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

"woody is a moral adolescent and a total narcissist"

1) I think anyone who has seen a Woody Allen movie would probably not be surprised by this assessment.
2) I'm pretty sure most (or at least many) celebrities are both as well and I'm not sure it's relevant to the question of whether or not he's also a pedophile (except insofar as I guess it could explain why someone would go to a house filled with children and nannies and god knows who else and think that they could molest a seven year old and get away with it).

― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Sunday, February 9, 2014 7:53 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

did you read my post? i already suggested that (a) we knew this already and (b) this would fall short of convincing anyone that he was a child molester. so basically you are presenting a critique that already framed that phrase in my post.

reading competency LOL

maybe all this tells is something we already know: woody is a moral adolescent and a total narcissist

I love Joyce Carol Oates's writing (much of the time), but I wonder if she's not (1) senile or (2) a total fucking idiot.

a lot of great artists are total fucking idiots and/or infantile narcissists.

It's like one of the themes of this thread or something.

yeah but oates's writing seldom strikes me as narcissistic and foolish as, say, a certain woody allen's does

i'm surprised is all

i've heard rumors that she doesn't edit her tweets

I love Joyce Carol Oates's writing (much of the time), but I wonder if she's not (1) senile or (2) a total fucking idiot.

― espring (amateurist)

or (3) thinks artists get a pass for their behavior, no matter how despicable.

Not too much of a surprise from her writing, as far as empathizing with transgressive folks.

also given that she's a writer can she not imagine people appreciating lolita as literature and not identifying or excusing humbert humbert?

she's displating a level of literary savvy i would usually attribute to book-burning fundies

displaying

http://excrementalvirtue.com/2014/02/08/brainwashing-woody/

seldom strikes me as narcissistic and foolish as, say, a certain woody allen's does

ooh which one?

that was a great link, scott, thank you for posting it.

2nded

Was great, and posted earlier.

http://excrementalvirtue.com/2014/02/08/brainwashing-woody/

― sXe & the banshees (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:04 PM

ya nice try scott

it should be posted a million times! it's great read it everyone!

http://gawker.com/woody-allen-is-not-a-monster-he-is-a-person-like-my-f-1518291644

Most of us would sooner discard all parties who have been tainted by this event than we would look at how tenuous the sanctity of children really is, how commonplace abuse is, or see the capacity for the mostly good to do periodic evil. We live in the same universe as those who abuse kids. We walk among them. If we want to end the sexual abuse of children, it will begin with the recognition that we are simply not that different from them.

I think this is true - certainly up until the last line. It's probably a safe bet to say that we are all capable of dark things that we do not expect of ourselves, but with some things I feel such revulsion for the acts that I can't recognize that I am "not that different from them." Not just re abuse of children - was that officer in Syria who ate a human heart really not so different from you and me? It feels like they are - some distant expression of a humanity that most of us have left behind to history. But of course the capacity for evil lives within every individual. Still, I don't feel like I've chosen not to eat hearts, or commit genocide, or abuse a child. It feels like something beyond the pale.

If Woody Allen is now written into history as a monstrous child molester, child abuse is more likely to continue. Because if we are unable to stomach the fact that Woody is not a monster but a human being who did something monstrous, we will continue to stoke the fires of archetype, perpetuating the notion of the picture-perfect pedophile, the one whose evil shines through like a 100-watt black lightbulb.

Is this what's happening on a large scale? I don't see it.

Well, I have heard some people say stuff like "He doesn't seem like a child molestor, he seems like he was a loving father to her" or "child molestors usually leave a trail of victims in their wake, so where are the other victims'

I think most people probably just don't feel any strong sexual attraction or impulse toward young children, so it's seen as this "other" kind of thing. I do sort of wonder what percentage of people with some pedophilic tendencies act vs. don't act on them.

Forgive the glibness, but I think it's like that line in ratatouille - not everyone can be a great chef, but a great chef can come from anyone. The majority of people do not have these urges, but even the most innocent seeming person could be harboring dark impulses.

Right, I agree. I'm just saying I think that's why some people envision pedophiles as a child-eating troll monster instead of as a potentially ordinary or even respectable and admirable-seeming person.

What I meant was that I don't see Allen being widely branded an unforgivable monster. The general point is valid but it doesn't apply here, at least not yet.

yeah if anything Woody Allen is crystallizing the possibility of molestor as "human being who did something monstrous"

anger more at years of lies and poison than molestation even

Still, I don't feel like I've chosen not to eat hearts, or commit genocide, or abuse a child. It feels like something beyond the pale.

you haven't been given the opportunity for the first two (well maybe the first but there is a difference between going out of your way to eat a heart in a suburban context and taking the opportunity to eat one in a war while flooded with murder hormones) and i assume you have no sexual impulse urging the third

the last two articles in this thread are the best ones. this--

I can't count how many times I've seen the most strident liberal break character to loudly call for the prison rape of perpetrators.

--is otm and it's always funny in liberals cuz their whole bodies relax with the relief of abandoning empathy. anyway what felt rly true to me w my lack of experience was

Years later, my father broke down on the phone, crying, and acknowledged what he had done. That, the simplest truth, was all I ever wanted.

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.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/november28/gifs/ppl_hanson.jpg

"It's always funny in liberals cuz their whole bodies relax with the relief of abandoning empathy."

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.