|
RevKrule posted:What about things like Last Tango In Paris where the bad thing done is literally part of the final product? To be fair his point still stands. It's not like Maria Schneider gets raped in real life every time someone watches it.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
RevKrule posted:What about things like Last Tango In Paris where the bad thing done is literally part of the final product? What about it? What happens if you do or don’t watch it? None of the people directly involved are even alive anymore. What effect does your media consumption or non consumption even have on them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 03:33
|
|
|
Cacator posted:I apply this to Mike Tyson. Did awful things, went to prison and served his time, then made a pleasant cartoon where he solves mysteries. I'm absolutely open to being completely wrong about this as I am in most things, but/and my impression of the Louie CK poo poo was that he DID feel contrition, offered a pretty frank and understanding apology (not the face-saving PR apologies other sex-pests might have offered) and removed himself from circulation. I bracket him with Mike Tyson in being a person who suffers from compulsions that hurt others, but at least understands and feels pained by that part of himself and accepts the consequences of his actions. Maybe other poo poo has come out about him since then, but I see him as a bit of a broken man whose genius is inextricably linked to his compulsions (and so very much like Mike Tyson!) so I dont feel too bad about streaming his stuff. More to the point of the thread, I've often pondered on the difference between having traditional or reactionary outlooks on the world, and just 'having lovely politics'. I find I can enjoy the former, even respect it, if I feel that their art is a result of genuine (frequently boggle-eyed) zeal or conviction, even if misguided. For that reason I have no qualms about watching Conan the Barbarian or Apocalyptico (or Braveheart if my Scottish blood is up), or Dragged Across Concrete. I see, perhaps naively, a kind of swivel-eyed madness in the Mel Gibsons and Craig Zahler's of the world that is generative of art that, if not great, is at least true and interesting. The distinction is with just having moribund and lovely politics, for while Craig Zahler is a reactionary crank he at least can direct a movie where the bad guys are cops, he doesnt have the brain-worms that someone like James Woods has been afflicted by and he isnt an empty shill like the small brigade of soulless and creatively bankrupt 'artists' powering the Christian movie movement. My kids love '9 Lives', but I'm one of those guys who cant get past seeing/hearing Kevin Spacey, especially since he creepily propositioned a co-worker of mine some ten years ago. Simiain fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 03:47
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What about it? What happens if you do or don’t watch it? None of the people directly involved are even alive anymore. What effect does your media consumption or non consumption even have on them? I don't know, I just think it's kinda lovely watching literal rape on my tv even if no one involved it still alive. Would you watch a snuff film?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 04:46
|
|
|
Last Tango in Paris doesn't have an actual rape scene; it's just that the actress didn't consent to the simulated sodomy scene. Still not cool, but there's a big difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 06:45
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:I don't know, I just think it's kinda lovely watching literal rape on my tv even if no one involved it still alive. Would you watch a snuff film? Is the idea that everyone who ever watched last tango in paris is a rape loving sicko?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 13:26
|
|
|
Simiain posted:I'm absolutely open to being completely wrong about this as I am in most things, but/and my impression of the Louie CK poo poo was that he DID feel contrition, offered a pretty frank and understanding apology (not the face-saving PR apologies other sex-pests might have offered) and removed himself from circulation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 14:05
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is the idea that everyone who ever watched last tango in paris is a rape loving sicko? Not at all, especially considering Schneider wasn't really ready to talk about it for 30 years. But once you've been informed of what you're watching, I would think it would change your impression and I would think an average person wouldn't necessarily want to be up to watching that, no matter how much you argue "it's art."
