|
Remulak posted:I still believe that Gunn is probably the least terrible major Hollywood Director as a person, after Raimi. And that Al Franken is probably still the least terrible major politician. Campaigning on being “slightly less lovely than the alternative” is why the democrats loving suck. Franken deserved to go. As for Gunn being the least terrible major Hollywood person, that just seems like something you decided based on no particular evidence. Is Gunn less terrible than, say, David Fincher? Well, I don’t remember anything ever coming out about Fincher and he didn’t go through a public “pedophilia and rape are funny phase” in his 40s so I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he’s less terrible than Gunn.
|
#
¿
May 15, 2022 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
Baronash posted:I'd argue as to the extent of CK's comeback, though that's obviously still ongoing so maybe things will change. He was producing multiple tv shows, was getting paid upfront for comedy specials that appeared on TV and streaming services, and was heavily connected with other comedians and producers, which he parlayed into frequent appearances on late night shows, SNL hosting gigs, and the occasional movie role. Since 2018, he's appeared at comedy clubs and self-published a couple of stand up specials. That's falling pretty far. He just won a Grammy
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:Maybe if you're a professional boxer you shouldn't repeatedly hit people in the head for being pricks, because you might loving kill them. And no, starting a physical fight on a plane is not justified. Jesus Christ. If you’re a professional boxer you actually know how to control your punches, indeed it is necessary that you be able to throw punches of varying power and speed, both because it’s important in a fight and also because in sparring if you constantly try to murder the other guy you will eventually get a rep where nobody will spar with you or every sparring partner is trying to take your head off. A drunk dude winging punches from the hip is more likely to accidentally kill someone. Also, sometimes physical violence is the correct response. Not often, but sometimes.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I guess a big problem is that Tyson is a trained fighter who shouldn't hit people, period I don’t really understand this logic. Which professions are allowed to hit people? Is it okay to deck someone if you’re an accountant because surely your spindly accountant arms can’t do any real harm? What if you’re a super buff accountant? Bugblatter posted:I didn't intend a derail. It seemed about as in line with the thread focus as Ezra Miller's violent assaults or the Depp vs Heard case (unless I'm mistaken and that case includes sexual assault, I believe it's entirely about non-sexual abuse though?), and was directly relevant to the discussion of Tyson's reform. Context matters. Beating up your girlfriend or repeatedly starting fights with complete strangers are categorically different offenses than hitting a guy who is dedicated to harassing you, verbally and physically, in an enclosed space that you can’t escape from, and who is literally asking to be hit.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:A millionaire rapist wounding someone for using bad words, no matter how lovely they were being, is not doing a praxis. It's using violence to achieve an ends that he desires in the knowledge that he's probably going to get away with it. Which seems pretty true to form for him. Is it praxis to consider someone who served time for their crime and has not reoffended a criminal for life and continue to refer to the by their crime instead of treating them like a person? I get the instinctive revulsion at sexual assault but if you don’t believe in the concept of rehabilitation you’re probably a really lovely leftist.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 01:26
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:I take him resorting to extreme violence in the face of pressure to be indicative of him not being an especially reformed character. Do you think what is at worst misdemeanor assault is basically the same as rape? How many years in prison do you think he should get for it?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 01:33
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:I think he should get what anyone else would for starting a physical fight on a plane in flight and injuring someone. I don't know why you are trying to make this into some weird attack about me trivialising rape when what I said and meant was pretty obvious. I assume you're just being a prick. The victim did not want to press charges so Tyson got what anyone else would have gotten, which is no charges. Tyson probably isn’t a good person but his crime was 30 years ago and he hasn’t re-offended so pearl clutching about his not being imprisoned for an minor altercation that neither the victim nor the DA wanted to pursue criminally seems especially pointless. Wishing for the full weight of the criminal justice system to crush people for minor transgressions isn’t very leftist either. I also don’t really see the relevance to the thread about the pervasive culture of unpunished sexual assault in Hollywood given that Tyson was punished, it was three decades ago, and as far as we know he hasn’t sexually assaulted anyone since.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 02:05
|
|
|
