Mia Farrow's son -- Ronan Seamus Farrow -- really creeps me out!

that gawker essay is really, really powerful. it takes extraordinary compassion to see abusers, or any oppressors, as human beings like that. the world needs more of this

^^ seconded. maybe the best thing i've ever read on gawker.

which helps illuminate why the reflexive refusal to believe dylan, the comfort in the impossibility of "knowing", is so much a part of the crime.

and then you see something like the very first comment

yes, v powerful essay.

I think we can acknowledge the lasting horror of child abuse (particularly child sexual abuse) and still acknowledge and regret the panic that grips our society that causes us to treat pedophiles as beyond the pale, non-human--thus obfuscating the nature of a lot of abuse.

both that and the "brainwashing woody" article (which all but convinced me of his guilt) are pretty powerful.

i was watching that werner herzog TV series on death row and he says something like, "I do not believe that what someone does at their worst moment necessarily defines who they are." which is a remarkably compassionate thing to say, particularly in modern america.

I think a person's persistent denial and obfuscation of the things they have done in bad moments, to the point that they feel a need to smear the accuser and her family, could define who a person is though

that's probably closer to the truth

outside of their genome i'm not sure any one thing can be said to define a person

well, yeah, i was going to say, "define to whom?" is the inevitable question

herzog was speaking for himself, i suppose, though perhaps putting it out there as a model for others when thinking about the death penalty in particular

even there you could argue their epigenome defines them more

well, of course herzog would say that, he's horrible! yet lovable.

don't really have too huge a problem w/ labeling someone who commits a monstrous act a monster, do have a problem w/ doing this as a way of simplifying a matter and close off any further understanding or examination of it. thinking here of something like columbine or other prominent recent horrors (9/11 even), where there is a rush to declare it 'evil' plain and simple and any attempts to understand the act or the perpetrators is seen as diminishing the evil of the act, the suffering of the victims, and the culpability of the perps even though examining and understanding these events would help to prevent them. you can see this w/ general treatment of crime in this country where you have to get to a very specific morally justified type of crime (stealing bread for yr starving kids generally)(always bread for some reason) before some ppl might begin to understand how a person could end up doing such a thing. also comes into play w/ general prison policy, motivation of rehabilitation vs punishment.

i do think herzog is a big self-promoter and often full of gas but how is he "horrible"?

xpost

this thread is the one where we judge public figures btw, so bring em on down :)

don't really have too huge a problem w/ labeling someone who commits a monstrous act a monster, do have a problem w/ doing this as a way of simplifying a matter and close off any further understanding or examination of it. thinking here of something like columbine or other prominent recent horrors (9/11 even), where there is a rush to declare it 'evil' plain and simple and any attempts to understand the act or the perpetrators is seen as diminishing the evil of the act, the suffering of the victims, and the culpability of the perps even though examining and understanding these events would help to prevent them. you can see this w/ general treatment of crime in this country where you have to get to a very specific morally justified type of crime (stealing bread for yr starving kids generally)(always bread for some reason) before some ppl might begin to understand how a person could end up doing such a thing. also comes into play w/ general prison policy, motivation of rehabilitation vs punishment.

― balls, Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:30 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

agreed w/ all of this. but would add that the labeling of offenders of various kinds "monsters" (or something similar) has even broader effects, e.g. allowing laws that ban felons and ex-felons from voting. in general it helps to cast offenders out of sight, banished from the body politic.

right, but i mean allowing these people to be called monsters sort of precludes any meaningful progress on the issues the both of you just discussed. that's exactly why the tone of the conversation needs to be changed. the words we choose to use have consequences

i think we're all in agreement actually. release the confetti.

xp nah i'm just being facetious. he's probably just a jerk at worst

yeah i'm only comfortable w/ labeling such ppl 'monsters' in the sense that i'm comfortable w/ labeling humanity savage and monstrous in general. which is somewhat sentimental and anthrocentric of me since we're not esp more monstrous or savage than the other apes, we're just more intelligent and hence more effective and diverse in exploring our savagery (and tbf more diverse and effective in exploring the 'better angels of our nature' or whatever). there's a general 'fuck them all/let god sort 'em out' dumb vengeful aspect to laws like banning felons from voting or the registering of sex offenders that can prevent any usefulness that might be gleaned from a similar law. thinking here of drug laws like the rockefeller laws or laws targeted at crack where there was an emotional response that if anything exacerbated the misery. the tide has turned here somewhat but only by shifting moral perspectives - fewer morbs, more mordys essentially - and esp by the prospect that there's money to be made.

