Jump to content
chrisg

Bill Cosby

Recommended Posts

 

I was thinking something along the lines of... you can separate a work from a person, unless appreciating the work somehow celebrates the person (if the person is a bag of dicks).

I mean so many of the things we do and use and places we exist in were invented or founded by utter crackhumping dickheads.  But we can't go and erase a whole town or stop using something great because the inventor was an ass.

Do we stop using light bulbs because Thomas Edison was an animal killer who thought nothing or stealing ideas and ruining the lives of his competitors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, scruffy1 said:

in the absence of a conviction, the plaintiff is found "not guilty"

 

but not innocent; in truth i have no idea if m.j. was a kiddie fiddler, or just really weird (he was certainly that)

what if an artist did dreadful things but was never revealed to do so ? what if they were guilty of nasty shit, but not convicted ?

 

i would posit that a fair proportion of "creative" types have led less than pristine existences

 

works of art are either splendid or they aren't, and while the maker might be vile, a creation is not the artist

 

on that ground, any child conceived of rape would deserve to be hated because of their father

I wasn't a fan of the Jackson 5 or Michael as a child singer. I became a fan when he grew up and away from the family. I like his latter music very very much. Yes he was weird . Look what he came out of . Do you note how most of the Jackson siblings
speak in a child like sort of way ... what is that about ?  what is he not innocent of ? who the fuck is innocent round here ?

I make no argument with you about unknown crimes committed by artists ... how can I ?

so a person raping someone is an art is it ? ... come on scruffy that's a bit bloody rich don't ya think ?

 

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nup, raping someone is a crime i believe

 

the point i am endeavouring to make is that the product of a criminal isn't a crime, or criminal, simply because a criminal made them

 

 

artistic products aren't the artist, although they are obviously "of" the artist

 

the horror of cosby being a believable "dad" figure in his show seems to be that he wasn't the lovely man he was pretending to be...  but i don't get how that makes his talent not a talent

 

by that measure, if i reverse the order of associations do i have to dislike anthony hopkins because  he was a cannibal in a movie ?  a person isn't their fictional characters, and neither are their characters actually them

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scruffy1 said:

nup, raping someone is a crime i believe

 

the point i am endeavouring to make is that the product of a criminal isn't a crime, or criminal, simply because a criminal made them

 

 

artistic products aren't the artist, although they are obviously "of" the artist

 

the horror of cosby being a believable "dad" figure in his show seems to be that he wasn't the lovely man he was pretending to be...  but i don't get how that makes his talent not a talent

 

by that measure, if i reverse the order of associations do i have to dislike anthony hopkins because  he was a cannibal in a movie ?  a person isn't their fictional characters, and neither are their characters actually them

 

I get it. I just don't agree with putting the two together like that, in the same way you put a knob in with criminals ... it's not the same thing imo.

... but you know the product of a criminal might well turn out to be a criminal too ya know ... genes an' all ... what might save the product of rape is the mixing of the gene pool .

 

Like I said earlier, Polanski wouldn't have continued his career had he staid to face his charges in court rather than running and being enabled to stay away from prison.
Wagner wouldn't have been popular had anti-semitism been a crime at that time.
And a hell of a lot of Cosby's work wouldn't be made either
And Saville wouldn't be a speck on the wall if he'd been prosecuted instead of enabled.

And then maybe a lot of other art of various persuasions might have come further into the history books ... who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saville was a strange one, he was the lead on an old English show called "Top of the Pops" most guys watched it because he was constantly surrounded by a dance group of extremely nubile women called "The Young Ones" apparently he was pretty constantly touchie feelie with them but they never complained.

Let's be real, he was hardly an attractive man but he got away with it for years.

It was a different era, you'd probably have trouble getting less than an R rating on "Blazing Saddles" these days, some places it was a G when it first came out. I don't recall what rating it was when I saw it at the cinema but there were an awful lot of girls in the audience laughing their tits off ?

Personally I think we are somewhat too puritanical these days, not to excuse the behavior of the actors and comedians mentioned, but it really was not THAT unusual back then. Both ways, I was accosted more than once by girls in all manner of places in London especially, not that I was objecting ?

Maybe it was the HIV/AIDS appearance that changed things, dunno, it sort of coincides.

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

Some are complete assholes and make no secret of it, which is probably healthier.

Rodney Dangerfield springs to mind, apparently he is just himself ?

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chrisg said:

Yeah Marilyn Monroe fucked around a lot, so what? Her choice.

 

 

Wait, you're comparing someone who had consensual sex with someone who raped women?

