I’m sure it’s a lot of pent up anger from all the bullshit people (primarily women) have been dealing with for ages. Once a seam split, the steam is venting.
Ok, fair enough. I do not think he was comparing in the way you were suggesting. I think he is asking the same question that has been previously asked. How much do we ostracize and harm someone, and for how long?
We ask that question every day with other crimes and injuries. I think there is no reason we cannot ask it just because “sex” is involved in the issue.
Also, thanks for responding. Sincerely.
Victimhood Politics
“Today, any sort of suffering from any cause, especially on the part of those considered victims of historical oppression, is used to obscure rational discussion and debate with clouds of pathos and emotion.”
“Focusing on any one citizen’s unfortunate experience obscures the fact that public policy affects millions of people with differing views on what aims we collectively pursue and put into law.”
And if he had stopped there, maybe he wouldn’t have gotten as much flak as he did. But he didn’t, he went on about MeToo and his statements just do not play well. They really don’t.
Now does that mean I think he shouldn’t have had a chance to clarify. No I didn’t say that. The fact that these two people are his friends also matters. And again, Roseanne said horrific things that may cost her her career forever, but she is not even on the same stage as MeToo.
And dear lord, his apology talking about Downs Syndrome like that… Norm is clearly out of touch. As a public figure, maybe he should take a step back and get some awareness.
As for that last question, neither Roseanne nor CK are long-term suffers here. Ask again in a a few years although I doubt either of them can actually exit the spotlight for a bit
Now as for the sex part, if it’s an actual crime… the USA has a registry. Society decided to treat those differently. We can certainly debate whether that’s okay or not but the courts and laws did that a long time ago. And MeToo had nothing to do with that.
But I want to be clear. Roseanne and CK did not wake up one day and something happened to them. They’re the ones trying to play victim. It was their actions that put them in these positions, not the other way around.
I’ve never said that the Louis CK’s and Roseanne Barr’s of the world can never earn a living or work again. What I am suggesting is that maybe these people have demonstrated they should not work in their chosen field. Like a lawyer that gets caught repeatedly perjuring himself, or a doctor that abuses her patients, they’ve essentially lost their license, so to speak. Go find a job that does not require public showings of empathy or puts the careers of others in those genitalia-filled hands. Like, if you have a bad habit of showing your dick to women without their enthusiastic consent, perhaps you should not mentor any women, nor should you get much leeway to make pithy commentary about other people’s social transgressions. Go drive a bus or dig ditches or maybe just retire with the millions you do have and go into real estate or investing.
There’s plenty of careers I’d love to have, but I don’t get to do those jobs because I don’t have the skills to pull them off. Despite all their success on stage, I think their inability to not be shitheels puts these folks in a position where they may be more suited to life out of the public eye.
What you’re suggesting is such an arbitrary penalty. “Don’t do the thing you do best anymore because you abused people and also fuck you”. Their careers are telling jokes to audiences, not mentoring women.
If the audiences decide that their transgressions are terrible enough that they won’t show up to see them perform, that alone decides if they will be able to carry on with their careers.
Apparently, CK’s career did require interaction with women all the time, which gave him the opportunity to show that he’s terrible at that aspect of the job.
And yes, I’m saying audiences should pass judgment. Isn’t that what we’re doing here?
If people don’t want to watch them perform, and don’t want to so much that they make it unprofitable for other people to produce their performance, is that a penalty? I mean, people don’t want to watch me perform enough that I can get stuff produced; does that mean I’m being subjected to a penalty? Do some people have a right to perform profitably?
In the end, if enough people want to pay to see Louis K perform, he’ll perform. If not, he won’t. He isn’t being held in prison.
I’m not sure how that’s any different than what I said.
P.S. Will somebody please take away Scott’s italics tags.
Also, too, it seems like MacDonald is a Tucker Carlson fan, so maybe his opinions about Louis and Roseanne ought to be considered in that light.
Other than calling it an arbitrary penalty you mean.
(Italics tags are useful)
Never!
I was describing Telefrog’s position that they should be barred from working in the entertainment industry.
I didn’t read his position that way. I thought he was suggesting that they should be self-aware enough to realize they weren’t cut out for it, or that audiences should be, or both.
Exactly. I’m not suggesting some comedy bar association keep them from jobs. I’m saying they may have violated the social contract that entertainers need to honor to stay in their fan’s good graces.
Moonves sounds like such a petty, vindictive guy. This article by Linda Bloodworth Thomason, a successful writer and creator who had a terrible time at CBS once he took over, is a must-read.
The truth is, Les Moonves may never be punished in the way that he deserves. He will almost certainly never go to jail. And he has already made hundreds of millions of dollars during his highly successful and truly immoral, bullying, misogynist reign.
Perhaps the best we can do is thank Ronan Farrow and all the brave women who came forward to make sure a man like this is finally gone, while putting all the other sexual predators who are still in our business on notice. We are not going to stop until every last one of you is gone. We don’t care anymore if you go to jail or go to hell. Just know at some point that you are leaving.
And as for you, Mr. Moonves, in spite of the fact that I was raised to be a proper Southern female, and with your acknowledgement that I have never, in my life, spoken a single cross word to you, despite the way you treated me, may I simply say, channeling my finest Julia Sugarbaker delivery: “Go fuck yourself!”
Also, 60 Minutes’ Jeff Fager is out.
The text in question:
I never realized until reading Linda Bloodworth Thomason’s excellent piece just how many iconic female actresses and female-led shows CBS had produced over the years. It’s absolutely astounding to me that they could have gone from a network that celebrated powerful and complex women with shows like Murphy Brown and Designing Women in their heyday under chairman Howard Stringer and president Jeff Sagansky, to a network that was so actively hostile to women in real life under Moonves. One guy…one fucking guy, had that much control over the culture and environment at the network, and nobody could do a thing to stop him.
If you think about it, Moonves’ actions at CBS stunted what was, at the time, an emerging movement of female empowerment on television that, had it continued, could have led us to the #MeToo movement (or something similar) a whole lot earlier. How many amazing creative voices were silenced under Moonves? How many actresses, writers, directors and staffers have suffered indignations and worse over the past 20 years that they might not have had someone willing to continue the evolution of women in television been named to head CBS?
What a piece of absolute garbage Les Moonves is.
Wait, she’s in a room with him where he’s being a disgusting pig, including putting his hand up her dress. And then:
WHAT. Why would you follow that up by going to his hotel room?! Was all the previous stuff just so business as usual, which is even worse?
If that sounds like I’m victim blaming, I’m not. I’m just trying to understand what would lead someone to follow up the meeting described by a visit to the hotel room, alone.
It does indeed sound like victim blaming, but I accept that you’re not blaming the victim. What I don’t get is why you’re asking the question. How will you be helped by any answer? What difference will it make?