3 ms·

> Finally, I'd like to ask for an explanation as to how Feynman's actions starting in 1949 could have had a causal effect on a war that ended in 1945. That's e

by GDC7 5y ago

> Finally, I'd like to ask for an explanation as to how Feynman's actions starting in 1949 could have had a causal effect on a war that ended in 1945. That's exactly what I mean, thank you! You have stressed the whole point! Society feels comfortable in canceling people because these people already gave their contribution and for sure the person being canceled can't retroactively destroy all their contributions. If they could that'd be a powerful weapon of self defense, some sort of dead man switch against the mob. But they don't, hence society is emboldened to destroy that person because it's the path of least resistence towards getting what it really wants: Separating the contributions from the person who made them, thus making sure that they cannot benefit from them, socially or financially. Society would think long and hard before canceling people if it also meant automatically removing all their contributions. I bet you society would have not canceled Harvey Weinstein if it also meant the complete disappearence of: - Reservoir dogs - Pulp Fiction - Kill Bill - The Aviator - Gangs of New York - Wolf of Wall Street . . . Hypocrisy

edmundsauto 5y ago
Society "cancelled" Harvey Weinstein because he raped multiple women, to the point where it was an in-joke in Hollywood. I don't think he's much of a good example except to identify how long it takes for justice to reach someone. Maybe someone like Aziz Ansari is a better example... except he wasn't really cancelled - just hit a bump in his career that he had to acknowledge. (Similarly, Louis CK). I absolutely would be OK with deleting every record of those movies, some of which are my favorites, if there were any point in doing so. The important thing is that a rapist is held accountable!
- GDC7 5y ago
  > Society "cancelled" Harvey Weinstein because he raped multiple women, to the point where it was an in-joke in Hollywood. I don't think he's much of a good example except to identify how long it takes for justice to reach someone. He caused lifechanging trauma to 10-20 people. That is not excusable. What is not brought up in the assesment of his persona is the amount of entertainment he provided to the world. The aggregate of 40 hours of AAA movies being enjoyed by 3 billion people between theatre, DVD, streaming, TV and piracy. But of course you can't call 3 billion people up to provide their account of what positive impact Wienstin had on their lives. Plus while the trauma caused is substantial, the entertainment provided to the aforementioned 3 billion people is marginal. When you judge somebody you should see the whole picture.
908B64B197 5y ago
> if it also meant the complete disappearence of: I don't think he had anything to do with the script abd photography of these movies. Maybe too much with casting teenage actresses, but the movies would have been "managed" (rent-seek) by some other production companies, don't worry.
bigbillheck 5y ago
> That's exactly what I mean, thank you! You have stressed the whole point! That aside, please answer my other two questions. (And for the rest of your post, maybe the movies we'd have had in the absence of Weinstein would have been better)

by GDC7 5y ago

edmundsauto 5y ago

Society "cancelled" Harvey Weinstein because he raped multiple women, to the point where it was an in-joke in Hollywood. I don't think he's much of a good example except to identify how long it takes for justice to reach someone. Maybe someone like Aziz Ansari is a better example... except he wasn't really cancelled - just hit a bump in his career that he had to acknowledge. (Similarly, Louis CK). I absolutely would be OK with deleting every record of those movies, some of which are my favorites, if there were any point in doing so. The important thing is that a rapist is held accountable!

GDC7 5y ago
> Society "cancelled" Harvey Weinstein because he raped multiple women, to the point where it was an in-joke in Hollywood. I don't think he's much of a good example except to identify how long it takes for justice to reach someone. He caused lifechanging trauma to 10-20 people. That is not excusable. What is not brought up in the assesment of his persona is the amount of entertainment he provided to the world. The aggregate of 40 hours of AAA movies being enjoyed by 3 billion people between theatre, DVD, streaming, TV and piracy. But of course you can't call 3 billion people up to provide their account of what positive impact Wienstin had on their lives. Plus while the trauma caused is substantial, the entertainment provided to the aforementioned 3 billion people is marginal. When you judge somebody you should see the whole picture.

908B64B197 5y ago

> if it also meant the complete disappearence of: I don't think he had anything to do with the script abd photography of these movies. Maybe too much with casting teenage actresses, but the movies would have been "managed" (rent-seek) by some other production companies, don't worry.

bigbillheck 5y ago

> That's exactly what I mean, thank you! You have stressed the whole point! That aside, please answer my other two questions. (And for the rest of your post, maybe the movies we'd have had in the absence of Weinstein would have been better)