 

How's your wife going, by the way?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drawing a line between an artist and what they did or how their art was used by others, and their art, is IMO a lot easier when the artist is dead.

Like, I refuse to give Orson Scott Card any money for his books, despite enjoying the movie based off the first one, because he's a massive fucking dick and funding him furthers that.

Wagner?  To me the music is just music.

I was never a huge fan of Louis CK but liked his work well enough if friends had it on.  Since all of his bs came to air, I haven't found myself really wanting to go and do youtube dives.

I think the more important thing is to think about the line between art and artist, than coming to some holistic answer that covers every situation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SnowSquirrel said:

Wait, you're comparing someone who had consensual sex with someone who raped women?

 

How's your wife going, by the way?

?

 Not comparing,  just citing reputations really.

My wife and I are at present separated, for complicated reasons but we talk for ages every day.

She is in a lot of pain, dunno if you know what TVM is but never let them do it to you.

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

mixed feelings on a person's personal "failings" should negate their art

 

is kevin spacey's acting "bad" because he behaved badly ?

does a roman polanski film lose credibility because he did ?

is wagner's music crap because he was a major anti-semite ?  (hint... i'n not that fond of it myself, and yes, i have a big nose though it doesn't have any yiddish leanings)

is u2 untalented because bono is a knob ?  (answer : no, they are just pretty ordinary *and* bono is a knob)

 

as always, the public opinion of an individual makes it almost impossible to judge their work independently of their (actually pretty irrelevant to the work) personal life

My appreciation of Arthur C Clarke's works went severely downhill at supersonic speed when I found out he was a self-confessed kiddy fiddler, ie little boys.

Particularly when he was quoted as saying "It Builds Character". And he wasn't talking about his either...

Edited by merlin13
sumting went *cough*...
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

artistic products aren't the artist, although they are obviously "of" the artist

 

Agreed.  To my mind, it's the same for art as with any other endeavour such as engineering, botany, or mathematics (which is half art anyway).  If you repudiated the work just because the one responsible for it was varying levels of reprehensible, you'd still be living in the stone age.  Newton, the guy with the apocryphal apple on the head, inventor of calculus, one of the greatest geniuses ever to hit humanity...that guy was a gigantic asshole - detested just about everybody, and was detested in return who died a virgin.

It is quite possible to admit that Louis CK was/is a funny guy whilst also holding that his behaviour was completely unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being detested by everybody, and detesting everybody in return is not criminal. It does show a general lack of social skills though still not criminal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?

Even Mother Nature didn't like Newton, it was no accident she threw an apple down at his head ?

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been pondering on something about Cosby, Harris, Saville and Jackson ... when you look at pics of these people, Cosby and Harris look like regular dudes no really outstanding quirks to there overall appearance.
I bet if you took the sunnies and cigars and  OTT attire away from Saville, he'd just look like a weedy not very good looking at all man << now all these guys are charged and convicted
... and people were mighty surprised and uspet by the feelings of betrayal they felt

Now look at Jackson, the last thing you'd say about him is that he's a regular looking dude. Let's face it he went a bit nuts trying to change himself to something other than what came out of his mummies' vag
... and yet he's the one lots of people don't really question re him doing kiddy fiddling , and crikey knows what else ... but I didn't here  hear too much surprise about it, and I reckon that's cos he didn't look 'regular' and
he did what he could to create a perfect child hood picture-playground.

Edited by eveln
It seems my layout went to shit. hopefully rectified now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2018 at 12:58 AM, merlin13 said:

My appreciation of Arthur C Clarke's works went severely downhill at supersonic speed when I found out he was a self-confessed kiddy fiddler, ie little boys.

Particularly when he was quoted as saying "It Builds Character". And he wasn't talking about his either...

 

Um, that's a revelation to me, so I looked it up.  While it turns out he was certainly gay, the allegations he confessed to having sex with kids (while he was an adult) and conveying it in a positive light, appear to be unsubstantiated.

He apparently denied the allegations, investigations into it were dropped by the authorities, and no one other than the tabloids picked up the story.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cosby and the other creep Rolf Harris, had young me fooled, nice kindly people..... old me wishes they would be locked up until the end of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Waltish said:

Cosby and the other creep Rolf Harris, had young me fooled, nice kindly people..... old me wishes they would be locked up until the end of time.

It's a freak out.  I still don't understand it.  Many creeps just don't seem like creeps in any obvious way.