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:Not at all, especially considering Schneider wasn't really ready to talk about it for 30 years. But once you've been informed of what you're watching, I would think it would change your impression and I would think an average person wouldn't necessarily want to be up to watching that, no matter how much you argue "it's art." so would someone that watched it now be a rape loving sicko? It feels like a really famous movie that would be normal to hear someone watched. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:so would someone that watched it now be a rape loving sicko? FIrstly, I've never called anyone who watches is a "rape loving sicko" just that it's a kinda lovely thing to watch or want to watch. Secondly, it absolutely depends on the situation. It's not like there's a huge warning that's played before the movie or anything so of course there's gonna be people who live blissfully unaware.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:so would someone that watched it now be a rape loving sicko? This kind of incendiary and frankly bad faith langauge is not necessary or even appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:he is absolutely an unrepentant piece of poo poo and his new special is full "cancel culture put of control?" Bullshit. He just knew enough to stfu for (less than) a year Ah. Well, I'm not sure if it counts as controversial or not but comedians like Dave Chapelle and Ricky Gervais who swing their dicks around about being brave resisters to the cancel culture woke police get on my loving nerves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
If art history has taught me one thing, it's that artists as a whole are degenerate lunatics who in shunning honest trade, have chosen to participate in mankind's only worthy project- Art. When aliens archeologists piece together the black history of our doomed planet, it's our art that will both survive and define us. The written word, the picture, every symbol we ever scratched onto a material is a participation in our specie's only form of immortality. The crudely drawn, now-extinct animals etched tens of thousands of years ago in Europeans caves are no different in my eyes than the works of David Lynch, Pablo Picasso or Rembrandt. The process of creative industry I see as a transcendental expression, and when someone creates a true thing all faults and all history of the individual melts away as they are reconnecting with probably the best aspect of our nature. Judging a work by it's creator is simply insane. For every scandal that was made public, there's 10 more horrifying incidents that were covered up and forgotten about. One should seek to outdo one's heroes, because meeting them will always lead to disappointment. So when I see films made by literal monsters, I feel that it adds context rather than moralistic baggage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
Counterpoint: Hannah Gatsby never showed anyone her junk nonconsensually, I can just watch Nanette instead of Chewed Up. There's no shortage of content even if you blacklist every known sexpest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:Counterpoint: Hannah Gatsby never showed anyone her junk nonconsensually, I can just watch Nanette instead of Chewed Up. There's no shortage of content even if you blacklist every known sexpest. but what if you want to watch a comedy special featuring comedy? these two things are completely incomparable. idea that louis deserves to be an unperson for his misdeeds and inadequate self-flagellation seems more like you trying to run up the score for internet clout.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
I mean if you wanna just watch a white straight dude Bo Burham and Dmitri Martin are right there, or even Jim Gaffigan if you need lovely my-wife-and-kids comedy. There's no shortage of non-sex pests. Why do you need to spend time/money/mindspace on someone who is lovely IRL? Its like saying "I have to watch Annie Hall" like there arent a million comedies about trying to get laid in NYC not made by a guy who groomed and married his own daughter
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
I got the tude now posted:but what if you want to watch a comedy special featuring comedy? these two things are completely incomparable. idea that louis deserves to be an unperson for his misdeeds and inadequate self-flagellation seems more like you trying to run up the score for internet clout. You can watch him. But his comedy now sucks because he does right wing cancel culture racist jokes. So he’s not even funny any more. I do wish the worst for him but that’s just me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
A lot of the problem was that Louis' initial apology felt like he didn't GET what the problem was, which was the power dynamic and that he surrounded himself with people who actively prevented the knowledge of it from getting out for years. He was more or less "sorry I misread the situation, I'll just go away for a while", instead of "I acknowledge that I used my clout to put women in uncomfortable sexual situations and I really need to put in the work to change". He didn't do anything to get better, he just avoided the issue for a while. Then he came back like it was nothing and now he's a bitter bitch about the whole thing. Contrast that with someone who I do think did it the right way, Dan Harmon. He took the time to reflect on his problems, understood exactly how he hosed up, apologized directly and publicly for it, and took the right steps to make up for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
You will understand true freedom when you realize that all stand-up is bad, there are no good stand-up comedians, and the only people to ever make anything worth a poo poo from the format were better served by performing in literally any other medium
