It’s something I struggle with. Some bad news comes out about some public persona doing something shitty and they get cancelled. But sometimes I really struggle with giving up the things they’ve made because I like them. There are also occasions where the person has been accused of something and it doesn’t seem true to me, or I think they’re genuinely sorry and have been punished enough, and the context isn’t being considered.
What do you think? Who do you feel conflicted about enjoying?
Kevin Spacey. ‘K-Pax’ and ‘Swimming With Sharks’ were so good.
I really liked Chappelle show, but he’s really gone bad the last few years being anti trans and all. To say he’s canceled is a bit much, though. He’s still rich and popular, and selling tickets.
I doubt he’d go around punching/harassing transpeople (but correct me if I’m wrong, of course, I’m not dying on the Dave Chapelle hill, lol), he might just disagree with some of the current Western culture around it and understanding of it.
“It’s not like he goes around assaulting trans people, he just disagrees with the current culture of letting trans people be who they are instead of masking and hiding themselves”
Yeah while I think Chapelle is entitled to free speech as a comedian and all that, his doubling- and tripling-down with the trans jokes are not only unfunny, they are embraced by bigots and embolden their subsequent hateful rhetoric and actions. If Chapelle actually cared one iota about trans people, he would just tell jokes about literally anything else. It’s not like there’s a shortage of topics to poke fun at.
He’s a petulant, obstinate, man baby and deserving of all the backlash he has received. I honestly think he must be washed up and creatively tapped since he won’t let the trans jokes go.
It’s just step one of his transformation into Clayton Bigsby.
It’s shocking to me how willing people are to hang out with Chappelle and even ride his dick, but I guess the Saudi thing showed that a lot of those folks who embed progressive values in their material are just playing characters.
anti-trans is popular with the right wingers, incel crowd.
Well hes certainly not canceled. He just had a new Netflix special. Been getting them consistently the entire time.
I don’t think he’s actually anti-trans, he just likes making jokes about them and refused to be cowed by people telling him to stop. Just my sense of it though.
So he’s just a shithead asshole instead of a bigot? Pretty lateral move, honestly, if he doesn’t even believe in the bigotry he spreads.
He quit his show because bigots were using his material to laugh AT black people instead of WITH them. But he’s more than happy to change the butt if the joke so he can still feel good about the jokes he makes instead of having to be self reflective.
I agree with you. I don’t think he’s anti-trans. I think he’s incredibly insensitive.
What I truly believe here is that his perspective is that it’s progressive to make jokes about groups that are historically off limits because doing so breaks a social barrier. That’s what I think he believes and I think he’s getting it wrong.
I don’t think social mores factor into it all for him. When he said he finds the position of trans people genuinely funny, I think he was being honest. I do think he went too far with his jokes about them, simply in terms of sheer number; it was a social faux pas that strained the credulity of his stated position, but I personally believe him when he says he just finds the whole situation very funny.
I think he doesn’t care what other people think of his comedy at this point, and I don’t really have an opinion on that. I suppose I sort of respect it, but I also think he’s definitely passed into the realm of bad taste at this point. I don’t think he means anything bad by it though. Maybe he is insensitive, but comedians aren’t known for their sensitivity. I understand the criticism against him for it and think it’s valid.
I’m not defending the offensiveness of his jokes, just stating that I think they’re just jokes to him, and he doesn’t actually mean them in a mean-spirited light. If I were to talk to him about it, I would probably ask him how he feels about White comedians that make jokes about Black people, who also claim they’re not advocating anti-Black views, and just find the humor in their situations. I imagine he might reveal himself to be quite the hypocrite under that line of questioning. Most of us are hypocrites.
There are jokes punching up, and jokes punching down.
Chapelle is in a position of punching down, here.
I honestly think that he is a subversive ally.
Like, the things that he says, the way that he says them pisses off trans people and gets the anti-trans people on his side.
But then he also preaches a philosophy of live and let live, do whatever the fuck you want to do, just leave me alone and let me live my life, which also goes to his enemies.
So there are probably people who have transphobia, who like Dave Chappelle, who leave trans people alone, or quickly identify themselves to trans people by making a Dave Chappelle joke or reference, and therefore, incidentally, protect trans people from interacting with people that might otherwise do bad things to them.
I could be wrong. He might just be an asshole. He probably is an asshole either way. I’m not a stan for him, but that’s the vibe that I get from his whole act.