 

I grew up Catholic, but didn't have too much involvement in the church.  Occasionally on a religious excursion or camp I'd meet some priest or some brothers would take us for classes or on a physical activity.  I always found them really nice, attentive and understanding blokes.

I sometimes mention this to a Catholic mate who was very involved, was an alter boy and all, and he laughs and says, "That's how they get you! If they acted creepy the kids wouldn't go near them," and he totally sounds like he's just making an off-hand joke, but after Cosby and Harris and Robert Hughes, I'm no longer sure he means it as a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you weren't the appropriate age or gender for those particular brothers or priest ... or maybe they weren't into kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Growing up Russian and Jewish, you learn historical disappointment.

There are no heroes or good people. It's that simple.

Once you realise that, you're free. Recently there was a story about a gay orgy in the Vatican. Some of my Catholic friends were surprised. Me... I was surprised it took this long for it to happen and come out....

 

Whether by failure of upbringing or by success of upbringing, I don't trust easily and don't have any idols.

Worst of all... I'm never surprised when good people turn out to be utter assholes. In fact I expect it. Is that sick or what?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2018 at 11:27 PM, Kothos said:

 

Um, that's a revelation to me, so I looked it up.  While it turns out he was certainly gay, the allegations he confessed to having sex with kids (while he was an adult) and conveying it in a positive light, appear to be unsubstantiated.

He apparently denied the allegations, investigations into it were dropped by the authorities, and no one other than the tabloids picked up the story.

 

 

Recall actually watching an old interview years ago now where he said he liked little boys en camera. Be buggered (sorry...) if I could find it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, merlin13 said:

 

Recall actually watching an old interview years ago now where he said he liked little boys en camera. Be buggered (sorry...) if I could find it now.

 

Anything's possible, but the fact doesn't seem to be recorded anywhere.  Maybe it's true and he does but never actually did anything about it, maybe he was joking, or maybe he did do dodgy stuff but the admission by itself isn't enough to convict him without other evidence.  All in all I wouldn't say the case was closed and we can just condemn the guy.

There's evidence that he fooled around with fellow children when he himself was a child - could be referring to that I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kothos said:

 

Anything's possible, but the fact doesn't seem to be recorded anywhere.  Maybe it's true and he does but never actually did anything about it, maybe he was joking, or maybe he did do dodgy stuff but the admission by itself isn't enough to convict him without other evidence.  All in all I wouldn't say the case was closed and we can just condemn the guy.

There's evidence that he fooled around with fellow children when he himself was a child - could be referring to that I suppose.

Hard to know, I'm not a massive fan anyway, but he lived in Shri Lanka (Ceylon) a long time, kiddy sex there is pretty normal.

I get divided over the subject, not my gig but kids are pretty sexual so I would doubt abuse, perhaps more a predilection so he went to live where it was acceptable.

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Leonid said:

Growing up Russian and Jewish, you learn historical disappointment.

There are no heroes or good people. It's that simple.

Once you realise that, you're free. Recently there was a story about a gay orgy in the Vatican. Some of my Catholic friends were surprised. Me... I was surprised it took this long for it to happen and come out....

 

Whether by failure of upbringing or by success of upbringing, I don't trust easily and don't have any idols.

 

Worst of all... I'm never surprised when good people turn out to be utter assholes. In fact I expect it. Is that sick or what?

Fair enough.

... but I can't help but think that we are supposed to use our history as a tool in learning where we went wrong and endeavour at least, to make shit a little better for our supposedly treasured offspring. I only say " supposedly "
cos we don't seem all that successful yet ... I mean some adults still think kids desire sex.
I mean how do you confidently send your young out into the social systems of school and sport etc. ? You can't. So by the time an action is needed to seek justice the kid is needlessly damaged. Not by war or drought or lack of
food,  or any other natural hindrance. -

I guess I must still be capable of 'idolising'. There are definitely times I could wish I didn't. ... I do note that now I am aware of it , so I guess that's some evolving on my part ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chrisg said:

but he lived in Shri Lanka (Ceylon) a long time

south east asia "allows" a whole lot of under age practices

i recall the french tourists on ko samui (when it was still a backwater with dirt roads) trying to encourage me to go whoring because there were young teens on offer

 

 

not my idea of entertainment, but this was early 1980's when the cultural aspects of third world travel were often not the reason people visited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Asians have a very different stance.

 

Personally I found educating my kids about sex about the most difficult and embarrassing things I have ever done as a parent, but they took it remarkably well. They can both look after themselves far better than most anyway, scary pair of bugggers sometimes, and I taught them ?

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×