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:You can watch him. i haven't watched his new poo poo i feel conflicted about his response and wonder if he's actually remorseful or just pathetic, but criticism to his new material seems fueled by a desire not to give a comedian the benefit of the doubt because of his sexual deviance. his best show literally opens with his defense of using slurs and people giving contextless examples of his new bits as evidence he's a right winger now is dubious at best. sticklefifer posted:A lot of the problem was that Louis' initial apology felt like he didn't GET what the problem was, which was the power dynamic and that he surrounded himself with people who actively prevented the knowledge of it from getting out for years. He was more or less "sorry I misread the situation, I'll just go away for a while", instead of "I acknowledge that I used my clout to put women in uncomfortable sexual situations and I really need to put in the work to change". He didn't do anything to get better, he just avoided the issue for a while. Then he came back like it was nothing and now he's a bitter bitch about the whole thing. to a casual media consumer, the wide net cast caught both him and weinstein, so of course he's cagey about it. but on the other hand he's a famously pathetic trash person so who fuckin knows. I got the tude now fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
I think a few folks are getting at, from different points of view, one of my core questions that lead me to start this thread. Some folks have mentioned not watching films due to the impacts on their own viewing experiences from knowing or seeing controversial people involved. There’s also been talk about whether watching the film gives money to the artists and trying to avoid that. Some folks, however, have kind of implied that the act of restricting oneself from watching the movie is moral. What do folks think of that? I get the idea of wanting to show solidarity with victims/survivors of the artists involved. But is that solidarity of actual value, or just tooting your own horn, so to speak?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
fr0id posted:I think a few folks are getting at, from different points of view, one of my core questions that lead me to start this thread. Some folks have mentioned not watching films due to the impacts on their own viewing experiences from knowing or seeing controversial people involved. There’s also been talk about whether watching the film gives money to the artists and trying to avoid that. Some folks, however, have kind of implied that the act of restricting oneself from watching the movie is moral. What do folks think of that? I get the idea of wanting to show solidarity with victims/survivors of the artists involved. But is that solidarity of actual value, or just tooting your own horn, so to speak? Ultimately the question of whether or not your money is going to spent the most ethically it can will always be a losing battle - not just because of how pervasive the social issues across Hollywood are, but because the nature of their crimes (almost always sexual crimes in nature) usually involve long periods of most people not being aware of them and victims being intimidated out of speaking up. You can tweet “no ethical consumption under capitalism” as much as you want, but even Sorry to Bother You has Armie Hammer and Rosario Dawson in it. Consuming media based on the morality of the people involved just isn’t a viable strategy, but art is communication, and recognizing that involves thinking about who you are having a conversation with and what about. I would not want to watch Louis CK whining about how hard his career is now, whether that be as a standup special or a screenplay, for the same reasons I would not want to hear a sexual assaulter whine about it to me in person. I am able to forgive people who adore Chinatown because it’s not really a film about sexuality, but I raise an eyebrow at those who would praise Last Tango in Paris while being fully aware that the product of abuse is necessarily part of its content. I Love You Daddy should never be profited off of because it is the whining of an assaulter about his own sexual politics. Chloe Grace Moretz said herself that she had no idea of what was going on with CK when she filmed it, but agrees it should never be released now. Even then, while I don’t think avoiding media by the morality of its staff is an accurate or effective strategy, if someone decides they’re not going to consume something based on that I still wouldn’t begrudge them for it. At that point it’s a personal choice, and if something makes you feel bad, it just does and I don’t get to make that decision for you. Pirate Jet fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
sticklefifer posted:A lot of the problem was that Louis' initial apology felt like he didn't GET what the problem was, which was the power dynamic and that he surrounded himself with people who actively prevented the knowledge of it from getting out for years. He was more or less "sorry I misread the situation, I'll just go away for a while", instead of "I acknowledge that I used my clout to put women in uncomfortable sexual situations and I really need to put in the work to change". He didn't do anything to get better, he just avoided the issue for a while. Then he came back like it was nothing and now he's a bitter bitch about the whole thing. See, before I knew that Louis CK had delved into the armpit of punching-down anti-comedy, it was precisely because he HAD acknowledged, explicitly, that power dynamic that I kinda figured he was a bit redeemed and worthy of not being made an unperson by the woke politburo that all comedians tremble under. Here is part of his apology, that you can find in the NYTimes: "These stories are true. At the time, I said to myself that what I did was O.K. because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly." Its actually seems to be a sincere and understanding apology, and not the kind of non-apology that we often get. Which makes his apparent descent into resentful, cancel-culture baiting boomerism a kind of double-betrayal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 23:52
|
|
|
Louis C.K. did technically apologize, but he also wrote, directed, produced, and starred in a passion project about how it's ok to be a sex pest and went full chud after he wasn't immediately forgiven and allowed to go back to pretending it never happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 01:49
|
|
|