Karloff posted:They didn't say that no victim of harassment should ever defend themselves. That seems to be a preposterous pretzel twist of an interpretation of the argument. The argument was isolated to the specific incident where they felt Tyson's decision to beat a man for deliberately antagonising him was wrong. Also comparing Tyson to a one of C.K's victims is a profoundly false equivalence. He said you should never strike someone in the head unless you are prepared to kill then as a blanket statement with no additional context required. In addition to being extremely silly it also implies that a victim of harassment is responsible for weighing the moral implications of killing someone before they respond physically to extricate themselves from the situation.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 03:21
|
|
|
Karloff posted:No. No one is obliged to not refer to Tyson as a rapist on the grounds that he went to jail. He still commited that heinous act and many will never be cool with him and to imply they should is in fact what's loving gross. It is really up to the individual to decide how they feel about him. It’s entirely performative and re-enforces the idea that people are essentially the worst thing they’ve ever done which is a really lovely attitude to take if you care about dismantling the police state, but you’re entire right that you can do whatever you want.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 03:45
|
|
|
Karloff posted:It's not silly. People can get killed by one punch, there's a charity in the UK https://www.onepunch.org.uk/ that raises awareness of that because a lot of time people can underestimate the damage hitting someone can do. This is terrible for the victim of the punch, because they're dead, but also the person who committed the assault, as they most likely didn't intend to kill the victim. But because they had a skewed perception of what an physical attack can do - maybe due to screen portrayals of bar fights where everyone ends up okay with just a red tissue in their nose - they ended up taking an action that could not be undone. The term harassment both legally and colloquially incorporates a huge amount of different acts, some of those justify a physical response in my opinion but others do not. There were 90 deaths in Australian between 2000 and 2015 due to being punched. There are about 100 injuries due to lightning strike in Australia a year. Your odds of killing someone with a punch are lower than your odds of being struck by lightening. The majority of deaths due to being hit are actually due to the head striking the pavement after a fall. So you actually should not push, trip, or otherwise throw someone off balance unless you are prepared to kill them. That means that not only can you not punch your harasser, you can’t even try to shoulder past them, lest you knock them to the ground where they strike their head and die. This is all extremely silly. People should, as a rule, not punch people. But like all rules there are exceptions and sometimes it is necessary, even advisable, and if someone is in a situation where they feel unsafe they shouldn’t be too worried about an extremely freak occurrence to protect themselves in an extremely measured way. A punch is not deadly force.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I don't think it's performative. You must understand that for many that crime is unforgivable and that is a perfectly okay thing to feel. I believe in redemption, and I believe that people do terrible things sometimes but do the work of trying to be a better person and that should be looked at with compassion and grace. But for many, especially in regards to that crime and sometimes due to their own experiences, they don't have the bandwidth in order to do that, so shaming someone for having a negative view of Tyson despite him going to jail is a bad look imo. Having a negative opinion of Mike Tyson is not performative. It’s a perfectly reasonable opinion to have. I think he’s a pretty lovely person. Being sure to interject that he’s a rapist every time you mention him is entirely performative. Who is it for? His victim doesn’t know or care, he doesn’t know or care, and you’re not telling anyone anything they didn’t already know. It’s basically just you saying “hey, I think rape is really bad.” I think everyone here agrees. He’s still a person with a name though and not a rape elemental.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
kaworu posted:It’s not like it’s a difficult thing to go through the day - or even your entire adult life - without throwing a single punch. Or shoving, or acting physically violent in any way at all. I’m 37 years old, had serious anger and temper issues as a child and, and I haven’t thrown a punch at anyone in my whole life. It’s not like it’s hugely challenging to avoid violence or violent situations on a personal level, it only requires the tiniest level of maturity and restraint. The ability to know how and when to walk away and not purposely escalate or provoke poo poo. I’m going to be generous here and assume you didn’t mean this the way it reads, but a lot of people don’t have the option of simply not being around violence.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 04:32
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:So I think there's a bigger issue there. I am in the boat of thinking it is an absolutely abhorrent crime and I would not want anything to do with someone who committed it. I don't think it is wrong for anyone to feel that way on a personal level. (Especially if they are a victim.) This is a good post.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 05:57
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I honestly will never understand why jury trials are still a thing. Who would appoint the non politically appointed judges?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
Shageletic posted:This is a Circuit court civil case. Precedent setting cases are usually used persuasively from higher courts. It was also a jury trial. Juries don’t create legal precedent because they aren’t ruling on the law but on the facts of a particular case.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 19:09
|
|