Hollywood Reckoning: What Side Are You On?

[ryan]

Stronger judgements are now casted and punishments are now given for sexual misconduct now more than recent years. We all new that this was going on because of all of the countless "casting-couch" stories and stigmas that Hollywood powers get, yet now networks, businesses, etc. are going out of their way to punish.



Are you for 1) or 2) or somewhere in between?


1) Do you agree with stronger judgements and punishments and want society to improve in terms of moral justice, equality, sensitivity and tolerance?

2) Or are we going too far and being too hard on ourselves as evolving animals (a cluster of cells)? After all, we are not perfect, and we have to remember that we will be judged by the same measure that we judge.

 

[ryan]

Just to clarify a little, for example, do we condemn people like O'Reilly or Louis CK by boycotting their programs/products or demand more action be taken by their employers than what the law requires?

The law of course should do its thing, no question, but how much more public punishment should we deliver if any at all?

 

[LordKiran]

Just to clarify a little, for example, do we condemn people like O'Reilly or Louis CK by boycotting their programs/products or demand more action be taken by their employers than what the law requires?

The law of course should do its thing, no question, but how much more public punishment should we deliver if any at all?

What a weird question. Typically these corporate level punishments are meted out because the companies don't want a stigmaa associated with them. Nobody wants their company to be known for hiring sexual assaulters (Unless you're name is Fox) And corporations with highly visible brands are always going to go to great pains to protect their public image. This is true regardless of what you or I believe.

 

[ryan]

Just to clarify a little, for example, do we condemn people like O'Reilly or Louis CK by boycotting their programs/products or demand more action be taken by their employers than what the law requires?

The law of course should do its thing, no question, but how much more public punishment should we deliver if any at all?

What a weird question. Typically these corporate level punishments are meted out because the companies don't want a stigmaa associated with them. Nobody wants their company to be known for hiring sexual assaulters (Unless you're name is Fox) And corporations with highly visible brands are always going to go to great pains to protect their public image. This is true regardless of what you or I believe.

The stigma comes from the public, in this case the public is the jury, and it is making judgements based on subjective moral standards and what they perceive as unethical behavior.

If you agree with an actor being fired will you be a hypocrite for watching his older movies? Are people who pay to watch old Woody Allen movies guilty for perpetuating his career?

If we are going to condemn all companies for keeping misbehaved employees, where does it end and how much boycott is too much?

One side of me is happy at a strive towards ethical perfection and higher moral standards. But in the same sense, we are essentially condeming the current human condition in doing so.

I don't know if Hollywood somehow attracts intrinsically corrupt people or their lives are arbitrary magnified examples of what it is to be human in this age.

 

[OLDMAN]

Of course they should be punished, although I do have a problem with some of the time lines. In some cases you can see why the victim waited, in others it seems like a convenient time to come forward.

 

[LordKiran]

What a weird question. Typically these corporate level punishments are meted out because the companies don't want a stigmaa associated with them. Nobody wants their company to be known for hiring sexual assaulters (Unless you're name is Fox) And corporations with highly visible brands are always going to go to great pains to protect their public image. This is true regardless of what you or I believe.

The stigma comes from the public, in this case the public is the jury, and it is making judgements based on subjective moral standards and what they perceive as unethical behavior.

If you agree with an actor being fired will you be a hypocrite for watching his older movies? Are people who pay to watch old Woody Allen movies guilty for perpetuating his career?

If we are going to condemn all companies for keeping misbehaved employees, where does it end and how much boycott is too much?

One side of me is happy at a strive towards ethical perfection and higher moral standards. But in the same sense, we are essentially condeming the current human condition in doing so.

I don't know if Hollywood somehow attracts intrinsically corrupt people or their lives are arbitrary magnified examples of what it is to be human in this age.

Its not about misbehaved employees, its about employees who tarnish the company's public image. Nobody cares about a mail clerk (Do those still exist?) stealing office supplies to help pay for his coke habit. People care when a highly visible spokes person gets caught with kiddie porn on his computer though. People care when a middle management person says something outrageously racist on his twitter feed and then buzzfeed or someone else picks up on it. Its not about wrongdoing, its about whats good for the company.

 

[couch_sloth]

What a weird question. Typically these corporate level punishments are meted out because the companies don't want a stigmaa associated with them. Nobody wants their company to be known for hiring sexual assaulters (Unless you're name is Fox) And corporations with highly visible brands are always going to go to great pains to protect their public image. This is true regardless of what you or I believe.

The stigma comes from the public, in this case the public is the jury, and it is making judgements based on subjective moral standards and what they perceive as unethical behavior.

If you agree with an actor being fired will you be a hypocrite for watching his older movies? Are people who pay to watch old Woody Allen movies guilty for perpetuating his career?

If we are going to condemn all companies for keeping misbehaved employees, where does it end and how much boycott is too much?

One side of me is happy at a strive towards ethical perfection and higher moral standards. But in the same sense, we are essentially condeming the current human condition in doing so.

I don't know if Hollywood somehow attracts intrinsically corrupt people or their lives are arbitrary magnified examples of what it is to be human in this age.

Unfortunately, Hollywood has always attracted such men. And/or, perhaps having this type of authority & power brings out the worst is some men (e.g. Being around attractive young women who are desperate to make it as an actor). Legends like Alfred Hitchcock and Charlie Chaplin apparently engaged in such behavior.