#69

That’s an interesting one, Gawker are legitimately scumbags with practically no ethics but their stories don’t lack veracity, and unlike the daily mail their ideological direction wasn’t entirely fixed.

#70

You said that gawker is a ‘completely discredited organisation’ which is just not true though, is it?

Okay, maybe it is to you, on this one story, but that doesn’t mean that you can assume that the rest of the world holds the same opinion.

#72

Well ok, once again on the internet, the absence of explicitly stating “this is my opinion, not necessarily the opinion of the rest of the world” comes back to bite a web-surfer on their silly old bottom.

I am an idiot on the internet, everything I say is just the thoughts of an internet idiot.

#73

Except that this hasn’t been the case.

Remember, they weren’t bankrupted for being wrong about a story, but for breaching privacy.

#74

Oh yes I suppose my query and I think Marckee’s query is on what thoroughly discredited actually means.

If it means cannot be relied upon to follow ethical journalistic guidelines certainly if it’s actually falsifying stories then not necessarily?

1 Like
#76

I’m gonna be on the wrong side here, but I mostly have little problem with seperating art from the artist. It’s obviously easier when society as a whole hasn’t rejected an artist for their ‘indiscretions’ (Jimmy Page, Woody Allen) than the ones it has (Gary Glitter, Ian Watkins). Like I only just discovered that David Fincher was involved in ‘House Of Cards’ and now want to watch it, despite Kevin Spacey being the main star.

Do you guys believe in giving those who have been punished for their actions a second chance? Like the guy who played Dirty Den in ‘Eastenders’ is a convicted murderer, who served his time and then got into acting. OK to watch him? What if Roman Polanski went to prison rather than running from justice?

Thirdly, some artists are interwoven deeply into their art (Louis CK does jokes about his life), while others are more detached (Varg Vikernes isn’t yelling racist things in his songs). Does that make a difference? I think it makes it easier to seperate it.

#77

Gawckee

#78

It’s not about punishment. It’s about someone acknowledging their mistakes and learning and growing. I mean, the whole nature of punishment and blame and free will is a slippery slope, but simply using punishment as a yardstick seems to miss out something important for me.

3 Likes
#79

yes, I separate the two

#80

I think yr right there.

For prisoners to get early release they have to acknowledge and learn from their mistakes don’t they?

#81

THats kindof what I was getting at up there - some people are so culturally interwoven that it’s pretty difficult for society to reject them outright, I don’t know if it’s possible to detangle woody Allen or jimmy page from their place in a cultural hierarchy as the work is too widespread, influential and profitable. That makes it harder to avoid consuming the content they are attached to

#82

Fewer women do these Sorts of terrible things I’d say.

1 Like
#83

Yeah I suppose it boils down to that as well. I’m just wondering if by separating art and artist I’m not contributing to a culture of shit

#84

that was true up unti he released ‘the message’ which is extremely dodgy. he’s also urged people on his blog to cloak their racist language in subtle ways so as to avoid getting censored/getting their websites pulled as has happened to him numerous times.

#85

Maybe but if you take it to logical conclusions then there’s an almost impossible number of things that we shouldn’t be engaging with based on their history. Things made by slaves or medical advancements gained through bad practices etc. The entire western world and culture is built on a bed of discrimination, so unless you reject all modern culture I’m
Not sure how you can get away from that. Though of course that’s more historical so it’s not quite the same as ongoing or very recent allegations.

#86

Without going into specifics, it really depends. I don’t know the details of Den Watts’ case, but if he’s done his time for a single crime, acknowledged his actions, perhaps had mitigating circumstances of some kind, recognises the harm he’s done, showed remorse and since proven himself to be a relatively upstanding person then yes, there may well be scope for not writing him off wholesale. In many of these abuse or harassment cases, I very much don’t think so though - few people seem to have changed their attitudes, shown any remorse or understanding of what they’ve done, and often acted over a prolonged period of time.

I suspect I would be more likely to allow a second chance to a reformed sexist or racist with changed views than someone who physically acted in a harmful way though. Mind you, can we ever really know whether someone has changed or if they’re just pulling the wool over our eyes for acceptance though?

Slight stream of consciousness rambling there, so I may have missed the mark somewhat.

#87

Did not know about this. I’ve not listened to any of his stuff since he went to prison. I have laughed at a few of his youtube videos though.

#88

yeah he’s gone full on tinfoil crackpot now

#89

A live performance or a film?

#90

Think it depends on how much of the artist is in the work - like all woody Allen films have a character that represents him (or his film persona) and some of them are about dodgy relationships with young girls (manhattan really creeped me out), making it impossible to watch them without engaging and essentially validating the creator.