Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
Few thoughts on Spacey...

a) At least he out&out apologized... which is way more than what the other jackwagons has done.

b) Holy gak, he tried to hook up with a 14 yo!

c) Dude tried to use the rainbow shield . Jesus wept... way to go to strengthen gay/pedo stereotypes. My gay friends are pissed!

d) if that happened 30 years ago... don't be shocked to hear other peeps come forward, as these things aren't generally 'isolated events'.

Wait till you hear what your president did.. oh wait, no politics. Damn I was going to release the biggest bombshell in history, and then I realized I couldn't.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah that was a really odd way of attempting to deflect that, basically ensuring that it would rile up the crowd he was attempting to mollify. Had he made the aplogogy without the coming out expose, it would have been more effective.

That said, without wanting to minimize anyone's experiences, shutting down a successful show over an unsupported allegation of an incident from more than 30 years ago feels a bit...twitchy. Unless there's more to it Im unaware of.

This is perfectly fine and perfectly legal. The whole innocent until proven guilty only goes for a court of law, a business such as Netflix is not held to the same standards. Freedom and all that.

I don't believe I stated or implied anything to the contrary. Netflix absolutely can do whatever it wants.

So are you saying that this doesn't feel a bit...twitchy?

twitchy and legal/illegal are very different things

My point was that Netflix's response, given the nature of the accusation (over 30 years ago, unsubstantiated, vague circumstances, etc), felt...reflexive and panicked. I'm not saying that Netflix didn't have every right to do what they did, or that what they did was wrong, only that it looks like they acted on impulse

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah that was a really odd way of attempting to deflect that, basically ensuring that it would rile up the crowd he was attempting to mollify. Had he made the aplogogy without the coming out expose, it would have been more effective.

That said, without wanting to minimize anyone's experiences, shutting down a successful show over an unsupported allegation of an incident from more than 30 years ago feels a bit...twitchy. Unless there's more to it Im unaware of.

This is perfectly fine and perfectly legal. The whole innocent until proven guilty only goes for a court of law, a business such as Netflix is not held to the same standards. Freedom and all that.

I don't believe I stated or implied anything to the contrary. Netflix absolutely can do whatever it wants.

So are you saying that this doesn't feel a bit...twitchy?

twitchy and legal/illegal are very different things

My point was that Netflix's response, given the nature of the accusation (over 30 years ago, unsubstantiated, vague circumstances, etc), felt...reflexive and panicked. I'm not saying that Netflix didn't have every right to do what they did, or that what they did was wrong, only that it looks like they acted on impulse

If you have an employee that is accused of something pretty awful, you want to save face by immediately distancing yourself from that person. It's not twitchy, it is good business!

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah that was a really odd way of attempting to deflect that, basically ensuring that it would rile up the crowd he was attempting to mollify. Had he made the aplogogy without the coming out expose, it would have been more effective.

That said, without wanting to minimize anyone's experiences, shutting down a successful show over an unsupported allegation of an incident from more than 30 years ago feels a bit...twitchy. Unless there's more to it Im unaware of.

This is perfectly fine and perfectly legal. The whole innocent until proven guilty only goes for a court of law, a business such as Netflix is not held to the same standards. Freedom and all that.

I don't believe I stated or implied anything to the contrary. Netflix absolutely can do whatever it wants.

So are you saying that this doesn't feel a bit...twitchy?

twitchy and legal/illegal are very different things

My point was that Netflix's response, given the nature of the accusation (over 30 years ago, unsubstantiated, vague circumstances, etc), felt...reflexive and panicked. I'm not saying that Netflix didn't have every right to do what they did, or that what they did was wrong, only that it looks like they acted on impulse

If you have an employee that is accused of something pretty awful, you want to save face by immediately distancing yourself from that person. It's not twitchy, it is good business!

In many circumstances, yes. When the accusation is older than most of your consumer base, unsubstantiated, vague, and in reference to one of your most popular offerings, that usually is cause for some degree of pause, and the speed and decisiveness at which this decision was taken is unusual as a result. That's all I was commenting on.

I imagine if it weren't for the statement he put out, Netflix would have moved a lot slower.

With that statement, I can't help but think any company would have nope'd out and ran for the hills...

 Compel wrote:
I imagine if it weren't for the statement he put out, Netflix would have moved a lot slower.

