Board 8 > Which (if any) MeToo-type reveals have impacted your enjoyment of a work?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I can't listen to Marilyn Manson anymore after hearing about what he did to Esme Bianco.

---

DeepsPraw posted...

No, she does, and that's why people are trying to cancel her. There are people on this very board that will try and argue with you in earnest that biological sex doesn't exist.

"I'm canceled!" Announces J.K. Rowling from her fifth talk-show this week talking about it, right before her new book sells

Seeing this topic having different opinions and no one flaming each other over them warms my heart

Anyway, what Ulti said about seperating the artist from the art.
The only thing ruined for me is House of Cards. The last season was so bad. I would have watched it if Frank was in it. And yes I am aware he is (probably? Confirmed? idk) guility
I just don't think about it too much

---

azuarc posted...

Was expecting this to be lostprophets, but I couldn't think of the song, so I googled that lyric. Barely heard of Brand New. Shame another group was broken up over one of their members' misconduct like that. Hope he wasn't as bad as Watkins, but not going beyond wikipedia to look for more info.

Yeah, Brand New. Ever heard about Taking Back Sunday? They used to be the same band but broke off into those two. At least I can still listen to Taking Back Sunday.

Nothing.

People that let what other people think and/or do impact their own enjoyment of something are something I will never understand. That applies to creators of a work, fanbases of a work, reviews, whatever. Stop being so easily influenced.

UltimaterializerX posted...

Im gonna need some examples of JK Rowling being some awful person beyond that Glamor article because I dont see it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT_l2us

I like this video tbh.

---

I think most of them have had some "impact" to the extent that when I'm consuming their stuff I do like a graimcey, cringey kind of face whenever I remember what they are.

I still do consume a great deal of it, with the possible exception of American Beauty, but that's not like a movie I regularly rewatched before the Spacey stuff came out anyway.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Im gonna need some examples of JK Rowling being some awful person beyond that Glamor article because I dont see it.

The thing that I find most weird that people hate her, is that usually transphobia and homophobia goes hand in hand. And she is clearly not homophobic and was kind of a hero for the gay people a few years ago
So...
She isn't really a "hater" from what I noticed

---

Nanis23 posted...

The thing that I find most weird that people hate her, is that usually transphobia and homophobia goes hand in hand.

I dont find this to be true at all

Like sure, almost all homophobes are also transphobes, but there are so many transphobes that arent homophobic at all
---

Nanis23 posted...

The thing that I find most weird that people hate her, is that usually transphobia and homophobia goes hand in hand. And she is clearly not homophobic and was kind of a hero for the gay people a few years ago
So...
She isn't really a "hater" from what I noticed

I think theres a not insignificant amount of transphobia within the gay community actually. Some LGB dont think the T should be grouped with them. You cant really draw any conclusion on her transphobia based on her feelings about gay people.
---

JK Rowling is a feminist, and there are a LOT of feminists who are skeptical of certain trans issues for obvious reasons

I'm just lucky none of my favorite actors got caught up in the #metoo movement. Closest would be Arnold Schwarzenegger (hit with sexual assault allegations in 2003 which failed to prevent his election as California governor) and Sean Connery (history of defending domestic abuse and forced himself on Kim Basinger on the set of Never Say Never Again). Then uh I guess Bill Murray and Linda Hamilton are guilty of domestic abuse?

By contrast, one of my favorite actresses is one of Harvey Weinstein's accusers.

---

I kinda want to see this topic but with a different question - not just metoo but also other immoral/unlawful actions
Like, I am interested to know where people draw the line

I say "seperate the artist from the art" but what if it's something that applies to me directly? like a very vocal anti semitic? would I condemn that person? hmm
Probably not, I think

---

If I want to see The Usual Suspects I will. That being said most movies I watch don't have many particularly notable "offenders".

---

I will never watch Silicon Valley despite having an interest in it because of TJ Miller.

Woody Allen and Louis Ck are good examples of "I'm not sure how no one saw this coming" where their work is extremely autobiographical in talking about how they're f'ed up in the specific ways that they are and kind of the world view that lead them there. Like I've never looked at a woody allen movie and thought of his protagonists as anything other than cautionary tales (except maybe bugs life)

People in power do messed up things and I feel like this has always been true and it makes me surprised when we find someone who has power that didn't mess up more than someone in power who beefed it hard. Lolita is a good example of why I can still enjoy their art despite what they've done, because it's almost a very clear road map to the paths in life you want to avoid. It's also kind of a way to see the remaining humanity in people who have done horrific things, which I would argue has value in fiction.

---

Why is Louis CK being grouped together with Woody Allen and Roman Polanski lol.

The dude at worst mishandled his fetish and creeped some girls out (and apologized for it). It apparently was all consensual and happened before he had any actual power in the industry.

Marilyn Manson is the one where I'm not sure how people didn't see it coming. I remember when the guy rubbed his balls on a security guard's head while performing and people just kinda laughed it off.

But when it comes to separating the art and artist I mean shit I can look at a Hitler painting and still enjoy it on some level
---

GameStonk posted...

Why is Louis CK being grouped together with Woody Allen and Roman Polanski lol.

The dude at worst mishandled his fetish and creeped some girls out (and apologized for it). It apparently was all consensual and happened before he had any actual power in the industry.