The problem with that is that the libertarians that attracts are hypocrites. They don’t let live, just like Chapelle himself isn’t letting live.
It’s easy to say “live and let live” when you’re in a relative position of unassailable authority.
It’s easy for someone with the means to do whatever they want to say “everyone should be able to do what they want”.\I should be allowed to mock you, but you shouldn’t be allowed to do anything about it
Are you suggesting violence as an appropriate response to his commentary?
Have you encountered anyone who has been emboldened to commit either emotional or physical crimes against another person because of something Dave Chappelle has said or done?
If so, then I’m more than willing to change the way I view his schtick, but I cannot find any correlation between an increase in any sort of hurt or violence towards trans people, and anything Dave Chappelle has said or done.
I think he’s serving as a pressure release valve for the people who have never encountered a trans person (who was not masking their transness) or who have suddenly been thrust into the realization that the world contains trans people and don’t know how to cope with it.
Therefore I feel like the things that he says have an overall net positive effect on the way trans people are treated, even though he himself looks and sounds like a piece of shit saying it and that he offends trans people when he says it.
Are you suggesting violence as an appropriate response to his commentary?
What the fuck?
Have you encountered anyone who has been emboldened to commit either emotional or physical crimes against another person because of something Dave Chappelle has said or done?
That is crazy disingenuous. If you’re this passionate about the subject then you know full well it’s not the work of a single person, it’s normalized a little at a time, bit by bit, until people do feel emboldened to take action. Chappelle is part of the problem, and as a very public figure then it’s even less ok to let it slide, because people take cues about what is ok and what isn’t from public figures.
And if you’re going to say that trans people aren’t already the subject of discrimination, than we cannot have a civilized discussion.
“I should be allowed to mock you, but you shouldn’t be allowed to do anything about it” < your words
Isn’t not giving Dave Chappelle money or time or attention the grand sum of things that you can do about his stance without violence?
I think you and I have had interactions elsewhere on Lemmy, and typically they’re very antagonistic and I don’t know why that is.
I earnestly try to be a reasonable person and to express my views without judgment of other people.
I do this in hopes that debate produces something positive, but from what I remember, typically, no matter what I say to you, your response is to exacerbate the argument rather than resolve it.
Sometimes other people have views that do not mesh with yours, yet they are not your enemy.
I know trans people. I have trans friends. I live in a very progressive area by choice. I have gone to protests to protect women and trans people alike.
I am an ally, and if you think that me believing or having a reason to believe that Dave Chappelle is also an ally makes me not an ally, then that’s pretty much the end of the conversation, right?
“do anything about it” doesn’t have to mean violence. What the fuck? Why is that the first thing you jump to?
Isn’t not giving Dave Chappelle money or time or attention the grand sum of things that you can do about his stance without violence?
Yes, that is the do anything about it that I’m talking about. The thing Chapelle calls cancel culture, and fights against. So if violence isn’t allowed and neither is organizing to have a voice as loud as his, then what is allowed besides letting him have his way?
makes me not an ally
I don’t choose who is or isn’t an ally.
If the consensus of the trans community is supporting Chapelle, then I’ll shut up about it because I’d clearly be mistaken, but that doesn’t seem to be the case afaict, which aligns with my understanding of why Chapelle is problematic in general; he uses libertarianism as a carte blanche to pick on minorities. this just demonstrates how libertarianism is ironically discriminatory in practice, but it teaches bigots a language to defend themselves with.I earnestly try to be a reasonable person and to express my views without judgment of other people. […] typically, no matter what I say to you, your response is to exacerbate the argument rather than resolve it.
How am I supposed to interpret this, from someone who immediately accused me of supporting violence and then doubled down on that accusation?
and him being in saudia arabia, and furthering his anti-trans comedy is just adding to the fire.
Both of the Linuses
Sebastian and Torvalds
Sebastian because most of the shit he’s been accused of has either been fixed openly, or was proven mostly false.
Torvalds because while he can be extremely rude, he generally only does it when the person deserves to be called out. It’s not like he’s going off at random people. Society says he should use more tact, but the dude is literally responsible for creating and now maintaining arguably the most important piece of the server software stack globally. There’s also a very high chance he’s on the spectrum.
How do you define “cancelled”?
As far as I can tell both Sebastian and Torvalds are just as successful (if not more) in their respective roles today as they were before any “controversies” surrounding them were made public.