With that statement, I can't help but think any company would have nope'd out and ran for the hills...

That's a good point, I really don't think he helped himself with that.

I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.

If we don't allow famous people to have some little sin here and there, whats is gonna be of our society?

Hitchcock certainly would have never happened. The crap he did to Tippi Herdron was pretty gakky. Where do we draw the line between crazy guy who make people do stuff to get his art. And crazy guy who does stuff to get his kicks off? Because complicity doesn't cut it.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Hitchcock certainly would have never happened. The crap he did to Tippi Herdron was pretty gakky. Where do we draw the line between crazy guy who make people do stuff to get his art. And crazy guy who does stuff to get his kicks off? Because complicity doesn't cut it.

If everything is based on an agreement with another responsible adult (As long as no limits are exceeded such as murder, etc ...), I think that is the line.

Now, we can talk about influence peddling and abuse of power in that kind of "agreements"

He pretty clearly and pretty intentionally went over "the line". But it wasn't sexual in nature, at least from her point of view (who knows what was going on in his head other than him, and maybe Truffaut.) Grace Kelly sort of looked at him as a pathetic little man who happened to be really good at what he did. He tried to make advances on her, like a lot of his actresses, but she shrugged him off. If you want a good book on Hitch, take a look at "The Dark Side of Genius".

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.

I'm not talking about what should be or making any sort of judgements, just noticing its surprising the speed and decisiveness of the action given typical industry history and the high place the show had on their playbill. It notes a hightened awareness to this sort of thing. Whether that is genuine understanding and caring about the issue, social grandstanding, panicked CYA legal/brand decision, clever excuse to kill something they wanted to kill anyway, or something else or a combination of all of the above, it is what it is, however accusations of this type (he said/he said private encounters) and age (like it or not, most people do weigh the fact that it happened over 30 years ago, even if unconciously) have often not killed popular careers or shows in the past (at least this decisively), and the fact that it has in this case is surprising.

As horrible as it is (and it is horrible), at some point I weigh my desire to see justice vs my desire to see the next season of Cards. Cards wins. I am a horrible person. I wonder what it would be like if this sort of story hit before the final season of Game of Thrones drops, and HBO decides to call it off? No ending for anybody from anybody.. ever. Maybe GRRM will finally be vindicated in his grave saying, "see, nobody could have ended it".

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
As horrible as it is (and it is horrible), at some point I weigh my desire to see justice vs my desire to see the next season of Cards. Cards wins. I am a horrible person. I wonder what it would be like if this sort of story hit before the final season of Game of Thrones drops, and HBO decides to call it off? No ending for anybody from anybody.. ever. Maybe GRRM will finally be vindicated in his grave saying, "see, nobody could have ended it".

I know what you mean, where do you draw the line. Fans have been paying for netflix and supporting House of Cards for years. For them to just end it in an unsatisfying way is a slap in the face to the user/fanbase. All that hard work and development of these characters and stuff for what? How hard is their hand being forced here...

I don't know if anyone has heard of crystal castles but something similar to the Weinstein etc stuff has went down with that band as well:

https://pitchfork.com/news/alice-glass-accuses-crystal-castles-co-founder-ethan-kath-of-rape-and-assault/

I had tickets to see the band live last tuesday and the whole tour got cancelled.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/rose-mcgowan-arrest-warrant-drugs-possession-controlled-substance-harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-a8028576.html

An arrest warrant has been obtained for actress Rose McGowan for possession of a controlled substance.

It stems from a police investigation of personal belongings left behind on a United flight arriving at Washington Dulles International Airport on 20 January.

Police say the items tested positive for narcotics. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police Department obtained the warrant on 1 February.

Do police normally test items left behind for drugs ..?

Since when do arrest warrants get issued for "traces of narcotics" ?

Generally customs will detect traces with a swab,then look for **actual** narcotics and if none are found let the person go...because theres no evidence that the trace readings come from that trip, or not, for example, someones clothes coming into contact with a nightclub door handle...or a spilled pill bottle, or that trip to Amsterdam 10 years ago right ?

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/corey-feldman-marijuana-possession-charge-ironic-hollywood-child-sex-abuse-allegations-a8014826.html




.. odd times eh ?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.

Should we also stop all publications of Lovecraft works because of his virulent racism in his youth?

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.

