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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.

Boo hoo. Lots of people suffer personal tragedies and don't cope with it by drugging and raping children. Your apologism for a convicted child rapist is horrifying.

I think these two things are separate. Polanski DOES have my sympathy for Sharon Tate's murder. If he had Jack Ruby'ed one of the killers I'd have considered his mental state for a reduced sentence.

However, that's a LONG way from saying, "He had problems years ago, forgive him for drugging and forcibly raping a 13 year-old."

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.

Boo hoo. Lots of people suffer personal tragedies and don't cope with it by drugging and raping children. Your apologism for a convicted child rapist is horrifying.

I think these two things are separate. Polanski DOES have my sympathy for Sharon Tate's murder. If he had Jack Ruby'ed one of the killers I'd have considered his mental state for a reduced sentence.

However, that's a LONG way from saying, "He had problems years ago, forgive him for drugging and forcibly raping a 13 year-old."

I don't think Peregrine is not saying those two things aren't different. Just that when something terrible happens to you it doesn't give you a free pass to go break the law.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.

Boo hoo. Lots of people suffer personal tragedies and don't cope with it by drugging and raping children. Your apologism for a convicted child rapist is horrifying.

I think these two things are separate. Polanski DOES have my sympathy for Sharon Tate's murder. If he had Jack Ruby'ed one of the killers I'd have considered his mental state for a reduced sentence.

However, that's a LONG way from saying, "He had problems years ago, forgive him for drugging and forcibly raping a 13 year-old."

I don't think Peregrine is not saying those two things aren't different. Just that when something terrible happens to you it doesn't give you a free pass to go break the law.

I was agreeing that Polanski doesn't get a "rape pass", but he still does deserve sympathy for Tate's murder. Even victimizers can be victims.

 Orlanth wrote:
Ok. So there was allegedly more to the case than I was aware of. Or alternately there have been forty years of Chinese whispers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bookwrack wrote:

She was 13. You don't accidentally get 'jailbaited' by a 13 year old.

Actually that happens more often than you might think. 15-17 is way more common but 13 can happen.

Yeah, sure, you keep telling yourself that. If being an apologist for statutory rape is the hill you want to die on, you go ahead and do that, but it'd behoove you to understand that in this particular case, Polanski knew exactly how old his victim was when he drugged and raped her.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.

Boo hoo. Lots of people suffer personal tragedies and don't cope with it by drugging and raping children. Your apologism for a convicted child rapist is horrifying.

I think these two things are separate. Polanski DOES have my sympathy for Sharon Tate's murder. If he had Jack Ruby'ed one of the killers I'd have considered his mental state for a reduced sentence.

However, that's a LONG way from saying, "He had problems years ago, forgive him for drugging and forcibly raping a 13 year-old."

I don't think Peregrine is not saying those two things aren't different. Just that when something terrible happens to you it doesn't give you a free pass to go break the law.

I was agreeing that Polanski doesn't get a "rape pass", but he still does deserve sympathy for Tate's murder. Even victimizers can be victims.

No, not really anymore. The Tate family does. I feel for the family. Polanski gets nothing from me.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's not forget Roman Polanski. He fully admitted to drugging a 12 year-old and forcibly raping her. He then fled to Europe and has been free since.

Polanski didn't admit to drugging and raping her. He was offered a sweetheart deal where he could plea guilty to sex with a minor and be sentenced to time already served. He took that deal. That's his only admission regarding the case, unless you include the victim's out of court with settlement, which would be a stretch as it included no admission of guilt from Polanski.

I'm not defending Polanski, not at all. Not only do I think he did exactly what the victim claimed, I think the other accusations of rape against Polanski are also credible. But it's important to get the facts right, he never admitted to drugging and forcibly raping her.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
That's true, sorry, I forgot you mentioned him. I do find it hilariously hypocritical of many famous people that are denouncing Cosby, while also supporting Polanski.

Not really. The whole prosecution of Polanski was a cluster feth, and as much as I think the guy is a child rapist, he was also being absolutely shoe horned by the judicial system (he pled guilty on the sweetheart deal, then learned the judge was going to ignore the deal and hit Polanski with 50 years).

You said you care about rights, and respect Cosby is entitled to his even though we know what he did, but the same would also be true for Polanski.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Roman Polanski may have been jailbaited, and in the early 70's people were far less cautious than they are today with regard to age checking who they pull. He gets a sympathy pass from me after what happened to Sharon Tate and his unborn child. He was in a dark place, and I am yet to see any evidence that he is a repeat offender

There are three or four other accusations from women that are pretty convincing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I don't think that's right...

