Well, apparently, there are no shades of sexual harassment. As Minnie Driver and all the others who piled on him say, there is no difference between different forms of sexual abuse. (She also called him "Orwellian", and then almost in the same sentence she declared men have no word in this debate. Which is somewhat amusing. Or would be if the whole freaking media did not jump behind her. Apparently hysteria is fine. As is the absolute one-sided look on this issue which would be hilarious if it did not stigmatise one half of the human race.) Anyhow.
This lead me to the following conclusion: our forefathers in the Middle Ages were right. We should absolutely punish every single crime (however small it is) with the most severe punishment. Unless you are prepared to argue that sexual crimes are somehow very special (even more special, than, let's say, serial murders), then the conclusion is that no crime is done on a scale. All crimes are equally horrible. A petty pickpocket is just as guilty as a war criminal, hence they all deserve the worst possible punishment -death.
Or, you know, we could act rationally. But I'm not holding my breath.
Showing posts with label Weinstein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Weinstein. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
The sorry state of journalism- the Weinstein affair
So there's this creep producer who probably engaged in activities most people would describe as "despicable". Let me start by stating this is not about the guy and what he (probably) did. It's about how it's being handled.
The jury is still out (well, it should be; after all the whole issue is pretty new, and we don't have all the information yet), but obviously the mob justice is the best justice; everyone is either condemning him or distancing themselves from him. Fair enough; this is what you get if you're rich and visible, and overstep certain boundaries; suddenly everyone wants to make sure they are not mistaken for your friend. (It's kind of funny that nobody seems to be discussing the systemic abuse of power in the entertainment industry... This is the best opportunity to talk about it, yet it seems like our perp here is made out to be "one bad apple", rather than the norm.)
Anyhow.
Enter: The Guardian.
Obviously we need to know which actresses Tweeted about this issue; it's a fundamental part of the story. After all if we don't hear what Winslet or Nunn has to say in 142 characters, we don't know the basics, do we? Let's repeat the same paragraphs on these people's -often baseless- opinions in every single article we write, so much so that a plagiarism detection program would have a hard time separating them from each other. This is what journalists do, right? The news become irrelevant; what other famous people say becomes the news itself, which is worth repeating almost verbatim in every single article you publish.
The other, even more fundamental part is the constant identity politics. Let's ask 20 male actors who worked with him for their comments. After all since they all have a penis (each, I think), they should be asked. And when they don't respond, let's imply there's something deeper going on there other than people unwilling to get into this cesspit of gossip. But the implication here is that men need to speak up or it means they condone this douche's behaviour. (Which, let me stress, is not unique in the entertainment industry, so nobody should be surprised.)
Interestingly when certain right wingers demand Muslims apologise for acts of terror, suddenly the grouping of people based on one shared feature becomes intolerance and racism by the Guardian, too. (Which is, let's add it.)
It must be really weird trying to figure out how to report on stuff based on identity politics... is the person in question male? Female? White? Black? When does criticising a Jewish person equal anti-antisemitism, and when it isn't? If it's Soros, any criticism is definitely Antisemitism, right? It must be. (Which is not to say the Hungarian government's increasingly hysterical anti-Soros rhetoric is any way justified. It's just not Antisemitic.) When it's about sexual assault, then it becomes tricky, after all it seems like in this case it's fine to put him in pillory; criticising a person does not mean implied hatred of Jews.
The jury is still out (well, it should be; after all the whole issue is pretty new, and we don't have all the information yet), but obviously the mob justice is the best justice; everyone is either condemning him or distancing themselves from him. Fair enough; this is what you get if you're rich and visible, and overstep certain boundaries; suddenly everyone wants to make sure they are not mistaken for your friend. (It's kind of funny that nobody seems to be discussing the systemic abuse of power in the entertainment industry... This is the best opportunity to talk about it, yet it seems like our perp here is made out to be "one bad apple", rather than the norm.)
Anyhow.
Enter: The Guardian.
Obviously we need to know which actresses Tweeted about this issue; it's a fundamental part of the story. After all if we don't hear what Winslet or Nunn has to say in 142 characters, we don't know the basics, do we? Let's repeat the same paragraphs on these people's -often baseless- opinions in every single article we write, so much so that a plagiarism detection program would have a hard time separating them from each other. This is what journalists do, right? The news become irrelevant; what other famous people say becomes the news itself, which is worth repeating almost verbatim in every single article you publish.
The other, even more fundamental part is the constant identity politics. Let's ask 20 male actors who worked with him for their comments. After all since they all have a penis (each, I think), they should be asked. And when they don't respond, let's imply there's something deeper going on there other than people unwilling to get into this cesspit of gossip. But the implication here is that men need to speak up or it means they condone this douche's behaviour. (Which, let me stress, is not unique in the entertainment industry, so nobody should be surprised.)
Interestingly when certain right wingers demand Muslims apologise for acts of terror, suddenly the grouping of people based on one shared feature becomes intolerance and racism by the Guardian, too. (Which is, let's add it.)
It must be really weird trying to figure out how to report on stuff based on identity politics... is the person in question male? Female? White? Black? When does criticising a Jewish person equal anti-antisemitism, and when it isn't? If it's Soros, any criticism is definitely Antisemitism, right? It must be. (Which is not to say the Hungarian government's increasingly hysterical anti-Soros rhetoric is any way justified. It's just not Antisemitic.) When it's about sexual assault, then it becomes tricky, after all it seems like in this case it's fine to put him in pillory; criticising a person does not mean implied hatred of Jews.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)