Yeah people can complain Torvalds was rude all day, but fuck me if the people he yelled at couldn’t be aggressively disrespectful in bringing half-assed work to the table and doing damage or at best wasting other’s people time.
He’s the literal “You’re not wrong, you’re just an asshole”. But if he wasn’t that way, I wonder if we’d have what we have. A nicer developer wouldn’t get the same attention.
I argue about this all the time, especially if you have to work with non-coders. People who don’t code do not understand the big picture.
Steve Wozniak is brilliant, and had Steve Jobs explain the vision and sell it to non coders.
For Microsoft. That was Ballmer.
If youre a tech lead who lets a group of marketing folks try to define the course of any application, you need someone really strong at communication to fight for you. Unfortunately, Linus didnt have one and ripping people a new asshole was the next best thing.
He’s self aware and for some reason that bothers me less than an asshole who denies being an asshole.
You probably needed someone like him in a technical leadership role somewhere, the problem was that he became the face as well.
At least the face isn’t steering the brain like most organizations!
And when he acts shitty towards somebody, he does it publicly, where he himself can also receive the backlash from what he is doing.
He’s not attempting to build a reputation as being a nice guy or a thought leader or anything. He is getting shit done, and anyone that’s got a problem with it or him can either go do it better than him or stfu
Sebastian because most of the shit he’s been accused of has either been fixed openly, or was proven mostly false.
From what I understand, nothing was proven false, but there were things that were not proven true, as in “we couldn’t find documented evidence that this employee was sexually harassed”, which obviously doesn’t necessarily mean that it did not happen. They just couldn’t find a paper trail of it happening, which is understandable.
On the other hand, things like all the factual inaccuracies and whatnot were absolutely undeniable.
i’ve heard Torvalds be called rude but never “cancelled”.
I think there have been attempts to cancel Torvalds after he’s slapped down some idiot in a particularly harsh manner, but I don’t think they ever stick because he doesn’t go off on people unless they really try to do shit that would compromise the integrity of the kernel and didn’t take the message to fix/bail on something when it was previously provided.
Removed by mod
This one hurts because he really pushed an art form.
Cartoons were not at all well respected as a method of storytelling back in the day. And Walt threw himself into the fire pretty often to strike success and build the Disney empire.
michael jackson made incredible music. i don’t even know how much of the stuff about him is true but it does feel weird listening to his stuff now, even though it’s extremely well made.
The fact that he had to pay a family hush-money was incredibly suspicious enough.
I don’t give a shit about Michael Jackson. Except maybe his upbringing with his piece of shit father has had something to do with how he’d later behave. Glad Joe is dead.
If you’re a slightly creepy odd duck with large amounts of money, it’d make sense to pay a settlement rather than letting a case go to trial even if you’re innocent, because juries can be wayward, especially in civil cases, and the reputational damage can easily cost you more than the settlement. So I don’t buy the no smoke without fire theory, especially with the proven cases of shakedown artists abetted by contingency-fee slimebag lawyers.
I lean towards the view that MJ was a wrong 'un, but also wouldn’t be surprised if it came out that he was just a twisted, damaged, traumatized, socially isolated guy.
I don’t think we’ll ever know. I have a feeling he actually wasn’t a pedophile at all, but just felt close to children because he had Peter Pan syndrome or something. He seemed very infantile to me is the only real sense I got of him. Strange person. But without question he did make some r really iconic music.
Wasn’t this the dude that dangled a baby out of a window?
yeah that’s my impression as well. being a child star really fucks you up mentally.
then again i haven’t seen the documentaries.
I agree, and the thing is we can never really know what someone is like all the time even if we get to know some aspects of them well.
I’ve been shocked by things that some people I knew did, that I would never have thought they were capable of.
I hope that is not the case for MJ, but it might be. And we’ll likely never know.
Ehhhh, I’ve seen some pics of him being happily surrounded with people known for being sex pests/pedos so idk. Two things can be true, you know, he might have been mentally and developmentally different but he might have also touched some kids, sadly.
happily surrounded with people known for being sex pests/pedos so idk
He worked in the recording industry and Hollywood. It’s pretty hard to avoid in those businesses.
Fair and depressing.
I’ve heard rumors that he was either physically or chemically castrated to keep his beautiful, pure singing voice.
If that is the case, then it would kind of explain how fucked up he is, or how fucked up he was.
Oof. Didn’t he have kids though? Or is there a form of castration that doesn’t affect one’s ability to reproduce? Regardless, yeah, it doesn’t absolve him of his sins but let’s just say they’re attenuating factors for his judgement.
