Weinsteins step down as Miramax CEOs

me after reading pretty much every response he gives in that interview

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEPwn47XkAMHMUa.jpg

How about a model where, when you have grossly abused your position of power, first we remove you from that position of power, then you show complete contrition, part of which is not merely admitting to wrongdoing, but atoning through your words and your actions and living out your contrition in meaningful ways, so that you earn renewed trust, forgiveness and a second chance? And if you don't like that model, fuck you.

us Jews call this t'shuvah

calling Norm MacDonald a typical boomer is a little weird, as millennials seem to be his most impassioned fans.

Meantime...

https://jezebel.com/a-star-is-borns-notorious-producer-has-been-sued-for-se-1828957531

I think an element of this which has been noted from time to time, but which seems to be not something people like to talk about, is the complicity of our celebrity culture in this stuff. I don't mean in a patriarchal sense (though that is obviously also very important), I mean the way famous people (especially famous men) are rewarded for being famous with a huge amount of social capital which means they can often get away with indulging their worst impulses without any pushback from any of the people around them. I remember when the first things were coming out about Bill Cosby, so many people were so keen to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that power always corrupts, but isn't it abundantly clear now there are definitely a substantial group of people who will, if given the impression they can do anything they like, do the most terrible things they can?
Sorry, very long way around to it, but as far as "a model" is concerned, I know the USA always has to view everything as individual choices, but really, fuck all of these abusers, focusing on their comebacks or whatever is just more attention, the attention they were given is what made them feel like they could do this in the first place, fuck their redemption stories, just let them fade into the past and look forward to the day we can judge their work without feeding them our attention.
I think since some of the extended fallout of the Jimmy Savile scandal (att an artist I used to respect a lot (NOT JS obvs) was never jailed for a crime but I am 99% sure he is guilty) I've tried to operate on a zero-hero-worship policy, assume all artists and famous people are flawed human beings and don't put anyone on a pedestal. But obviously this does nothing at all to fix the problem, just takes away some of *my* disappointment when something else is revealed. How to stop people giving celebrities the benefit of the doubt whatever they do? I feel like we are now some of the way along, but there is such a long way still to go.

really good post imo

the other side, and it doesnt outweigh it but its a consideration maybe, is that we show much more interest in the supposed, alleged and proven misdeeds of celebrities than we do of other people who are nothing to do with us.

Typical Norm. Stupid comments. Still a brilliant comedian.

hero worship and putting celebrities on pedestals is never going to go away. Norm is far from alone in his views. as much as there's progress being made in some circles, just as many people are digging their heels in and even going backwards. there is a difference between Louis CK and Bill Cosby and eliding that has led to a lot of people getting off the bus. conflating Aziz Ansari with TJ Miller, Charlie Rose, and even Louis is really counterproductive. it'll be borne out when these guys make their "comebacks," I really don't think they're going to be shunned or rejected for much longer.

Yes, good post, CamaraderieAAL. No worship.

the way famous people (especially famous men) are rewarded for being famous with a huge amount of social capital which means they can often get away with indulging their worst impulses

Perhaps the causality may be the other way round? I mean, the people who become famous are mostly people who very much wanted to be famous. So "famous men" isn't like "left-handed men" or "blue-eyed men." It's a somewhat self-selecting group. Yr Bill Clinton types (or whoever) are obviously already known to have outsized appetites. To my mind, that mindset probably preceded fame.

I'm not saying fame or ambition are automatically bad things or that they're only sought by bad people. But it seems safe to say that "men with insatiable appetites for power over others" overlaps with "men who seek power" which overlaps with "famous men." At no point is there much incentive for that complex of traits to veer toward repect of others, or toward impulse control. Or even toward the obligation to adhere to the basic morality that, one presumes, is for mere mortals.

im trying to find a way to formulate the question of whether, accepting the above contention of a whittled set of shared traits in a self-selecting group, the same or a smilar hunger for fame/celebrity in women manifests itself in ways that have fed into this long and sorry affair and whether the entertainment industry, or any such almost-totally personality driven sphere, is more susceptible to this type of prolonged abuse (i mean theres a lot questionable there but it seems to follow on, or not?)

afaict, many men in many fields (politics, cuisine, religion, sports, business) have perpetrated this complex of crimes. We hear about the entertainment industry because these people are more famous than the people at the top of, say, accounting or plumbing or dentistry.

I acknowledge this is only half an answer

not at all, it was certainly no better than half a question rly

Pursuant to responses prior to CaAL's post, I was gonna type something but realized that I already expressed my thoughts fairly completely upthread

Weinsteins step down as Miramax CEOs

Pursuant to CaAL's post-- good post, tho I 100% disagree with your "fuck all abusers forever" mentality, and think that this black-and-white thinking has (ironically) complicated a discussion that is simpler and easier when discussed with nuance. I also think that "cancellation culture" is detrimental to progressivism and runs counter to the goals of a restorative justice movement. "Cancellation culture" fundamentally disagrees with what #MeToo was defined as, and continues to be defined by, from the mouth of its founder-- "it's about power, not about crime and punishment".