The Judge don't HAVE to accept ANY plea deal as it's not always between the prosecutor and the defendant.

Regardless of what judges do and don't have to do, enticing a guilty plea with a sweetheart deal and then watching a judge ignore that deal and give a lengthy sentence is the opposite of justice.

 sebster wrote:


Regardless of what judges do and don't have to do, enticing a guilty plea with a sweetheart deal and then watching a judge ignore that deal and give a lengthy sentence is the opposite of justice.

Especially when the people often taking plea deals are those with low income who are relying on public defendants who are underfunded and overworked.

Not really a Bill Cosby specific thought, but it fits in with him, Polanski, #MeToo, and other situations where actors/directors/etc fall from grace.

I really don't know if it is good or bad to enjoy their works. Does the Bill Cosby show have a different meaning because Bill Cosby turned out to be a rapist? Are the positive impacts negated because of his actions? Is the show less entertaining because of his actions? Are we supposed to get less enjoyment from the show because of what he did?

Is House of Cards off limits because of Kevin Spacey? Am I a bad person for enjoying movies he was in? Is Polanski less of an artist because he is a rapist? Can I still enjoy The King's Speech even though Weinstein was involved?

I am 100% on board with boycotting folks like that after the fact, and I have no problem with companies refusing to hire them or letting them be involved with projects. But what about their past projects? What about movies or shows I have enjoyed in the past, am I now no longer supposed to enjoy them?

I don't know if it would be a good thing to be able to take the earnings of people who were convicted and apply them to victim compensation funds, maybe have Cosby's royalties from his shows be funneled into organization fighting against rape and helping rape victims. But then you are taking money from a future estate that would benefit his future heirs.

I don't have any kind of good answer here, but it is a question I frequently ask myself.

Its a hard question. So many people worked on it to make something great that gets ruined by a single person. Personally its hard, the movie is still good, but rewatching it the only thing you can think when you sse the actor is what he did. For directors that is more detached, because they aren't on camera, so the stigma clings to the movie less as you aren't constantly reminded. Its also quite flawed, would I need to look up and remember all the movies a director made? Cause not knowing who made it might end up with me enjoying the movie versus one I have more of a negative perceptiin towards if I had known.

But that is the same for most art, how many painters or writers have dark pages that we know nothing about and still enjoy their work. When we go to a museum how can we be sure none of the artworks wasn't created by a monster. Is there the burden to look into those things beforehand? I think that's going down an unimaginable rabbithole.

 d-usa wrote:
Not really a Bill Cosby specific thought, but it fits in with him, Polanski, #MeToo, and other situations where actors/directors/etc fall from grace.

I really don't know if it is good or bad to enjoy their works. Does the Bill Cosby show have a different meaning because Bill Cosby turned out to be a rapist? Are the positive impacts negated because of his actions? Is the show less entertaining because of his actions? Are we supposed to get less enjoyment from the show because of what he did?

Is House of Cards off limits because of Kevin Spacey? Am I a bad person for enjoying movies he was in? Is Polanski less of an artist because he is a rapist? Can I still enjoy The King's Speech even though Weinstein was involved?

I am 100% on board with boycotting folks like that after the fact, and I have no problem with companies refusing to hire them or letting them be involved with projects. But what about their past projects? What about movies or shows I have enjoyed in the past, am I now no longer supposed to enjoy them?

I don't know if it would be a good thing to be able to take the earnings of people who were convicted and apply them to victim compensation funds, maybe have Cosby's royalties from his shows be funneled into organization fighting against rape and helping rape victims. But then you are taking money from a future estate that would benefit his future heirs.

I don't have any kind of good answer here, but it is a question I frequently ask myself.

On an individual scale, if I stated that I found value in someone's work or maybe in a message they were making, and someone refuted it not on the basis that the message is wrong or bad, but that the person involved is a gakky human being, then I'm pretty sure that it is literally an ad hominem in progress, isn't it? Put another way, if gakky people create wholesome works of art, can't you judge the work of art upon its own merit?

The last thing I want to do is defend lifetime rapists, but I feel more inclined to still believe in the relative merit of the works they were a part in creating. Otherwise you have to draw a line in the sand between when someone becomes so "bad" that any work they participate in is invalidated, or you have to basically refuse to consume any media at all, because if you dig enough there will be something bad to say about anyone or anything.