None of his kids are genetically his as far as I know.
Oop. Okay, yeah. Hurt people hurt people. 😕
mj was something special if very fuken weird, but the maker of his best jams was quincy jones. if you don’t know him, spend some time investigating his catalog.
He was an incredibly talented artist. I think his father deserves most of the blame for Michael’s bizarre behavior. Most adults would struggle with the pressures of fame and performing that he spent his whole life under from the time he was like 10 years old. Joe recognized that his kids were talented and then proceeded to squeeze every last red cent he could out of them. No wonder Michael snapped.
Probably performers like Jared Leto and Marilyn Manson. They’ve made some great albums (A Beautiful Lie and Antichrist Superstar) and movie appearances (Requirement for a Dream and Lost Highway), but I understand why they give people the ick.
Agree on Leto.
Marylin Manson? Meh. Guy was a Fisher Price philosopher for tween goths….almost to the point of cult leader, he always got a pass on that. His appearance in The Lost Highway was purely aesthetic.
the joke going around, the latest TRON COVER, the reason where there is no women on the cover of poster, is no woman wants to be next to him. while every other tron poster has a female/male couple.
When was Leto even close to cancelled?
Not cancelled, but affected by serious allegations.
r/okbuddycinephile is in perpetual meltdown over Leto, because Hollywood can’t stop casting him despite him barely doing any acting. Feels like every month I read a thread about some new role of his. Thankfully I don’t watch any of those films myself.
Yeah I’m going to have to push back on the affected part of your comment. As we both agree he hasn’t been canceled and as some of those allegations are years old and as your article points out it’s basically an Open Secret. Yet he’s still been getting movies for years and has more projects on the way. Hell there were a few articles in June like this one when it was posted, but since then basically nothing. If he’s affected it’s clearly not seriously.
I love Manson’s music and I always enjoy hearing him interviewed. I struggle with that too.
Marilyn Manson, I like his music.
I do too. I pretty much hated all music made in the 90s; I think grunge is awful and so is NIN, but I felt like Manson was a natural extension of what bands like WASP and Motley Crue were doing but reinvented for that generation, and it’s really good. I like music that has some concept and theater to it. I still listen to him.
I also like Die Antwoord; I think the accusations by their adopted son are total bullshit. I’m not saying they’re good people and I do think they’re homophobic, but also a lot of their image is obviously artificial and they obfuscate their true lives, it’s clear from reading their interviews. I think they’re genuinely average middle aged parents from South Africa, and I think what Ninja said about their son making accusations was to try to get money from them is true. I really dig their crazy music and their videos are insane.
I am with you about Grunge, I never understood the appeal for Nirvana and I think the accolades should go to the Screaming Trees and Alice and Chains. My favorite Manson album is Mechanical Animals. I know what you mean about Die Antword, the kid they adopted is an addict and I view him as an unreliable source.
Grunge is so dull. I am all for generations developing their own style of music without question but I can’t believe we turned away from 80s music to THAT. I thought Nirvana was mediocre as can be. Love Mechanical Animals, but like all of his albums to some degree. I’m glad he’s gotten back on his feet in life and got sober and lost the weight.
Die Antwoord, what Tokkie is saying just sounds so outlandishly fake. I don’t think they’re great people but I actually think they care a lot about their kids.
Even after the rib thing??
You’re talking about the rumor that he had some ribs removed so that he could autofellate? That’s just pure and simple bs.
Don’t ruin my childhood!
Yes, I’m aware. I just like making jokes online
No worries, I got to use autofellate in a sentence.
I like the world building in Fifth Element and Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. But Luc Besson is probably a rapist and certainly a sexual assaulter. I’ll watch his old stuff I already own but won’t put any more money towards it nor support any new projects.
Also a pedo. From his wiki page:
Besson’s second wife was actress and director Maïwenn Le Besco, whom he started dating when he was 32 and she was 15 after having met three years earlier.[46] They married in late 1992 when Le Besco, 16, was pregnant with their daughter Shanna, who was born on 3 January 1993.[47][deprecated source] Le Besco later claimed that their relationship inspired Besson’s film Léon (1994), where the plot involved the emotional relationship between an adult man and a 12-year-old girl (played by then 12-year-old Natalie Portman).
So not only is he a pedo, but he was proud enough of it he made a movie about it.