But "cancellation culture" has some strong rhetorical bear traps in its backpack-- "you can't tell survivors how to be a good survivor" is one. "Violent protest is necessary to upend systems of power" is another. These are statements I agree with. But I don't believe in them blindly, and am more inclined to call bullshit when I see that these arguments have created a completely toxic environment where dialogue seems impossible. And, this year, I'm becoming more and more convinced that this movement has been nearly completely co-opted by corporate interests, by media outlets who make money off (i.e.) "the hypocrisy of Rose McGowan" and other awful abusive tangents, and by creeps who aren't survivors at all but have learned the language to troll.

The quotes pulled from Norm MacDonald's interview upthread-- I mean, Norm is special. Norm is one of the few public figures whose political views I disagree with, but respect. Bill Maher plays at progressivism but is just an edgelord using the language to cling to power, like 75% of other progressive white people (and probably me as well). Comparatively: at the root of Norm's corny ideas and bad opinions is compassion and empathy and I'm a little frustrated that people don't read the quotes linked above and see through to the heart of what he's trying to say: he's worried about famous people killing themselves. Seeing the profound effect that Roseanne's being "cancelled" after a racist joke-- and, to be fair, five years of Zionist fucking nonsense-- has him questioning the efficacy of "cancellation culture", which is something that I also question. George Takei described his year as being labelled an abuser as being more psychologically gruelling than being in WW2 internment camps. Exile, historically, was considered "a fate worse than death". And if "exile" is how we deal with abusive people, it is going to make abusers, and their friends and family (or "enablers" as many people would describe them), far less willing (or capable) of admitting wrongdoing. If, say, we were aiming toward actual accountability processes-- remember them?-- instead of ostracization, there would absolutely be a more productive outlook for non-legal-system-related systems of recourse.

My opinion (from my post I linked): I don't think many of the accused-famous-people (from basically Louie CK's level of 'crime' on downward) really deserve to lose their job, so much as they should go through a response system that doesn't exist yet. One that would allow them to respond to allegations frankly and fully, to slim down the possibility of legal recourse and thus skip all the meaningless denials, agree to some manner of punishment/rehabilitation that didn't feel rote or stupid, and reorganize the power structure that put them in the place in which they were able to abuse that power so that they were no longer able to abuse it.

edit: I wasn't fully aware of the extent of Louie CK's abuses when I wrote that initial post, and I hope my post doesn't bely the fact that I'm profoundly disgusted and disappointed in what Louie did.

Pursuant to the last few posts, I think that the conversation is focusing on "power" and "celebrity worship" and forgetting that these people are powerful for a reason-- they have, by dint of a privileged upbringing, by dint of racial and gender privilege, by dint of inherited wealth-- but also because they've worked hard, because they're innately talented: these people do work that is societally valuable. Within academia and the entertainment industry (as opposed to accounting or plumbing or dentistry), there is an aura that accompanies people who do this work. And people are attracted to that aura the way people are attracted to people with nice teeth.

From my own experience, I've observed that people are less attracted to "celebrities" than they are, simply, to people who do good work, and/or people who have affected comfort and security as a result of their work. And I'd like to skip a few steps and get to my galaxy brain final thought because I need to walk the dog: this all comes back to American exceptionalism-- and the fact that the health of American bodies is dependent upon the accumulation of capital-- I know it's hilarious that every argument with me about any social movement comes back to "nothing will change until there is single payer health care in America" and/or "nothing will change until CCWs are banned" but... staying on brand, I guess

i don't think norm is all that worried about famous people killing themselves; he's worried about his friends losing adulation and television shows. (to be fair, i'd probably be defensive if they were my friends too.) the fact that he thinks these extremely wealthy people -- not to mention that louis already has a system in place where he can avoid sjw gatekeepers and deliver his work directly to fans -- have 'lost everything' while their victims haven't suffered similarly does not show compassion or empathy

The idea that extremely-wealthy-people, by dint of their wealth, don't suffer extraordinarily psychologically as a result of public humiliation and seeing their life's work upended-- as if there is some top tier version of therapy that only wealthy people have access to? some magical spa?-- is a line of logic I don't particularly understand.

But anyway, I just Twitter-searched "Roseanne" to see if bots were still profiteering off that issue, and discovered that now Norm MacDonald has been cancelled! Modern times continue to surprise me.

His scheduled Tonight Show appearance has been canceled, to be clear.

