Just Saying -- the soapbox thread

[rockola]

Waved an open jar of Vegemite under a visiting Canadian's nose. He didn't even taste it, but he threatened to punch me if I did that again.

Don't know why. It's wonderful stuff.

Went scuba diving in PNG a few years ago. At breakfast, a young Japanese lady pointed at the Vegemite jar and asked: "Chocolate?" I told her that no, it's not chocolate.

Encouraged her to try it anyway, and told her not to overdo it. She then put some on a piece of toast, took a bite, and told me with a puzzled look on her face: "This taste not in Japan!"

She did finish the toast, so I guess she must have liked it.

[alanp]

Got a new (secondhand) PC today. i7-2600k, 16GB DDR3, GTX960.

Helluva upgrade. My old PC was a Core 2 Duo (the original lineup), 4GB DDR2, and the motherboard still had a PS/2 port for both mouse and keyboard, and also a parallel printer port.

NewDoom is all the fun that Doom3 was not. If you pick up a decent size healthpack, there's a good chance that two dozen imps WON'T spawn on you!

[Muadzin]

16 GB is really becoming the minimum these days. Which is why I'm still amazed that most shops still sell PC's and laptops with 4 GB. They say you don't really need much if you just use it for Word and internet browsing. They haven't met me I guess. But I always keep waaaaaaay to many tab windows open.

Just built a new PC for home recording, i7-7700k, 32GB DDR4. Still a work in progress. Also a little hampered by the fact that my old external HDD just died on me. With on it the whole Adobe suite that an old friend of mine had 'gifted' to me. It would appear that the universe not only has a perverse sense of humor, but is also into copy rights.

[alanp]

http://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-42963338

Maybe I'm just a sad sack, but I can't help but think that any slogan being worn automatically gets discounted by people when the person who is wearing it... their face just looks emotionally DEAD. Of all the models photographed in the article, the only one that looked even remotely 'huh'-ish was the "Don't Know, Don't Care" one, since at least then the person's face matched the slogan.

The activists pictured had expression on their faces, but the models just looked dead inside.

[somnif]

http://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-42963338

Maybe I'm just a sad sack, but I can't help but think that any slogan being worn automatically gets discounted by people when the person who is wearing it... their face just looks emotionally DEAD. Of all the models photographed in the article, the only one that looked even remotely 'huh'-ish was the "Don't Know, Don't Care" one, since at least then the person's face matched the slogan.

The activists pictured had expression on their faces, but the models just looked dead inside.

I have worn only 1 slogan shirt in the past 2 decades, and yeah, it was worn with pretty much a "dead inside" look to me:



I've stopped wearing it as 2017 ended up so much worse. But it fit the times.

[alanp]

Please bear in mind this is a soapbox thread.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/102002716/why-gary-oldman-and-kobe-bryants-oscar-wins-were-the-nights-biggest-tragedy

But this article pisses me the fuck off.

Due process? To hell with that!

A court of law? The screaming mob knows better!

Measured response? Get a rope!

Firstly, the two are, so far, accused. That's it. I know it's a minor technicality that only their mother would care about, but they haven't been convicted, or pleaded guilty. As far as I know, "innocent until proven guilty" is still a thing.

Secondly, I watch movies and TV (these days, very rarely for TV) for entertainment and to enjoy a well told story. Not to be moralized at. Actors are hired because they look like what the director thinks the fictional character does, and because they can deliver lines in a manner consistent with the fictional character. Not because of their views on ethics, morality, and organic coffee. That way lies hiring practices for the likes of the USSR, where someone gets the job of engineer because he holds the right political views, not because he knows whether to hold a screwdriver in his hand or his anus.

Sorry for the ranty, soapbox venting nature of this post. But if an actor DOES get CONVICTED, like say Gary Glitter, who was convicted of having sex with an under 13 girl, THEN strip them of their titles, honours, and awards.

[Muadzin]

You expect due legal process in this day and age of #WITCHHUNTS? If anyone wonders how the Salem witch hunts or McCarthyism could ever have happened, one needs only to look at the present day.

[reddesert]

I enjoyed Gary Oldman's role in "Darkest Hour" and I don't know what he may or may not have done. But, due process is the concept that the government has to follow the law and not deprive you of your rights, property, life, etc, arbitrarily. This was a great concern for the (US) Founders since they were dealing with a king and military rule. The Oscars are a different story since getting an Oscar, or even working in the film industry, is a privilege, not a right, and the Academy is not the government. The Academy could disinvite people from its party if it wants. It should be fair, and (for example) if it discriminated against people of any particular type, as it has in the past, that would be heinous. But it could deny a person suspected of bad behavior an invitation, without breaking due process, similar to the way you can tell your musician friend not to bring his no-good buddy around any more.