That knowledge makes the uncomfortableness in Léon so much worse…
Let’s consult the film’s plot:
Mathilda looks up to Léon and quickly develops a crush on him, often telling him she loves him, but he does not reciprocate.
The film: the adult rejects advances from the teen girl.
_cryptagion: “This must mean Besson is proud of his relation with formerly-teen wife”.
I don’t think the rich pedo needs you to defend him.
You can keep being stupid, I don’t give a shit. But it would be better if you didn’t impose your stupidity on others.
yeah ok, creep. I don’t talk to pedos, so I’m blocking you immediately.
It’s remarkable how a mention of what you call ‘pedo’ completely shuts down your already deficient brain. A curious neurological phenomenon.
I don’t enjoy or like public figures. Having never met them, I cannot like them. I do enjoy the works or products of some people, and knowing the person(s) who created something can influence my chances of consuming it.
There are some people who have done, or accused of doing bad things, but they have created works that I enjoyed.
AKA, I never “liked” Neil Gaiman. But I do like American Gods.
Fair. I wish the art people made wasn’t tainted by their behaviour.
Like I have a soft spot for Vince Neil even though he killed people drunk driving, because of how his poor little daughter died and how badly it’s affected him. I can’t help it.
Haha, imagine giving a shit about an artist’s views and actions outside of the art they create. I don’t expect my doctor or political representative to be a good painter. Why would I expect my painter to give me medical advice or represent me politically? They’re completely different activities and I look for different people to perform them.
You’re right that we shouldn’t expect them to align the majority if the time, but it’s not a reaction to the way things SHOULD be. If the person who disagrees with you gets a bunch of money they can wield it against your interests, and they will. It’s a shitty matter of pragmatism that people have been forced to widen their view.
I doubt most people enjoy the situation society has landed us all in, we just wanted cool music and instead we get cool music with celebrity endorsed PACs hiding just out of view.
Most artists don’t have anything like that kind of cash or cache. Maybe some of the big corporate marketing babies but not many outside of that. I don’t have a significant worry that some guy is going to use my few dollars from bandcamp to push some political party regardless of their beliefs, and I don’t listen to marketing-powered, soulless pop nonsense that gets the kind of money behind it I’d have to care about.
Sure, if you only listen to small artists and you drop them when they get too popular I guess you can preempt this whole problem, but I don’t think practically you’re going to see all the fans drop an artists as they start blowing up.
I think what actually happens is that someone sells out and gets too much money and keeps coasting until a backlash drives their fans away from them actively (canceling). It would be nice if your self governing system worked but I just don’t have confidence it will ever overpower the marketing snowball effect.
Again I don’t think people are happy with how things are; it just seems to be how shit shakes out in an attention economy.
Depressingly, yeah. I keep circling back around to how harmful advertising and marketing are to society. We need to ban advertising, full stop.
Imagine not being able to read the title correctly. It’s not about your painter thinking differently or voting differently. It’s about your painters actions.
He made a beautiful, remarkable signed painting. It’s the center piece in your living room. And then it comes out he was was abducting, raping, and killing women.
The painting looks the same. 1 week later his name will fade and no one remembers. But you might feel a lot differently about it knowing it was his painting. I’m not gonna claim it’s right or wrong whatever you decide. You do you. But im sure you can appreciate the potential moral dilemma.
They mentioned actions.
While the work itself is a consideration, I consider respect of logic & rationality a higher consideration, so I absolutely loathe when people draw on irrelevant considerations (a genetic fallacy or guilt by association) to judge a work or the people who like it. Negative experiences with irrationality lead me to judge it as immoral & worthy of contempt.
Let’s be real here, if the artist created great work and then was also a killer, not only is the painting still just as aesthetically pleasing as it always was, but if we are going to care about what they did outside of the art, it only makes the art more interesting as an example of the varied nature of humanity. The same individual produced heinous murder and exquisite beauty.
Sure, but you displaying it also communicates to your guests that you’re not disgusted enough by his actions to remove it, and also that you’re not embarrassed that you financially supported someone evil.
That makes an assumption that it is one’s moral responsibility to dispose of work made by someone who did something wrong. That’s pure circular argument. As for supporting someone evil, that might apply if you bought it after you found out what they were doing, but it is absurd to complain about something someone did with no way of knowing what it might go toward. It is also absurd to require people to investigate every facet of every possible person they could interact with. If you are walking down the street and meet someone running a hotdog cart, will you hold off on the purchase until you can run a background check? What if they’re actually ‘evil?’ *furious eyebrow wiggles* This kind of purity policing is silly, like placing the burden of climate change on the person who didn’t separate their recycling.