Well, other than Bob Ross or Mr. Rodgers. They're both saints beyond even the harshest scrutiny.

 d-usa wrote:
Not really a Bill Cosby specific thought, but it fits in with him, Polanski, #MeToo, and other situations where actors/directors/etc fall from grace.

I really don't know if it is good or bad to enjoy their works. Does the Bill Cosby show have a different meaning because Bill Cosby turned out to be a rapist? Are the positive impacts negated because of his actions? Is the show less entertaining because of his actions? Are we supposed to get less enjoyment from the show because of what he did?

Is House of Cards off limits because of Kevin Spacey? Am I a bad person for enjoying movies he was in? Is Polanski less of an artist because he is a rapist? Can I still enjoy The King's Speech even though Weinstein was involved?

I am 100% on board with boycotting folks like that after the fact, and I have no problem with companies refusing to hire them or letting them be involved with projects. But what about their past projects? What about movies or shows I have enjoyed in the past, am I now no longer supposed to enjoy them?

I don't know if it would be a good thing to be able to take the earnings of people who were convicted and apply them to victim compensation funds, maybe have Cosby's royalties from his shows be funneled into organization fighting against rape and helping rape victims. But then you are taking money from a future estate that would benefit his future heirs.

I don't have any kind of good answer here, but it is a question I frequently ask myself.

This is a deep and widespread issue. Ultimately, if we judged and excluded everything everyone ever did by their very worst acts, especially as seen by contemporary eyes, we would have very little left in this world.

I think its perfectly fine to enjoy things like a Polanski film or Cosby show reruns or House of Cards and whatnot, realize there are flawed individuals involved, acknowledge their sins and put the material in context when appropriate, but that neednt devalue the material entirely.

Well, I think the main reason I struggle with the "can I enjoy their art if they are bad people" argument is that they still profit from my enjoyment of their art. Yes, there is the question that I ask myself that basically boils down to "is it okay to get personal enjoyment from something that was created by a bad person". But in addition to that, iIf I go out to the store and buy the complete DVD boxed set of The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby will make a profit from my purchase.

On the other hand, if I don't go out and purchase the boxed set because I don't want Bill Cosby to get any of my money, all kinds of people who didn't drug and rape anyone also don't get any of my money.

It's not an easy answer for me.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, I think the main reason I struggle with the "can I enjoy their art if they are bad people" argument is that they still profit from my enjoyment of their art. Yes, there is the question that I ask myself that basically boils down to "is it okay to get personal enjoyment from something that was created by a bad person". But in addition to that, iIf I go out to the store and buy the complete DVD boxed set of The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby will make a profit from my purchase.

On the other hand, if I don't go out and purchase the boxed set because I don't want Bill Cosby to get any of my money, all kinds of people who didn't drug and rape anyone also don't get any of my money.

It's not an easy answer for me.

Oh, I don't have that problem, I torrent everything, win/win

That said, not everything has a simple or nice answer, and that does suck.

However in Cosby's case at least, if you went out and bought a Cosby show DVD set tomorrow, Cosby would likely not see a cent. He is going to jail for a long time, is already a very old man, and his assets are about to be torn apart and fought over and I'm sure will remain an entertaining shitshow for years, so you can probably not feel too bad about that.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, I think the main reason I struggle with the "can I enjoy their art if they are bad people" argument is that they still profit from my enjoyment of their art. Yes, there is the question that I ask myself that basically boils down to "is it okay to get personal enjoyment from something that was created by a bad person". But in addition to that, iIf I go out to the store and buy the complete DVD boxed set of The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby will make a profit from my purchase.

On the other hand, if I don't go out and purchase the boxed set because I don't want Bill Cosby to get any of my money, all kinds of people who didn't drug and rape anyone also don't get any of my money.

It's not an easy answer for me.

My girlfriend feels similarly about those kinds of things. I suspect that, with enough time/intimacy digging into any person's life, one could find something horrible enough that they've done or thought to make one unwilling to patronize them.

But I think of humans as mostly bad, with a few good examples. Others look at humans differently. All depends on your world view, maybe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The alternative to me just feels like the modern version of book (or record) burnings, and that kinda stuff makes me uncomfortable.

