4 ms·

Because Kevin Spacey has proven himself in his craft. If Michelangelo's works were destroyed this week because it was discovered he'd assaulted his daughter, wo

Because Kevin Spacey has proven himself in his craft. If Michelangelo's works were destroyed this week because it was discovered he'd assaulted his daughter, would you mourn the loss? I would. I'd be furious at an incredibly stupid people!

rtkwe 8y ago
Yeah but how much of that is because of the place in history his works hold. We're also not actually memory holing these people, their work still exists it's still part of the canon of culture. By and large they're still fantastically wealthy and likely will continue to be. Ultimately what's happening is just a decision that the good parts of a persons outputs don't outweigh the bad parts any more. That the acceptance of shitty behavior and the damage it does to both the people it directly affected and the damage the culture that excuses that behavior does to unrelated people isn't worth it. It's easy to see one side of the scale, everything a Spacey or Cosby has added to culture, but it's impossible to see the other side of the scale, the things we haven't gotten because of people driven away. (And on a simpler level fame doesn't excuse crimes no matter how much we raise people up because of it.)
- dsajames 8y ago
  You absolutely are memory holing them. If you decide I'm not not allowed to see older Cosby episodes on your platform, new people can't watch it and it's little by little erased from cultural memory.
- arduanika 8y ago
  > We're also not actually memory holing these people, their work still exists it's still part of the canon of culture So Kevin Spacey's performance in All the Money in the World is still part of the canon eh? And Louis's voice acting in Gravity Falls? No, because those performances were literally given the ol' Jones/Aaronson/Rutherford, at considerable expense. > Ultimately what's happening is just a decision that... I love the passiveness of this sentence. A decision is happening. Who decides? Do our gatekeepers decide for us? Or does each of us have a brain? > ...the good parts of a persons outputs don't outweigh the bad parts any more. Outweighing is irrelevant to the question of whether to enjoy the good. Cake doesn't outweigh death. But if you offer me cake, and we're both crystal clear on the fact that death sucks, I'll eat the cake.
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    > Outweighing is irrelevant to the question of whether to enjoy the good. Cake doesn't outweigh death. But if you offer me cake, and we're both crystal clear on the fact that death sucks, I'll eat the cake. The problem with that is that by continuing to cast these actors companies are inherently saying the value of their performances is greater than the cost of the bad behavior. The whole current problem with the culture of assault and covering it up in Hollywood is because for decades it was brushed aside and the perpetrators protected. It's many decades of chickens coming home to roost. > I love the passiveness of this sentence. A decision is happening. Who decides? Do our gatekeepers decide for us? Or does each of us have a brain? As for this? It's a collective thing. If there's enough consumer pressure to bring Cosby or anyone else back you know someone will (hint you can still totally stream it off Amazon Prime). Vote with your money and the companies will follow, we know from their long history companies barely have morals when there's a pile of cash involved) there's no committee of people deciding who's in or who's out outside of these companies on each production.

rtkwe 8y ago

Yeah but how much of that is because of the place in history his works hold. We're also not actually memory holing these people, their work still exists it's still part of the canon of culture. By and large they're still fantastically wealthy and likely will continue to be. Ultimately what's happening is just a decision that the good parts of a persons outputs don't outweigh the bad parts any more. That the acceptance of shitty behavior and the damage it does to both the people it directly affected and the damage the culture that excuses that behavior does to unrelated people isn't worth it. It's easy to see one side of the scale, everything a Spacey or Cosby has added to culture, but it's impossible to see the other side of the scale, the things we haven't gotten because of people driven away. (And on a simpler level fame doesn't excuse crimes no matter how much we raise people up because of it.)

dsajames 8y ago
You absolutely are memory holing them. If you decide I'm not not allowed to see older Cosby episodes on your platform, new people can't watch it and it's little by little erased from cultural memory.
arduanika 8y ago
> We're also not actually memory holing these people, their work still exists it's still part of the canon of culture So Kevin Spacey's performance in All the Money in the World is still part of the canon eh? And Louis's voice acting in Gravity Falls? No, because those performances were literally given the ol' Jones/Aaronson/Rutherford, at considerable expense. > Ultimately what's happening is just a decision that... I love the passiveness of this sentence. A decision is happening. Who decides? Do our gatekeepers decide for us? Or does each of us have a brain? > ...the good parts of a persons outputs don't outweigh the bad parts any more. Outweighing is irrelevant to the question of whether to enjoy the good. Cake doesn't outweigh death. But if you offer me cake, and we're both crystal clear on the fact that death sucks, I'll eat the cake.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  > Outweighing is irrelevant to the question of whether to enjoy the good. Cake doesn't outweigh death. But if you offer me cake, and we're both crystal clear on the fact that death sucks, I'll eat the cake. The problem with that is that by continuing to cast these actors companies are inherently saying the value of their performances is greater than the cost of the bad behavior. The whole current problem with the culture of assault and covering it up in Hollywood is because for decades it was brushed aside and the perpetrators protected. It's many decades of chickens coming home to roost. > I love the passiveness of this sentence. A decision is happening. Who decides? Do our gatekeepers decide for us? Or does each of us have a brain? As for this? It's a collective thing. If there's enough consumer pressure to bring Cosby or anyone else back you know someone will (hint you can still totally stream it off Amazon Prime). Vote with your money and the companies will follow, we know from their long history companies barely have morals when there's a pile of cash involved) there's no committee of people deciding who's in or who's out outside of these companies on each production.