Hey you said the negative history of the artist made the art more interesting, so i was just saying it’s more nuanced than that. We all (me definitely) own stuff from evil people/ corporations, but art is different because it’s not meant to be functional, it’s meant to make you feel something. It’s more susceptible to changing meaning based on creator than a T- shirt, a phone, or a pair of shoes
That is certainly a personal preference someone might have. But the point is, if you know the painting you have displayed, is made by a child molester. You might not feel particularly comfortable with having his painting. Despite it being an otherwise beautiful piece of art.
I don’t care if Hitlers paintings are worth lots of money today. I wouldn’t want it anywhere near my place.
And that kind of knee-jerk avoidance of anything uncomfortable is at the core of reactionary thinking. If it makes you uncomfortable to be near something a child molester has touched, will you abandon their victims? The home they lived in? The clothes which they owned once but that others could use? The sidewalk they walked along to get to the scene of their crimes? Shall we all expel the things that make us uncomfortable? Some people are made uncomfortable by foreigners, and people who look different. Don’t tell me ‘but that’s different.’ It’s not. It’s the same reactionary childishness, and it might make you uncomfortable to acknowledge it, but that’s why we can’t use discomfort as a measure.
First off, Nice strawman by the way.
Second, It is FAR from the same thing. I’m not uncomfortable being near something some awful person have been near. People have walked on the street I walk on, for several hundreds of years. I have no doubt some truly terrible people have traversed that road.
But I don’t want their artwork at display in my house. What I put on display in my house, is a reflection of me and my taste. Which is why I don’t want to have such artwork from such a person.
If you’re fine with it, good for you. I have not once said it would be wrong. I’ve not once said no one can or should have such things. Only that I personally, wouldn’t want to.
You not being able to differentiate what people are comfortable with in their own home, and what they tolerate in public, is the centerpiece of your argument. Not a particularly strong foundation since it’s based on nothing but your own misconception
Being uncomfortable with it in your own home is only different in that you actually have some control over what is displayed in your own home, but the irrational judgement of the art based on the non-artistic conduct of the artist exists regardless of whether you have the power to force your judgement onto others. It all still applies. There is an implied moral superiority in the statement of ‘You do you, but I would never,’ in the same vein as someone who makes a point to say to gay people, ‘You do you, but I would never.’ Saying ‘I didn’t say you couldn’t do it’ is the same ‘I’m not saying anything like that. I’m just asking questions,’ excuse people use to get away with making all sorts of implications that they know they can’t really justify.
You’re the one reading into it. We’re talking about art. People like different art. And that’s ok. I do not imply any form of superiority, moral or otherwise when I say “you do you”. So you can scratch that off.
I have loads of stuff around my place that honestly, are not particularly beautiful or amazing in any way. But the artist is very dear to me, for various reasons. So I like to have them on display.
Why does it matter so much to you that some people would prefer to avoid artists due to their conduct? It doesn’t affect you. You just want to make it about yourself, by thinking that we judge you for listening/watching/buying/whatever from the artist. The world doesn’t revolve around you.
I don’t think you’re a bad person for enjoying Chris Browns music. I don’t think about you, at all.
Why would I expect my painter to give me medical advice or represent me politically?
That’d be like expecting the lead singer of the Offspring to do a Ted talk on molecular biology or the guitarist from Rage Against The Machine to debate political science.
Madness!
But you wouldn’t expect the guitarist of Rage Against the Machine to give a talk on molecular biology. Just because one musician can do a thing, we do not expect all musicians to do those same things.
It’s weird how they all have skills you’re overlooking.
Kevin Spacey. He’s just such a good actor, I like every movie he’s in. The first season of House of Cards was amazing too.
Kanye can be as insane as he wants to be, it doesn’t make Yeezus and TLOP any worse. 🤷 TBF I live a somewhat minimalistic life and I don’t buy albums or anything, haven’t gone to a concert in almost two decades… but a bop is a bop.
i love kanye sm i really think he has some bad mental issues. which doesn’t excuse his actions esp since he seems to not try and get help. but like dude was/is going through some serious shit and is an addict and it’s just sad especially since he’s so talented
Never meet your hero. There are some well known people out there that are great human beings, but just as many who are average or below, and being a celebrity won’t help a bad personality get better (usually).