This is a subject I've pondered quite often. I'm a tuba player in my municipal band, and thus quite a bit into marching music. Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan made some pretty amazing marches. I've got no moral qualms about liking these marches, no more than enjoying Wagner despite the man being a complete douche. In my case there's obviously not the issue of giving Wagner or Nazi Germany money though, but still.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, I think the main reason I struggle with the "can I enjoy their art if they are bad people" argument is that they still profit from my enjoyment of their art. Yes, there is the question that I ask myself that basically boils down to "is it okay to get personal enjoyment from something that was created by a bad person". But in addition to that, iIf I go out to the store and buy the complete DVD boxed set of The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby will make a profit from my purchase.

Ofc, if that person has been convicted and ordered to pay their victim(s) compensation that money will bypass their pockets entirely until the damages have been paid. Boycotting them might also hurt the victims if there's too little worth to pay it all right now. So one has to gauge whether it's more important to ruin the artist (and his publishers etc) than letting him earn money to pay the victims.

My personal example isn't anything as horrible as rape, but might still shock some. The Norwegian Black Metal scene of the early 1990s caused some damage in Norway - church arsons mostly, but also a couple of murders. Some of the guys in Emperor were involved in both, but I still like their music. Their releases while some were in prison most certainly paid for a lot of the damages incurred, and head composer Ihsahn who makes records under his own artist name these days is one of the best artists to be found if you want somewhat experimental heavy. The way the Norwegian prison system handled them they're now productive members of society and I see no reason to not buy the music or go to a show if they play. For the record, while I largely despise organised religion, burning churches isn't really the way to fight it IMO.

And when you get outside art even terrible people sometimes come up with something we think is a good idea today. The damn Nazis of all people came up with modern animal protection laws, making owners responsible for keeping their animals safe and sound!

Spetulhu wrote:
The way the Norwegian prison system handled them they're now productive members of society and I see no reason to not buy the music or go to a show if they play.

That sounds reasonable for Norway then. In America our prison systems leave them despised third-class citizens virtually unable to possess a job. There are some who believe this is not enough.

 daedalus wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
No worries, we were still on the same page.

I think that false reports of rape are a very low percentage - it does happen, but it happens a crazy tiny fraction of the time. But lets say 90% of the reports were lies - a percentage literally no one would think is possible. If you assume 90% are true, that's still like 6 rapes. I can't understand why this dude has people who defend him, but I guess that's how #metoo happened.

I think some of it is just utter disbelief. I mean, he was TV dad for a large number of people. It's hard to shake that image. Kinda like picturing Bob Ross or Mr. Rodgers were actually nazis* or something. I didn't believe it myself until I read multiple news articles.


* neither of those men were nazis. In fact, they were the last two genuine good people left in the world. The above statement was added for the sake of analogy.

You know, I recently heard some internet scuttlebutt that the new Mr. Rogers documentary "Won't you be my neighbor?" began because the director was trying to find dirt on him to show he wasn't as good as we all think he was, and that after nearly 6 years the director gave up because he couldn't find anything negative.

As for the other question about "can I enjoy the cosby show"

Yes. Yes you can. Bill Cosby the TV dad was an ideal. Bill Cosby the real person, is a human being who has made very serious mistakes and will pay for them for the rest of his life.

The two aren't mutually exclusive in my opinion.

Of course you can still appreciate the Cosby show. That's like saying you can't give props to Gandhi for promoting social equality even though he was entirely racist towards Blacks.

 d-usa wrote:
Not really a Bill Cosby specific thought, but it fits in with him, Polanski, #MeToo, and other situations where actors/directors/etc fall from grace.

I really don't know if it is good or bad to enjoy their works. Does the Bill Cosby show have a different meaning because Bill Cosby turned out to be a rapist? Are the positive impacts negated because of his actions? Is the show less entertaining because of his actions? Are we supposed to get less enjoyment from the show because of what he did?

Is House of Cards off limits because of Kevin Spacey? Am I a bad person for enjoying movies he was in? Is Polanski less of an artist because he is a rapist? Can I still enjoy The King's Speech even though Weinstein was involved?

I think it depends on the work in question and the way we engage with that piece of art.

I find it hard to imagine myself enjoying The Cosby Show now, because a lot of that show is about how charming Bill Cosby is, not as role he played, but from his personal charm as a performer and person. When the charm is gone, there's not much show left. In contrast, House of Cards had Kevin Spacey as a villainous president, who abused his power for lots of things including rape, so there's no problem there. I mean, there's lots of other reasons not to watch House of Cards, because man that show got dumb, but the example is there.

