in an immoral or illegal act. It's really important to be aware of when the group is influencing your judgment, because if something like fascism sweeps through society again, you're going to regret not being this guy:

I think the Stanford prison experiment is really relevant to this discussion. If you get caught up in group dynamics like that, not only can you convince yourself that what the group is doing is acceptable, but you might actually do the bad things yourself either to convince yourself that the group is not bad or to convince the group to accept you. When the group goes bad, our social instincts work against us. Otherwise good people can do monstrous things.

And I think that's why it's extra important to not accept the "everyone was doing it" defense (which is not all that different from "I was just following orders"), and further to have public discussions about how unacceptable it is, because maybe the next time someone is part of a group that is going bad, they might be more aware of how the group is influencing them and do something about it. It's important to have this discussion and tell people that "but everyone is doing it" is not an acceptable defense, nor does it diminish moral culpability. The whole point to morals is to influence the behavior of members of the group, and we can't afford to tolerate this.

I guess it depends how pragmatic we want to be. Either we create laws around humans based on human psychology. Or we make laws around a morally perfect fantasy human.

People in showbiz were back then, and still are, outsiders. These aren't the coolest or most popular people. These are people, for whatever reason, don't fit into normal life. People in showbiz are way over-represented in all manner of mental problems. Which is ironic, because it's an industry, all about keeping up appearances. Those in showbiz are aware of this and help each other out to keep up appearances. They protect each other and are very loyal. Also... there's so many in the industry who want fame and will never get it. That it makes loyalty even more important. Because it can be a ticket into the industry, and the only way to stay hot.

Your critique is basically a version of Sartre's authentic human argument. It's total bullshit. Because it assumes that anybody following their own heart will do better than those joining in. Well... I recommend you see the film Chickenhawk. It's a documentary of NAMBLA. A bunch of pedophiles who all see themselves just like that guy in the Nazi pic who refuses to salute. In their minds they're the victims of persecution and the good guys. People refusing to join in is no guarantee of more moral behaviour. Rather the opposite. Group think and group social pressure, I'm pretty sure, keeps us being better people than we otherwise would be.

There's nothing wrong about joining in and doing what the others are doing. We're a social species. It's what we do. The whole idea that if you're not a one in a million hero, prepared to sacrifice everything and everyone for what is good, you're evil or morally corrupt... it's such fucking bullshit. How the hell did you get so arrogant that you think that you're the best moral judge out there. It's easy being brave if you have nothing to lose and nothing is at stake. How does it feel up their on your high horse? All snug and comfy?

What we should stop doing is adoring actors for skillfully reading lines they didn't write. How about not seeing these people as the pinnacle of human ability, and just seeing them for what they are, a dysfunctional bunch of people? I think it was Peggy Ashcroft who said in an interview with a fawning journalist that "I'm not really the queen. It's just pretend". Giving insecure people the keys to the kingdom and endless respect... is perhaps the problem?

edit: The Stanford prison experiment had methodological problems. It wasn't a free experiment. The guards were encouraged to mistreat the prisoners. And they knew that the prisoners were there willingly and could leave at any time. The experiment is interesting for a number of reasons. But I don't think it shows so much about human moral corruption.

I was in no way implying that all who go against the group are moral.

No but its easy to say that one should go against a group or be considered culpable when you aren't the one in their situation fighting their struggles.

Its just as easy to say to a salary man with a shitty boss "Hey why do you take crap from that guy, have some self respect and stand up to him!" when you're not the one who has to worry if his kids will eat that night. Facts are people have priorities. We can't all afford to fight every battle over every perceived wrong in this world. Those of us who can are indeed the lucky few.

Its hard to not come away from the average German who supported hitler with some empathy for their situation you know. In a time where all hope was lost and the pride and spirit of the German people was effectively broken, can you really blame the desperate masses for wanting, wishing for a miracle?

That's August Landmesser in the picture. Wikipedia tells us what happened to him:

In 1935, when he became engaged to Irma Eckler (a Jewish woman), he was expelled from the [Nazi] party.
...
A now-famous photograph, in which a man identified as Landmesser refuses to give the Nazi salute, was taken on 13 June 1936.

In 1937, Landmesser and Eckler tried to flee to Denmark but were apprehended. She was again pregnant, and he was charged and found guilty in July 1937 of "dishonoring the race" under Nazi racial laws. He argued that neither he nor Eckler knew that she was fully Jewish, and was acquitted on 27 May 1938 for lack of evidence, with the warning that a repeat offense would result in a multi-year prison sentence. The couple publicly continued their relationship, and on 15 July 1938 he was arrested again and sentenced to two and a half years in the Börgermoor concentration camp.

Landmesser was discharged from prison on 19 January 1941. ... In February 1944 he was drafted into a penal battalion, the 999th Fort Infantry Battalion. He was declared killed in action, after being killed during fighting in Croatia on 17 October 1944.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Landmesser

A brave man, to be sure; But given his fate, it's hardly surprising that most ordinary Germans didn't choose to follow his example.

Tragic. I can't imagine the fate his wife must have endured.