Should we also stop all publications of Lovecraft works because of his virulent racism in his youth?

If he is already dead it doesn't count!

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/rose-mcgowan-arrest-warrant-drugs-possession-controlled-substance-harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-a8028576.html

An arrest warrant has been obtained for actress Rose McGowan for possession of a controlled substance.

It stems from a police investigation of personal belongings left behind on a United flight arriving at Washington Dulles International Airport on 20 January.

Police say the items tested positive for narcotics. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police Department obtained the warrant on 1 February.

Do police normally test items left behind for drugs ..?

Since when do arrest warrants get issued for "traces of narcotics" ?

Generally customs will detect traces with a swab,then look for **actual** narcotics and if none are found let the person go...because theres no evidence that the trace readings come from that trip, or not, for example, someones clothes coming into contact with a nightclub door handle...or a spilled pill bottle, or that trip to Amsterdam 10 years ago right ?

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/corey-feldman-marijuana-possession-charge-ironic-hollywood-child-sex-abuse-allegations-a8014826.html




.. odd times eh ?

interesting...that.

Maybe the 'traces of narcotics' was a baggie with white powder in it labeled "Sweet Sweet Cocaine".

.. on the subject of odd coincidences

. did you see Paltrow's halloween costume -- fair play to her, very well done.


https://www.instagram.com/p/Ba1wvKjHI-8/


... who was the bad guy in Se7en again ?

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.

Should we also stop all publications of Lovecraft works because of his virulent racism in his youth?

I hope you realize that is something completely different than sexually assaulting an minor.

 reds8n wrote:
.. on the subject of odd coincidences

. did you see Paltrow's halloween costume -- fair play to her, very well done.


https://www.instagram.com/p/Ba1wvKjHI-8/


... who was the bad guy in Se7en again ?

For me, that film totally fell apart in the last 20 minutes. Here's this obsessive psycho killer, who has spent literally years preparing and then executing a highly detailed revenge plan involving lots of different victims, and he chucks it out the window at the last minute to annoy some minor police character in the hope he will get shot.

Load of nonsense.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.

I'm not talking about what should be or making any sort of judgements, just noticing its surprising the speed and decisiveness of the action given typical industry history and the high place the show had on their playbill. It notes a hightened awareness to this sort of thing. Whether that is genuine understanding and caring about the issue, social grandstanding, panicked CYA legal/brand decision, clever excuse to kill something they wanted to kill anyway, or something else or a combination of all of the above, it is what it is, however accusations of this type (he said/he said private encounters) and age (like it or not, most people do weigh the fact that it happened over 30 years ago, even if unconciously) have often not killed popular careers or shows in the past (at least this decisively), and the fact that it has in this case is surprising.

Probably a combination. Earlier this year a (now) former colleague of mine was convicted of pedophilia as well. He was fired immediately after the conviction.

Us regular schmoes had no idea it was going on, but I remember thinking both "good riddance." And "good that they waited for a conviction before getting rid of the bastard."

This is assuming that upper management was aware of the proceedings. They must have known something was amiss.

welshhoppo wrote:But innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore, there is no point denying it.

It does exist in the court of law where it's important but if I were to say that Kevin Spacey or any of the accused people is an donkey-cave for having possibly done this they won't end up in prison. "Innocent until proven guilty" is important because when it come to crime (and not gossip/public accusations) your freedom is at stake (and we can for now ignore how there's different results for different groups and all the problems out judicial systems have). The same just doesn't work outside the judicial system. You would need to control peoples' minds to solve that problem, besides most people in power with that type of accusation keep having a rather normal life. That this stuff gets such a degree of media attention now is rather an outlier, not even a year ago an candidate with multiple similar accusations got elected as the president of the USA. In the eye of the public it's more common the other way around "innocent, despite contrary evidence".

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Two things:
1. Both Spacey and Rapp's statement indicate Spacey was drunk at the time. This does not excuse the act, but it may factor in to how some people judge it.
2. "Worst time to come out", yes, but what else could he do in response to an accusation of gay sexual harassment?

I don't know what to think about this one. Do we condemn people today for something they did while intoxicated 30 years ago? I condemn the act, but I don't know what to think about the person today.

There is no amount of drunk that would make me try and have sex with a 14 year old. 14.