But that gets to the next issue, on whether we should choose not to watch that stuff, on a moral issue. That I'm not so sure about. As Disciple of Fate points out, a lot more people than that one scumbag were involved in making it. Does our morality change if the scumbag is on screen, or if he directed, or wrote the script, or was the caterer? What if it was a producer who greenlit the film and put the talent together, but didn't actually take part in the making of the film? I don't think that works.

However, there is another factor again to consider. Salma Hayek made Frida, it was a passion project of hers, and Weinstein produced. During production he insisted she do a lesbian scene, and threatened to pull the plug if she didn't. She eventually included it. What do we do about that? It's a film Hayek is proud of, it's a good movie, and the scene in question is... uh yeah. But it was shot and put in the film against Hayek's wishes, because a sleaze made her do it, not for any artistic reason, and probably not for any commercial reason either.

In the case of Kevin Spacey and rewatching his stuff...he may have been a monster, but he played a monster in Se7en. So I can safely still enjoy that. Even Lex Luthor in Superman. Or Horrible Bosses. Actually...I’m noticing a trend...he’s an awful human being who generally plays an awful human being.
Never watched the Cosby show, and didn’t follow anything on RP (although just from this thread, disappointed Natalie Portman defended him, as she’s one of my favorite actresses).

 Ouze wrote:
In this case, the evidence was overwhelming that Bill Cosby was a serial rapist.

As one of the Jurors stated, it was Cosby himself who admitted to drugging women with roofies. Done.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, I think the main reason I struggle with the "can I enjoy their art if they are bad people" argument is that they still profit from my enjoyment of their art. Yes, there is the question that I ask myself that basically boils down to "is it okay to get personal enjoyment from something that was created by a bad person". But in addition to that, iIf I go out to the store and buy the complete DVD boxed set of The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby will make a profit from my purchase.

Totally feel your pain. A lot of my favorite movies/actors have been affected by #MeToo and the Weinstein mess. I haven't come up with a solution to the problem, either. I'd like to be able to separate an artist from their art, but like you say, I don't want to benefit them financially through my viewing their art. For DVDs I own or movies I've already downloaded the damage is done. For newer releases I am still on the fence on how to ethically move forward.

More recently I've been struggling with the Roseanne television reboot because of Roseanne Barr's personal opinions on conspiracy theories. I just don't want to support someone who treats reality like an a la carte buffet, so I haven't watched her show since the premier (after which I learned how off the rocker she is). The problem is I LOVE the old Roseanne episodes, and I genuinely appreciate that Roseanne Barr staffed her writers room with a decent mix of viewpoints/opinions/political leanings. But, she is a contrail believing idiot and her name is on the show, so what am I to do?
Boycott because of her opinions and ignore the efforts of the hundreds of other people working on the show or quietly hold my nose and view?

Taking a stand for your principles makes for a nice and easy simple sound bite, but it’s a complicated mess to put into practice.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, I think the main reason I struggle with the "can I enjoy their art if they are bad people" argument is that they still profit from my enjoyment of their art. Yes, there is the question that I ask myself that basically boils down to "is it okay to get personal enjoyment from something that was created by a bad person". But in addition to that, iIf I go out to the store and buy the complete DVD boxed set of The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby will make a profit from my purchase.

Totally feel your pain. A lot of my favorite movies/actors have been affected by #MeToo and the Weinstein mess. I haven't come up with a solution to the problem, either. I'd like to be able to separate an artist from their art, but like you say, I don't want to benefit them financially through my viewing their art. For DVDs I own or movies I've already downloaded the damage is done. For newer releases I am still on the fence on how to ethically move forward.

More recently I've been struggling with the Roseanne television reboot because of Roseanne Barr's personal opinions on conspiracy theories. I just don't want to support someone who treats reality like an a la carte buffet, so I haven't watched her show since the premier (after which I learned how off the rocker she is). The problem is I LOVE the old Roseanne episodes, and I genuinely appreciate that Roseanne Barr staffed her writers room with a decent mix of viewpoints/opinions/political leanings. But, she is a contrail believing idiot and her name is on the show, so what am I to do?
Boycott because of her opinions and ignore the efforts of the hundreds of other people working on the show or quietly hold my nose and view?