fr0id posted:I think a few folks are getting at, from different points of view, one of my core questions that lead me to start this thread. Some folks have mentioned not watching films due to the impacts on their own viewing experiences from knowing or seeing controversial people involved. There’s also been talk about whether watching the film gives money to the artists and trying to avoid that. Some folks, however, have kind of implied that the act of restricting oneself from watching the movie is moral. What do folks think of that? I get the idea of wanting to show solidarity with victims/survivors of the artists involved. But is that solidarity of actual value, or just tooting your own horn, so to speak? If you want to call it a moral decision and paint me as a woke-scold, go ahead. But it's not like there's a shortage of Jackie Chan movies that I gotta watch Brett Ratner's Rush Hour, and if you're trying to pick between two things, "the one not made by the guy who followed Olivia Munn into the bathroom" is as valid a criteria as any. Obviously the purchasing/viewing decisions of one person don't matter, but like I said earlier, if I'm at a friend's house and we're browsing NetFlix, it's not that hard to go "ah gently caress, no Louis CK, dude's a perv, put on Hasan Minhaj's new special." Ultimately it's three things: 1) severity - did he just cheat on his wife (everyone in Hollywood cheats, that's between spouses anyway) or assault women or chase after kids or (in the case of Armie Hammer) maybe possibly eat someone? 2) Involvement - Ferris Beuller's Day Off is a fantastic litmus, because Jeffrey Jones is a convicted kiddy-diddler in hiding, but Principal Rooney isn't even in the top ten of things people remember and like about that movie. 3) contrition - Like Dan Harmon and Mike Tyson, have they done the real, hard work of restorative justice or have they doubled-down or given a "sorry you're offended" non-apology Edit: This whole story is WILD, watch to the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3jBQfdfopY Weinstein is a monster and I hope he dies soon. Manipulative and evil to the fuckin' end. Shrecknet fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 03:14
|
|
|
I got the tude now posted:i haven't watched his new poo poo i feel conflicted about his response and wonder if he's actually remorseful or just pathetic, but criticism to his new material seems fueled by a desire not to give a comedian the benefit of the doubt because of his sexual deviance. his best show literally opens with his defense of using slurs and people giving contextless examples of his new bits as evidence he's a right winger now is dubious at best. I just recently watched his last special he put up on his website, and I have no clue what people are talking about with right-wing/chud stuff. He doesn't say anything that wouldn't fit in with the jokes he made before. It's weird. When you already have a perfectly acceptable reason not to like somebody, why bother making poo poo up? 3 A.M. Radio fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 03:48
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:Its like saying "I have to watch Annie Hall" like there arent a million comedies about trying to get laid in NYC not made by a guy who groomed and married his own daughter This is at worst an ignorant parroting of tabloid headlines and at worst a willful misrepresentation of what happened. Soon-Yi has said many, many times that Allen was not a father figure to her. You’re certainly welcome to think their age gap is gross, or to have feelings about Allen’s potential sexual assault of Dylan Farrow (and I wouldn’t blame anyone for deciding that is a deal breaker), but you’re doing yourself and your argument a disservice by pretending there was no nuance to this situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 04:52
|
|
|
3 A.M. Radio posted:I just recently watched his last special he put up on his website, and I have no clue what people are talking about with right-wing/chud stuff. He doesn't say anything that wouldn't fit in with the jokes he made before. It's weird. When you already have a perfectly acceptable reason not to like somebody, why bother making poo poo up? https://www.thedailybeast.com/louis-cks-leaked-comedy-set-panders-to-the-alt-right quote:He bemoans how younger people will tell him, in relation to gender identification, that he has to use specific pronouns preferred by the person. “They’re like royalty!” he said. “They tell you what to call them. ‘You should address me as they/them, because I identify as gender-neutral.’ Oh, OK. You should address me as ‘there’ because I identify as a location. And the location is your mother’s oval office.” He used the only conservative joke. oneforthevine posted:This is at worst an ignorant parroting of tabloid headlines and at worst a willful misrepresentation of what happened. There's nothing incestuous about this relationship because I was never there for my adopted daughter is not the stellar defense you think it is and I'm going to remain skeptical of the testimonial of a woman still in a relationship with a known abuser.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 05:31
|
|
|
She was never his adopted daughter, she was André Previn’s. I’m not saying you have to approve of the relationship, but these outright falsehoods do not help anyone’s case, and people need to stop sharing them as truth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 05:34
|
|
|
rodbeard posted:Louis C.K. did technically apologize, but he also wrote, directed, produced, and starred in a passion project about how it's ok to be a sex pest and went full chud after he wasn't immediately forgiven and allowed to go back to pretending it never happened. what movie ?? I love you daddy looked like it was about woody allen which makes pulling it for being a sex weirdo look more like calling him a child molester which is bizarre. rodbeard posted:
it's insanely obvious but he's not grafted to twitter so he might not have seen it a million times, also it's one bit out of context so gently caress you (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 06:30
|
|
|
Y’all this is verging on “arguing about the credibility of accusations” but it’s arguing about the credibility of apologies. And you’re getting personal. You’ve both said your piece.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 08:14
|
|
|
gently caress Louie. He’s a fuckin bitch
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 09:38
|
|
|
oneforthevine posted:She was never his adopted daughter, she was André Previn’s. I’m not saying you have to approve of the relationship, but these outright falsehoods do not help anyone’s case, and people need to stop sharing them as truth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 14:41