[Muadzin]

There's being suspected of doing something, due to due legal process, like a police investigation, and being suspected of something, because somebody said something on social media, or the media in general. Because after all, it's not like people have never lied before when there is something to be gained, right? When there is money, possessions, privilege, attention or love to be gained people always tell the truth, right?

Just because the cause seems just doesn't mean that we should resort to trial by media. Or in this case not even a trial, more lynchmob by media. We are talking after all of people's lives, career and livelihood here. Also remember that any revolution usually ends with the revolutionaries themselves being led to the guillotine.

[midwayfair]

You hot so upset by a celebrity gossip column's opinion about the movie industry's night of patting itself on the back that you linked to them and gave them some ad revenue.

Just sayin' ...

And this is not the French Revolution ffs, though some stuff only has extrajudicial remedies. Try thinking in nuance instead of getting just as hysterical as the people you're criticizing.

[alanp]

After a couple days to cool down, you're probably right, Jon.

Although I do use an adblocker, so no worries there!

[LaceSensor]

Im going to wade in here

At what point should someones past endeavours be revoked following a subsequent discovery of - lets call it - illegality on there part?
And does the nature of said "illegality" determine the scale of revocation that should occur?

Example, its widely accepted that Roman Polansky is/was a paedophile, but I still think Rosemarys Baby is a classic and I would happily view the film.
Harvey Weinstein probably did some bad stuff. However, it doesnt make me want to burn my copies of the films his production company backed eg Pulp Fiction.

I kind see this in a different way to say, athletes who cheated and should be retrospectively removed of their medals or awards.

Lets say for instance Gary Oldman gets convicted of indecent assault towards a minor, or something else, whatever, does that mean his performance in Darkest Hour was any less worthy of rememberence and celebration?

Really interesting topic (at least I think so) that I could bang on about for a long while.

It was raised recently with me, as there was some record producer or musician or someone (cant remember) who an acquaintance of mine said they were burning all the vinyl that said person was involved with. I consider that silly, because the music isnt any less good. I imagine if by listening to it (or say, viewing a film produced by Weinstein) your mind starts to wander onto their indiscretions in a way that distracts you to the point of disgust, you risk associating all those bad things with the product you are meant to be enjoying, and therefore can no longer enjoy it.

Wierdly, Ive given examples where I wouldnt denounce all past outputs (eg Weinstein films) whereas I dont think I can listen to Lost Prophets anymore (despite one of their records being a bona fide riot) because when I do I am reminded of the absolutely abhorrent crimes of the (ex-) lead singer Ian Watkins.

I suppose, after all these words Ive mind-farted onto the forum, that it all comes down to personal sensibilities and limits of tolerance and/or proficiency with Orwellian double-think.

Feel free to ignore
Ciao
Ian

[TNblueshawk]

Ian, for me I think you hit on a large chunk of it. There are a lot of factors at play but if you will allow me to pontificate on my own behalf I think I will 
1. What type of transgression are we talking about? Larry Nassar level? My (and by my I mean I live in Nashville TN) mayor's cheating on her husband by bangin' the security dude and pleading guilty to theft or misappropriations of tax payer dollars? DUI arrest? Etc....
2. By watching, reading and or listening am I reminded of the transgression. This plays into it big time for me. If I am turned off then it truly alters my enjoyment so I'm likely done with it both from a purely enjoyable factor and on principle, depending on the transgression we are talking about.
3. By me digesting said art form, am I contributing towards the transgressors pocket book? If I am then no. So, in the case of Roman Polanski, would I buy a new copy of Rosemary's Baby? Hell no, assuming he were to derive royalties. Would I watch this movie again on HBO? No in this case as I find pedophilia the absolute lowest form of human behavior, or tied for first anyway.

So, I have a lot of favorite bands/artists but let me take one of them, Allman Brothers, and use them. I've read a few books on them and I recall after reading the first one many years ago, that Gregg Allman was a douche in his drug/alcohol infused days. I recall thinking, damn man, stand up for yourself and others. This was a long time ago of course. I actually thought about that when I would play the albums. It took some of the shine off. I got over it but if I'm being honest that really crossed my mind. Now, let's say ole' Gregg was found to be a pedophile or raped women or murdered someone. Would I toss out the albums? Yes. Maybe I put them in storage, who knows. But, the point is the enjoyment is gone, period. Also, my principles kick in.

I'm forever struggling with principles, of which I'm a strong principled person, and being a hypocrite which I despise in people. I'm always checking myself, always asking myself am I consistent. For violent acts/crimes it's fairly easy for me. Now, for politics? Man, that is a worm hole.

Whew, ok, I'm done. I don't think I offended anyone 

[blearyeyes]

As far as I know, Gary's accusations were in divorce papers filed 17 years ago and "No charges were filed" Divorce papers are not to be taken at face value as I would guess one of the parties had a vested interest in making the other look bad.

[LaceSensor]

Interesting discussion, TNblueshawk.

You certainly didnt offend me, FWIW.