Fallon very selective about guests clearly

i'm sure that being shunned as an abusive wanker/racist has been psychologically hard on louis/roseanne, but a) they have hardly 'lost everything' -- i mean here's louis, out on the road nine months later! b) i would suggest that they (particularly louis, as i'm not sure how ~well~ roseanne is) *deserve* to suffer psychologically! louis did this shit for years! and everyone knew! and the bulk of his audience doesn't even care!

i feel bad for george takei, and i'm sure i'll feel bad for that hypothetical innocent celebrity who commits suicide, but neither louis nor roseanne has gotten a particularly raw deal. no one is going to jail, no one is losing their children or livelihood. norm's empathy seems limited to the people he knows personally

and exile *from fame* is not the same as literal exile, c'mon

mook otm

I don't think "the permanent death penalty" in the arts for MeToo offenses is universally a good idea, but neither is instant reinstatement.

I would be more scornful of Amazon attempting to bury the completed Woody Allen film if it wasn't for the fact that he hasn't made anything really good in 20 years.

the Roseanne thing seems particularly odd, since she was seemingly doing nothing a year or so ago, and now she's back at it

I would be more scornful of Amazon attempting to bury the completed Woody Allen film if it wasn't for the fact that he hasn't made anything really good in 20 years

antz came out in 1998 so this checks out

I also think that "cancellation culture" is detrimental to progressivism and runs counter to the goals of a restorative justice movement.

Cancellation culture has existed forever. What else can you call it when a woman accuses a powerful man of sexual assault and loses her career over it, even though she's telling the truth? It's only now that the abusers are being "cancelled" that it has become a vexing topic for white dudes. I'd be more convinced if Norm MacDonald spent some time doing the work of expanding the borders of his empathy instead of bemoaning the fate of his friends who have always lived inside them.

If, say, we were aiming toward actual accountability processes-- remember them?-- instead of ostracization, there would absolutely be a more productive outlook for non-legal-system-related systems of recourse.

But... that is what women have been aiming for, for decades. Why is accountability being talked about as a new approach that is suddenly worth trying out? Why wasn't it worth trying when women suggested it thirty or forty years ago? We ended up at ostracism because people refused to engage with accountability.

I don't know what's so hard to understand tbh: these guys had a platform. They used that platform to abuse women and destroy lives and careers. They don't get to have that platform anymore.

No one's stopping them from making amends, find some ways to contribute positively to society in whatever way they see fit. But having that platform again? No. They already had that chance.

but

what if they do?

like, i don't agree that they should, varying from case to case, but it seems clear that many of em will work in the field again, possibly at a decent level.

Worth yer time

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/designing-women-creator-les-moonves-not-all-harassment-is-sexual-1142448

Epic. Lesson: Never piss off a writer.

yeah I'm not entirely sure if this new era of wokeness is gonna have any permanent effect on their careers. there's a pretty extensive list of celebrities who have done horrible shit but continued to get lots of work...think of Woody Allen (Louie CK's idol!) or Mark Wahlberg, to name a couple. for every one of us saying "Louie should lose his platform for what he did" there's ten who will say "What he did wasn't so bad, those women could've walked away, he's not trying to be a role model, etc. etc." as much as it feels like we're in a different era you do have to wonder what 5 years time is gonna do to people's memories.

but even if it does "cancel" them that presents a new set of problems. When domestic violence became a hot topic in the NFL there was a lot of talk about how people like Ray Rice losing their careers essentially encouraged women to stay silent on abuse. Chloe Dykstra already took a ton of abuse by revealing what a massive garbage person Chris Hardwick was, imagine if Hardwick actually lost his hosting job. not hard to imagine a bunch of women with similar stories looking at that and thinking "nope, not worth it"

when you're committed to the joke troll game

Norm Macdonald Tells Howard Stern: “You’d Have To Have Down Syndrome” To Not “Feel Sorry” For Harassment Victims https://t.co/t8phX5TxbM pic.twitter.com/208v7g2nzL

— Deadline Hollywood (@DEADLINE) September 12, 2018

Ah, yes, the well-known lack of empathy among those with Down Syndrome.

xposts yeah I'm not particularly surprised when these guys come back, because sadly that's just the world we live in. I just feel that whenever possible, there needs to be a pushback against any kind of bullshit redemption narrative - whatever social value was gained through exposure to these celebrities' work/art is tainted by the harm that was done during its creation.

My generation is still irrecoverably inured to this behavior, effectively just as bad as the boomers, but hopefully all this makes it easier for the young folks to be less terrible, by making it harder to get away with being a fucking pig.

“Cancellation culture” is also known as accountability and f. hazel thoroughly OTM.