Not only for the reason to keep the illusion, but if I saw someone famous in public I wouldn’t be that annoying fan that helps push some to the edge. At best I’d just mention I liked their work (not even saying specifics) and let it be. Again, they are people, and I know I don’t like to be bothered with small talk from strangers.
A side note that is a bit related to breaking the false image. When you figure out that your parents and other relatives are just people too, with their own greatness and flaws. It’s probably healthy in the long run, but the first shock can be nasty.
I guess I should name someone. Tom Cruise is always the first in my mind. Some incredible work, but he’s both weird and given how embedded he is with Scientology, can’t be that great of a person to know well. But maybe not… he is peculiar though.
I would love to meet the cast of Andor and Tony Gilroy, they seem amazing, intelligent, and down to earth. But going back to my point, at most all I’d be doing is telling them how great they were at their job, and hope that what they portray in interviews is who they really are.
My heroes are righteous men and women not wacky artists, lol. I can love their artistic output and still understand they’ll burn in Hell. 🤷
I’m sure you understand that’s a phrase, not an implication that artists are all heroes. But it does apply. The person you see do something great and heroic may also have certain things about them that would ruin your image you have in our mind created from the good actions. We’re all people with potentials and flaws.
You’re right, you’re right… but their flaws wouldn’t be as big as being a big Hollywood predator pedo, because I admire people for their righteous behaviour and wise insights, not their artistic contributions that are disassociated from their beliefs. I’m not saying I can’t be fooled, of course, people lie and I’m not omniscient. I guess I just dislike the use of the word “hero” here because, even if it’s “just a phrase”, it might just say something about the value system of the person saying it.
I meant it as the phrase. The word itself for me has a very broad meaning contextually and is overused. I hope that gives a better impression of my value system.
I remember the Vanity Fair article about Cruise where he was having a tantrum at a dinner somewhere and saying “even my own sister can’t get me a girlfriend”. The article goes on to say that Scientology procured him a girlfriend but later on basically fired her. I don’t think he understands human relationships.
Kevin Spacey is a fantastic actor.
Agreed.
He really is.
Totally.
…and if you’re going to take down Kevin Spacey, he should be the 1000th male actor or rock star you go after.
Like…yeah…people should decide if all the accusations (and no convictions) are worth anything…I think they are. But…why are people like Johnny Depp, Mel Gibson, Alex Baldwin, Sean Penn, etc still working…maybe even working more after crazy shit they did?
depp got way screwed over by HEARD, to the point of being blacklisted by hollywood, him suing heard was justified.
Kevin spacey had legitimate SA/SH accusations against him, most of it dint stick because at least 1 accuser died before he could do it.
mel gibson got cancelled by his antisemitic thing, but he mostly in christian films anyways. I think alec baldwins problem was him being careless with firearms.
He didn’t. I get it…you fell for his bullshit on TV.
You should really brush on on people beyond the one news story you remember off the top of your head.
Did Depp get accused of more than the Heard thing? He went through a trial and was cleared, I personally don’t think he deserves to be dragged, but that’s just me I know others disagree
He was cleared of wrongdoing in a particular court (not others), not of being a terrible person. Many of the things he admits to exceed anything Spacey was accused of.
…but I’m not even talking about that. I’m talking about Depps Robert Downey Jr. years (I forgot to mention Robert…one of the biggest sleazebag “comeback” stories): the years when he was a womanizing rock star junkie banging teenagers, hanging out with the Butthole Surfers, and was generally unemployable. We just pretend all that didn’t happen and treat him like he’s a victim of Amber Heard (who was like 25 v 48 when they got together…he practically raised her).
Butthole Surfers fucking rule.
Thanks for sharing - the more I know. Wasn’t aware of much of it
If you enter that time period, I think it includes Whalbergs beating the Vietnamese man until he went blind. Some things the court of public opinion seems to ignore.
Didn’t even know about one. Gross.
Yea marky mark was gang related or just racist before the funky bunch
His video about what happened is very surreal. It’s on YouTube. I think it’s tied to his House of Cards character but has dual meaning?
Indeed a great actor, but as a
Trekkerhuman being, fuck him for how he treated Anthony Rapp (the engineer from Star Trek Discovery).
Anti-Flag.
Absolutely sucks who Justin Sane turned out to be, but the music the group made together are still absolute bangers.