Eh, Conspiracy Theories don't really bother me that much. I have some RL friends that believe some silly stuff. We were talking about how ridiculous it is one night that people believe in contrails. It would take a massive converup to pull off and we all agreed it was silly. So the conversation shifted to water fluoridation. One of my friends swiftly told us we were being controlled through water fluoridation. My mind was blown that one of my friends was that crazy. He is still my friend, just a little dumb. Luckily, I have gotten him away from the crazy conspiracy theory political podcasts.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, I think the main reason I struggle with the "can I enjoy their art if they are bad people" argument is that they still profit from my enjoyment of their art. Yes, there is the question that I ask myself that basically boils down to "is it okay to get personal enjoyment from something that was created by a bad person". But in addition to that, iIf I go out to the store and buy the complete DVD boxed set of The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby will make a profit from my purchase.

Totally feel your pain. A lot of my favorite movies/actors have been affected by #MeToo and the Weinstein mess. I haven't come up with a solution to the problem, either. I'd like to be able to separate an artist from their art, but like you say, I don't want to benefit them financially through my viewing their art. For DVDs I own or movies I've already downloaded the damage is done. For newer releases I am still on the fence on how to ethically move forward.

More recently I've been struggling with the Roseanne television reboot because of Roseanne Barr's personal opinions on conspiracy theories. I just don't want to support someone who treats reality like an a la carte buffet, so I haven't watched her show since the premier (after which I learned how off the rocker she is). The problem is I LOVE the old Roseanne episodes, and I genuinely appreciate that Roseanne Barr staffed her writers room with a decent mix of viewpoints/opinions/political leanings. But, she is a contrail believing idiot and her name is on the show, so what am I to do?
Boycott because of her opinions and ignore the efforts of the hundreds of other people working on the show or quietly hold my nose and view?

Eh, Conspiracy Theories don't really bother me that much. I have some RL friends that believe some silly stuff. We were talking about how ridiculous it is one night that people believe in contrails. It would take a massive converup to pull off and we all agreed it was silly. So the conversation shifted to water fluoridation. One of my friends swiftly told us we were being controlled through water fluoridation. My mind was blown that one of my friends was that crazy. He is still my friend, just a little dumb. Luckily, I have gotten him away from the crazy conspiracy theory political podcasts.

They normally don't bother me from civilians, but public personas who have a wide reach with their opinions, well, I think that changes things dramatically. A public voice legitimizes fringe ideas. Especially given the climate of disbelief in facts, and the seeming eagerness for some people to throw logic and reason out the window in order to believe whatever most aligns with their other entrenched beliefs.

I have some friends who shared their Illuminati fears with me one night over beers and while it gave me a new found perception of them, they don't have 609k Twitter followers potentially believing whatever crap falls form their mouthes. Dear sweet Rosie has that many followers and can do a lot of damage with her misguided beliefs so that sort of power is not something I want to reinforce.

New developments:

Cosby's wife calls conviction trial by mob.

Cosby and Polanski both expelled from the Oscars Academy.

 feeder wrote:
New developments:

Cosby's wife calls conviction trial by mob.

Cosby and Polanski both expelled from the Oscars Academy.

It is interesting that they used Cosby's conviction to finally move on Polanski.

 d-usa wrote:
Taking a stand for your principles makes for a nice and easy simple sound bite, but it’s a complicated mess to put into practice.

I'm not seeing it tbh. Actors perpetually insist that fans should create a hard mental distinction between them as people and any parts that they play - hell, Shatner has recorded a whole awful, awful, just really bad pity-party album on that theme - so that's the attitude I've cultivated, plenty of other actors have said or done things I consider repugnant; I choose not to let that affect my enjoyment of characters they've played.

And getting precious about them maybe earning some money from that enjoyment seems odd to me. I guarantee you that you funnel a substantial portion of your income every month to people and corporations who're responsible for lots of monstrous things, it's an inescapable reality of global capitalism.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Taking a stand for your principles makes for a nice and easy simple sound bite, but it’s a complicated mess to put into practice.

I'm not seeing it tbh. Actors perpetually insist that fans should create a hard mental distinction between them as people and any parts that they play - hell, Shatner has recorded a whole awful, awful, just really bad pity-party album on that theme - so that's the attitude I've cultivated, plenty of other actors have said or done things I consider repugnant; I choose not to let that affect my enjoyment of characters they've played.

And that goes the other way around too, as many actors have found out. Playing the "evil" role in a long-running TV series (or "solves problems with his fists guy", or whatever) have often made watchers think the real person is like that, failing to separate the character from the actor. Which ofc does make it even more disturbing for fans when someone they always considered to be a nice person - based only on their TV/movie roles - is revealed to be quite a nasty person in real life.