Mike Isabella is going bankrupt in part because he’s a filthy jerk boss and now everyone knows about it. Will I miss a couple of his dining establishments? Sure. Can I live without his contributions to the DC culinary scene? You fucking betcha.

The only “redemption narrative” worth a damn is: apologize profusely in a way that shows you understand what you did, do work on behalf of victims, and go find another career that keeps you out of my sight.

Does that mean I won’t be able to get an Oreo shake from his stand in DCA

The other guy named in the newer Farrow report on Moonves is also out:

BULLETIN: "Jeff Fager is leaving the company effective immediately," CBS News president David Rhodes says. "Bill Owens will manage the 60 Minutes team as Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews and I begin the search for a new executive producer of the program."

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) September 12, 2018

Follow-up tweets consisting of asscovering/'it wasn't that report' but yeah right.

Norm as an exemplar of empathy for celebrities is good stuff. He should use that in his act.

I agree with everything f. hazel posted. Roz, I agree with you insofar as "they" refers to Cosby, Weinstein, and Louie CK. I think my take was partially informed by sympathy for Roseanne, whose cancellation I really "felt", and frustration at the way she, with her brainworms, has now been lumped in now with a bunch of male abusers. But mostly, I'm reeling from the effects that this movement has had on a local level, where I've had somewhere between 15-20 friends called out. Some of the call-outs have been righteous and necessary. Others have been overstated. Others have been frivolous. And still more are nothing more than bullying, seeing the language co-opted by abusive people-- nothing I want to draw attention to, but stories that would turn your stomach.

As for the people who were called-out, one of my friends is now dead. Two others are disappeared without a trace-- one of them, the community is far safer without them in it, but I wonder if that same individual is engaging in similar behaviour in another environment. Another has gone insane and has become an addict and requires constant support. Several others have been cancelled and require constant support. I've provided emotional support for survivors, held abusive friends accountable, facilitated two call-ins-- but more than anything, I just am reeling from the level of vitriol and violence.

Pointing out that “cancellation culture” (🤮) existed for victims of abusers before #MeToo is an awful defense of it. It’s still horrible & violent & the bloodlust is not justified. Fgti otm

No flappy bird, I disagree

"Cancellation" is a necessary thing in many cases, but typically, it-- and call-outs in general-- were seen as final recourse for people who refused any sort of private methods of accountability. But it's become a first port-of-call instead of a last resort. A rhetoric, and "culture", I guess, has risen around the act of cancellation. (Even an industry, really, on a journalistic level.)

What f. hazel referred to-- the cancellation of survivors in the wake of their disclosure-- is still ongoing, too

Louis seems to be doing okay for a recipient of "horrible & violent" "bloodlust."

I guess he got the good Band-Aids

But it's become a first port-of-call instead of a last resort. A rhetoric, and "culture", I guess, has risen around the act of cancellation. (Even an industry, really, on a journalistic level.)

This is what I am referring to. Guilty until proven innocent & thirsty for blood. I have seen it on a local level (a year and a half before Harvey) and it was mostly a disaster.

What f. hazel referred to-- the cancellation of survivors in the wake of their disclosure-- is still ongoing, too

I know, and it is awful & needs to stop.

Louis seems to be doing okay for a recipient of "horrible & violent" "bloodlust."

I guess he got the good Band-Aids

As for the people who were called-out, one of my friends is now dead. Two others are disappeared without a trace-- one of them, the community is far safer without them in it, but I wonder if that same individual is engaging in similar behaviour in another environment. Another has gone insane and has become an addict and requires constant support.

Did this all happen since lasr november when #metoo started going?

I’ll bow out here because I frankly have no idea what the fuck fgti and flappy bird are talking about. Clearly there are some totally not famous people who have been victimized by other people pretending to be victims, with little basis. This is definitely a thing that has happened, people on the Internet etc.

Maybe this is why laws and courts were established. Nah, the system is corrupt; let’s all just mete out “accountability” ourselves by ostracizing folks.

what

unjustified bloodlust!!!

let’s all just mete out “accountability” ourselves

yeah this has definitely worked in the past

it's obvious the legal system and the police are weighted against victims. this needs to change. I am for reform, not revolution. Sorry

Maybe this is why laws and courts were established. Nah, the system is corrupt; let’s all just mete out “accountability” ourselves by ostracizing folks.

― Paleo Weltschmerz (El Tomboto), Wednesday, September 12, 2018 6:10 PM (twenty-five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Weren't you the one who banned Dom?

oh, whineypaws

It’s still horrible & violent & the bloodlust is not justified

Fuck off with this shit. How dare you say that women demanding justice, justice they've tried for decades to get the "proper" way and failed, and lost everything doing, after actual violence, is "bloodlust" ?

This is what happens because men have spent a very long time railroading, gaslighting, stonewalling, abusing, and shutting us up.

This is what you get.