fuck you

anne ramsey everybody

you know jackshit about my moral sense of anything

also Anne Ramsey had esophageal cancer, not mine

yeah I think that reference was kind of uncalled for in that morbs wasn't really engaging w/ you ATM. honestly both of you could do a little more to keep conversation relatively civil in part by not calling out people like that when it isn't strictly warranted.

i know I'm putting a big target sign on my shirt by writing that, and I know I've failed to meet the same standard in the past (esp. in one particular instance), but... yeah. it's something i'd been meaning to write.

i don't know how best to put this but... balls, in particular, you're really smart and have lots of things to offer so I'd say you have a special burden to be a little more civil.

but I sound like a schoolmarm, so I 'll shut up.

i'm glad i don't have such a burden

i think balls just meant that morbz vocally hates potheads

mea culpa! sometimes you kid around too much and feelings get hurt, it happens sometimes when i play w/ my dogs. hey speaking of woody allen apparently sid caesar has died.

fwiw some of my best friends are potheads

i'm glad i don't have such a burden

― images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, February 12, 2014 2:44 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you're really smart but you seldom post more than a line or two of invective. i wish it were otherwise.

sorry I'm just digging myself a hole

In which Wallace Shawn says the same shit as everyone else but comes to the conclusion that he's a nice guy, so there's almost no way he could've done it: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shawn-woody-allen-20140216,0,1696007.story#axzz2tX8F2Yb5

I've never become a friend of Woody Allen or even had any terribly lengthy conversations with him, but I've been in his orbit enough so that I can't possibly see him as the abstract, weird cardboard fantasy figure that one reads about. In fact, like so many of those who have worked with him repeatedly over the decades, I've found him to be not merely thoughtful, serious and honest, but extraordinary and even inspiring in his thoughtfulness, seriousness and honesty. Of the people I've known, he's one of those I've respected most. And for that reason, I personally would have to say that it would take overwhelming evidence to convince me that he had sexually abused a child, just as it would take overwhelming evidence to convince me that Desmond Tutu, Franklin D. Roosevelt or Doris Lessing had sexually abused a child

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shawn-woody-allen-20140216,0,1696007.story#ixzz2tXBbhiIU

Goddammit, Alfred.

he makes a good point, guys who seem nice never do anything bad

contrariwise, guilty people are easily identifiable by their top hats, handlebar mustaches, and snidely whiplash-like laughs.

eh he's clearly accusing the other three imo

"Of the people I've known, he's one of those I've respected most."

Wow Wallace Shawn has known exceedingly shitty people, because I'd say Woody Allen (even short accusations of pedophilia) seems like a shallow self-absorbed jerk. In Allen's defense I'd say at least he seems to be somewhat aware of that (or at least he's not shy about making movies which are thinly veiled references to it). But comparing him to DESMOND TUTU is basically insane.

So he worked with him on one film and didn't even get to know him that well but having been "in his orbit" qualifies him to weigh in on this FUCK YOU WALLACE SHAWN

sorry more than one film, still fuck you wallace shawn

weigh in on this weigh in on this or weigh in on this in the latimes weigh in on this

So Wallace Shawn is saying he finds the possibility of Allen's guilt...inconceivable

i fully expected that FD Roosevelt link to go to an allegation against him. :P

first paragraph is true, rest is just like the bullshit internet opinions it criticizes

xp auuuuuuuuugh

Wallace Shawn's wife is the cousin of one of my high school girlfriends.

When is the Times publishing her open letter?

Haw

http://gawker.com/times-critic-blasts-nick-kristof-says-dylan-farrow-wan-1527880499

How dare a sexual assault survivor want her story to be heard.

A few minutes later, Maslin argued that Allen “managed to rehabilitate himself through his work” and that “he went through a very dark period creatively.”