What should we think about the person today? That's a big question. What should we think about anyone who made a really big screw up? I guess it depends on how out of character it is with the rest of their lives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I have to wonder if House of Cards wasn't just about done anyway. I stopped watching it a few years ago - I think I only ever watched the first 2 seasons - but as I understand it, he played an ambitious politician, and he eventually wound up POTUS, right? Not sure where you go from there - Tom Clancy painted himself into the exact same corner many years ago with Jack Ryan.

Spoilers, I guess. Spacey's assumes the presidency, suddenly becomes and idiot and screws up a bunch of stuff. He then runs for election in his own right with his wife as VP. He wins after some really ludicrous twists. But leaks out of the Whitehouse substantiate a lot of the bad stuff he did and force Spacey to resign and his wife becomes President. Spacey reveals he was the leaker, and his new plot was to move back behind the scenes where he is more powerful, somehow. It was pretty stupid. Honestly the best thing about the last season is it wrapped everything up. The news to me wasn't that Netflix was cancelling the show, but that they were planning on making any more before Rapp's statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So are you saying that this doesn't feel a bit...twitchy?

It's more likely that Netflix support for the show was already tepid. I don't know what the ratings were like but HoC had dropped off everyone's prestige TV lists years ago. I'd be amazed if anyone today was signing up for Netflix to access HoC, or if anyone would cancel their Netflix accounts because there was no more HoC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If you have an employee that is accused of something pretty awful, you want to save face by immediately distancing yourself from that person. It's not twitchy, it is good business!

It depends. Nike famously stood by Tiger Woods when his behaviour was brought to light. And Woods wasn't even an employee, he was in a contract with Nike with a strict morality clause that Nike could have used to walk away from the deal. But Nike looked at the business of it, knew how important Woods was to Nike maintaining its place in the golf market, and so they let the deal go quiet for about a year before returning to business as usual. And today Woods is still earning stupid money from Nike, and Nike maintains its billion dollar golf operation.

So you're right that its about business, but it isn't as simple as dropping someone who's been accused of something to protect the business. It depends what their business is worth to you. HoC probably wasn't worth that much anymore, so Netflix had a pretty easy decision. But if, say, GRR Martin got outed as doing some bad stuff* then HBO would have a much tougher decision to make because that show is worth billions to them.


*And given GoT that's not too hard to believe

Yeah, I get the feeling the show was on its way out. Somebody told me he became the Potus and my first thought was "So now what?" Doesn't seem like a lot to do after that. With current events the way they are, it wouldn't have surprised me if they dropped it when it was in its prime either. There has been a lot of backlash for companies/people trying to wait these things out.

Nike doesn't surprise me. That company has never been the most ethical. I doubt HBO would drop GoT if GRRM came out as a rapist/pedophile. They would probably just remove him as a writer and stop associating with him to finish out the show.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Nike doesn't surprise me. That company has never been the most ethical.

I'm not certain we can decide it is immediately unethical to keep a celebrity relationship just because he's in a scandal. In Woods' case there was no issue of consent, they were simply adulterous affairs. But even if it was worse than that, I don't know it's more ethical to drop the relationship and have to fire thousands of people from the inevitable lost sales, because you want to avoid some bad PR and keep a squeaky clean image.

I'm not saying keeping the relationship is ethical either. Just that there's a lot of interests at stake and we shouldn't resort to easy ethical judgements.


But yeah, I agree that HoC had meandered since he became president, and that was almost certainly a major factor in the show being canned.

Kevin Spacey released an official statement today. It goes as follows.

"We get hung up on this child abuse stuff… This is one of the reasons why I hate the left, the one size fits all policing of culture, this arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent.
I’m grateful for Father Michael [a Catholic priest he claims to have had sex with as a teenager]. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.

Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody who is 13 years old and sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty, who do not have functioning sex organs yet, who have not gone through puberty.

In the gay world, some of the most important enriching, and incredibly life-affirming, important, shaping relationships are between younger boys and older men. They can be hugely positive experiences very often for those young boys."

Actually that was a Milo Yiannopoulos quote. Close enough for government work.

 schadenfreude wrote:
Actually that was a Milo Yiannopoulos quote. Close enough for government work.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.

Should we also stop all publications of Lovecraft works because of his virulent racism in his youth?

I hope you realize that is something completely different than sexually assaulting an minor.

What I'm trying to get at is that we should have a degree of separation between art and it's creator.