Why do you want me to look at material you find offensive? It’s bizarre.
Rape, sexual assault and harassment in the entertainment industry
- Thread starter Orang Utan
- Start date
Why do you want me to look at material you find offensive? It’s bizarre.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
you can look at whatever you want, I don't give a fuck. But if you are going to defend particular comments, you should know what they are. Doing otherwise isn't just bizarre, it's downright perverse.
I find it an interesting discussion that I’m trying to bend my head around. Our starting point is:
1) he shouldn’t have said it.
But then that illogically flows to:
2) everybody must see it.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
FFS, just stop. It's like watching that show from the 80s hosted by Michael Aspel where children were asked to explain adult concepts.
Last edited:
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Not really. you could just go 'someone who is well known to be a prick - and who has previously made shite jokes about 'brutal sex' with Keira Knightley - probably isn't the best person to be making jokes about Weinstein'
If you are going to defend him - as you did - then you need to know what he actually said.
I haven’t defended him as I don’t know what he’s said. I just find it ironic that if it’s hideously offensive why you want me to see it.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I said I couldn't give a fuck if you read them or not. Not that what anyone actually says seems to make any difference to you, you'll just make it up anyway.
Because it’s difficult to discuss something as an abstract?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
are you sure you're not 12?
That’s three people who have used age pejoratively whilst discussing the concept of offensiveness. 
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
self censorship is an interesting one. We all do it to a certain extent- don't use foul language in front of x' or what have you. The superego I think its called? but done on a slightly less than conscious level because its part of communication. Actually seeing that people find your shit offensive and shying away from such things in future, by conscious decision? slightly different I'd say. Not always negative either. There must be plenty of examples where people have-of their own volition- decided to heed whats being said to them and decide themselves to change their chat. They do have the choice as corden did to say 'yeah well, my jokes or tyhe highway'. Censorship to me implies outside agency. Coming to a decision in your own head, is that really self censorship? or changing your mind?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
You do know that cognitive abilities develop with age, don't you?
If you really, really, want to judge for yourself whether the jokes are offensive, then go look them out. No one is stopping you. This point has been made several times. But no one is making you either, no one cares whether you, personally, find them offensive. The fact that the women Weinstein abused did should be enough.
But you did the former and neither of us did the latter. Anyway, enough of the derail.
yeah, it's bath time.
Lucky you. I’m on late shift.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
After reading what he said, it's not so much that he shouldn't have brought up Weinstein, but that the only way he should have brought him up was to do so in a way that viciously attacked both Weinstein and all those who turned a blind eye. Attacking hypocrisy is a totally valid subject for humour, but it has to be done sharply, in a way that makes it clear you don't care which of the hypocrites you offend. What he said was limp and playful, which is why it was so badly misjudged. Well, one of the reasons why - the 'in the bath' comment was beyond limp and playful. I'm struggling to find words for how wrong it was to jokingly invite a man's rape victims to reimagine the scene of the rape.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
absolutely. The SNL sketch managed it (albeit a week late), and did so by doing just that, not treating as a smutty joke. Some people were, no doubt, embarrassed by it, but they deserved to be. In Corden's case, it was the victims who were embarrassed.
Last edited:
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
This.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
It's an imperfect response in one sense, you'd like to have seen the abuser in court and publicised. But given that that would almost certainly not have happened had Fisher pushed the victim into going to the police, what she did was a perfect response in an imperfect world. Having a friend's back and being willing to back it up. Fisher herself had a degree of power in Hollywood and this is a great example of somebody using it to secure a bit of justice.
Mumbles274
running from law and the press and the parents
The people's princess
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
He doesn’t have good form when it comes to rape jokes either
Similar threads