Locking someone in a room against their will until you're "done" isn't consensual.
---

I was going to say none but then someone here brought up the one case where it applies, LPers Mangs. Probably because the content is literally just nothing but him talking over gameplay and joking around about stuff that we now know isn't exactly all that much of a joke (though to be clear to those who don't know the story he's nowhere near as bad as a lot of the shit being talked about in here). And because as a youtuber watching his stuff is supporting him directly. Gave up on watching him unfortunately.

Other than that it doesn't really phase me much, I just don't really think of the real life of a performer/writer/whatever when watching a show or listening to music or what have you, I think the only real exception is Chris Benoit where the diving headbutt sometimes makes me cringe a bit knowing what all that head trauma eventually contributed to. And most of the times this kind of conversation comes up for stuff I'm into it's about musicians being into or at least friendly with Nazi shit because it's pretty prominent in black metal, and that's something I decided to disregard beyond not giving them money ages ago.

---

kevwaffles posted...

Locking someone in a room against their will until you're "done" isn't consensual.

But that didn't happen...

No one was locked in and all of the women said they consented and chose not to leave

Y'all talking about JK Rowling reminds me that Contrapoints did a wonderful video about her:

https://youtu.be/7gDKbT_l2us

---

Honestly Arrested Development, especially with Season 5 hitting around then

I felt really deflated about watching it and now can't even rewatch a show I used to really like

---

GameStonk posted...

kevwaffles posted...

Locking someone in a room against their will until you're "done" isn't consensual.

But that didn't happen...

No one was locked in and all of the women said they consented and chose not to leave

Some went up to his room on willingly. He would ask, they would say no, and then he'd start up anyway. One and only one anonymously claims said she consented but only after repeated badgering.

The locked in part is the only thing I may have gotten wrong. I thought at least one woman claimed that but maybe not.

I mean yeah his stuff isn't as bad, but it also hits closer to home for some when you look at some of his material before this.

Edit: phone typing lol
---

I'll never look at K-PAX the same way again

---

kevwaffles posted...

He would ask, they would say no, and then he'd start up anyway.

From my understanding, this never actually happened. And if that's the case, then there is nothing ostensibly wrong with what he did. If you have a fetish and you invite a woman to partake in it; and if she in sound mind, and without pressure, says yes, that is literally the process that you are supposed to get consent.

There is a ton of misinformation that borders on libel about these accusations, but the only gray area is whether or not there was implicit pressure on the female comics to go to his room. And from what I have read, the pressure seemed to be that they didn't want to disappoint someone they looked up to, rather than Louis exerting any kind of pressure on them.

He did not rape a 13 year old and escape the US like Roman Polanski.

PrinceKaro posted...

None, really.

The intrinsic value of an artistic work shouldn't be tied to the morality of the artist. I can understand someone not wanting to financially support someone they think is a bad person, but to say their work is diminished somehow on a cosmic level is kinda silly.

Roman Polanski is a creep, but Chinatown is still a good movie.

I wish I could still enjoy rurouni Kenshin:(

---

GameStonk posted...

kevwaffles posted...

He would ask, they would say no, and then he'd start up anyway.

From my understanding, this never actually happened. And if that's the case, then there is nothing ostensibly wrong with what he did. If you have a fetish and you invite a woman to partake in it; and if she in sound mind, and without pressure, says yes, that is literally the process that you are supposed to get consent.

There is a ton of misinformation that borders on libel about these accusations, but the only gray area is whether or not there was implicit pressure on the female comics to go to his room. And from what I have read, the pressure seemed to be that they didn't want to disappoint someone they looked up to, rather than Louis exerting any kind of pressure on them.

He did not rape a 13 year old and escape the US like Roman Polanski.

Dude, read what the women actually said. I double checked which is why I retracted the "locked in a room" part, but the accounts they gave that Louis C. K. confirmed himself do not match at all with what you're saying.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Dude, read what the women actually said. I double checked which is why I retracted the "locked in a room" part, but the accounts they gave that Louis C. K. confirmed himself do not match at all with what you're saying.

I just re-checked and while one of the accusers did not explicitly consent, she did willingly go to his room and did not attempt to leave as he started masturbating. By any legal or societal definition, if he was not forcing her to stay (either physically or by any other pressure), that is implicit consent. In no universe is there a requirement of a verbal contract for sexual activities.

In any regard, it is still not nearly in the same conversation as child molesters, rapists, and murderers discussed in this topic.

i don't think anyone is trying to argue that louis c.k. is as bad as allen or polanski but he's still gross.

---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

"I'm canceled!" Announces J.K. Rowling from her fifth talk-show this week talking about it, right before her new book sells

hence why I said "trying to"

---

None of them.

---

Lopen posted...

The only times where it tends to matter for me functionally is with stuff where the artist shines through to the art in an awkward way.

This is what it comes down to. If the abuses are easy to ignore then we ignore them. It's just that some things are more visible than others, and some people find some abuses harder to ignore than other people.

Weinstein was known for decades and was incredibly easy to ignore because he is entirely behind the scenes. Nowadays behind the scenes is a lot more visible in social media, so it's harder to ignore. Some people still have no problem ignoring it though since Weinstein isn't abusing women on screen. And if you don't care about the lives of the actors behind the scenes, why would you ever care about Weinstein's abuses?

---