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't think the Soon-Yi relationship is the reason people don't like him these days. That is weird and skeevy, but yes far more nuanced than it gets made out to be. Molesting his actual daughter, who by the way is a 35 year old woman now and still maintains this indeed happened, tends to be the reason he's told to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 14:46
|
|
|
I watched LA Confidential last night and it was weird seeing Kevin Spacey in it, even though he's not the only shithead to appear on screen theres something about how the characters he portrays tend to have an innate slimey-shithead-ness to them too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 14:53
|
|
|
massive spider posted:I watched LA Confidential last night and it was weird seeing Kevin Spacey in it, even though he's not the only shithead to appear on screen theres something about how the characters he portrays tend to have an innate slimey-shithead-ness to them too. if anything, what we know about Spacey now almost adds to his character there (a character whose major sin is horribly betraying a young, naive gay actor)
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 14:55
|
|
|
One thing I will almost never go with is a third party's report of a comedy set. I've seen multiple jokes taken wildly out of context because the person reporting decides to take all of the context out or ignore the tone given to make things sound entirely different. Then their take goes viral and is taken as fact, but you actually see it in context and it's wildly different. Comedy sets are all about tone, buildup, etc. with all kind of callbacks to prior jokes or the theme of the set, etc. and that's not portrayed with one joke said in isolation in print. I still won't watch CK's stuff yet because I don't think he really did enough, but I take much of that third party reporting on comedy sets with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
Darko posted:One thing I will almost never go with is a third party's report of a comedy set. I've seen multiple jokes taken wildly out of context because the person reporting decides to take all of the context out or ignore the tone given to make things sound entirely different. Then their take goes viral and is taken as fact, but you actually see it in context and it's wildly different. Comedy sets are all about tone, buildup, etc. with all kind of callbacks to prior jokes or the theme of the set, etc. and that's not portrayed with one joke said in isolation in print. great standup is essentially in character performance as well. being a comic involves writing material, not simply being someone whose personality is inherently funny. rodney dangerfield wasn't living his life as a vinyl siding salesman saying he gets no respect, and louie's material was elevated from weird-absurd observations when he integrated parts of himself to create a more relatable persona onstage. the line is blurry on purpose and looking at it is the sausage factory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
Louis CK could've gone on a 2 year buddhist retreat or something and come back with a well rehearsed apology (he's a drat writer after all) and speech about self reflection and he probably would've been given a pass by 99% of people, but even that was too much to ask of him. The guy can burn in hell.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
I read Woody Allen's memoir so you don't have to by Mark Harris goes to show Woody Allen is a piece of poo poo not worth defending, in my book.quote:Okay, you’ve been patient, and I’ve been avoidant. I have dreaded writing about the collapse of Allen’s decade-plus relationship to Mia Farrow (although he takes pains to present himself as merely the guy who lived across Central Park from her and her distracting brood) after she found the nude Polaroids of Soon-Yi that he had left on his mantel like, he says, a “klutz” (not the word I would choose), because, as many of you do, I found his behavior staggeringly repellent and wrong, a feeling that none of his explanations has altered, and what more is there to say about it? If you’re Woody Allen, apparently a lot, although for him, it adds up to “What’s the big deal?” In a 2001 interview for Time magazine, he remarked, “I didn’t find any moral dilemmas whatsoever … it wasn’t so complex … the heart wants what it wants.” In other words, lah-dee-dah, lah-dee-dah, la, la. Here, he says it again, at hundreds of times the length and in epic detail, much of which is devoted to an extended evisceration of Farrow as a mother and a human being. He thought he was involved with “a beautiful movie star who could not have been nicer, sweeter, more attentive to my needs … should I have seen any red flags?” “Red flags” is a phrase he returns to more than once; the only lapse of judgment he ever ponders is his failure to see how terribly she would treat him. The Farrow of this book is a monstrous avatar of fury, manipulation, and vengeance that inexplicably inflicts itself upon him. He amends that take only once, to concede that her “shock, her dismay, her rage, everything” when she saw those photos was, wait for it, “the correct reaction.” Perhaps that’s worth lingering on? quote:At great length, and quoting accounts and reports that corroborate his own, Allen reasserts his belief that the accusation was essentially implanted in Dylan Farrow by her livid mother and declares his innocence, saying at one point that there are people who believe he would molest a child but there are also people who believe Obama isn’t American so, shrug, whaddayagonnado? But he is at least as interested in declaring Mia Farrow’s guilt, which brings me to the second passage that stopped me in my tracks: “She didn’t like raising the kids and didn’t really look after them,” he writes. “It is no wonder that two adopted children would be suicides. A third would contemplate it, and one lovely daughter who struggled with being HIV-positive into her thirties was left by Mia to die alone of AIDS in a hospital on Christmas morning.” From his own words in his own book, he does not like people, especially women, and seems content being an aloof rear end in a top hat, only excited by insulting his exes. There's not enough there for me to humor arguments of "nuance". Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:54
|
|
