Can you enjoy/support an artist/athlete/public figure whose actions or politics you find deplorable? (2 Viewers)

jbutler

Royal Flush
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
10,669
Reaction score
10,772
Was just emailing with another PCFer about this and thought it could be interesting (and/or potentially politard trolling) to invite others' thoughts.

TL;DR below (most of it copied/pasted from my emails), but the cliff's is basically the question in the subject line. Do you watch a team or a movie that includes an athlete or artist whose actions or opinions you can't stand? Do you avoid those games or movies? It seems like every other day there is a celebrity of some kind in the news for doing something reprehensible or expressing an opinion deemed out of step with current culture.

The most extreme examples would be Roman Polanski having raped a 13 year old girl and Woody Allen having allegedly molested his wife's adopted daughter.

Then there are the sort of middle of the road examples of someone having taken some action that might be hurtful, but is entirely within their right (i.e., Curt Schilling's Facebook post mocking transgender rights or various NHL players' support of anti-gay Russian laws).

Finally, there are the most benign possible examples where someone is asked explicitly about an issue and responds honestly and their answer doesn't align with what we deem culturally enlightened at the moment. Most absurdly, recently some American Idol contestant was asked about her position on some anti-LGBT legislation and was ripped apart because she said she "didn't support the gay lifestyle" though she also didn't explicitly support the law in question.

There are obviously tons of specific examples - Mel Gibson ranting bigoted and misogynistic shit at a cop, Manny Pacquiao being elected to the Philippine House of Representatives, Mozilla's CEO donating to a Prop 8 advocacy group - of people crossing the line from holding an opinion to taking an action against another person or group of people and things become more complicated there.

My politics are pretty far left, so it's not as if I have any sympathy for the above-discussed positions. Nevertheless I would have no problem supporting a hockey team that includes players with different positions and I have no problem going to see a Mel Gibson movie and loving it. I haven't used Mozilla in years, but if their product was great, I'd have used it for sure even if they'd kept their CEO on.

The slightly tougher question is whether to support someone like Roman Polanski who almost certainly raped a 13 year old. No one denies he has directed some stone cold classics (Rosemary's Baby, Repulsion, Chinatown, and more) and he continues to attract the best actors in the world to his projects. Are we somehow morally culpable for supporting a rapist by watching and enjoying his work?

What about Woody Allen? There, the facts are quite a bit less certain. Should we study all we can so that we can make a judgment about his guilt and then use our findings to determine whether we want to go see the new Woody Allen movie?

If that's your approach, it quickly gets absurd in my opinion. How far do we want to delve into people's opinions or actions when those opinions and actions have nothing to do with what we seek to enjoy about that person?

Marc Maron conducted an interview in which the subject of language policing came up. The interviewee said something about not being able to say the word "tranny" anymore. Marc said - and I'm paraphrasing - "You can say 'tranny' all you want. You just have to live with the fact that you'll end up only be hanging around people who are comfortable with you saying 'tranny'."

That seems pretty fair to me, so to this point I've been directed by my comfort level in the presence of the artist/athlete and his work. For instance, whenever I try to watch a Woody Allen movie in which he is the romantic interest of a young woman, I am quite distracted from the movie. I'm taken out of the plot and the humor and have a tough time enjoying it. So I avoid those. But I have no problem watching something like Blue Jasmine or Magic in the Moonlight in which Woody doesn't appear as an actor. So I watch those. Same with Roman Polanski, who benefits from never playing substantial parts in his own films.

It seems to me to be the liberal version of the Hollywood Blacklist of the 1950s. It's not as if those people who were blacklisted were falsely accused - many of them were actually Communist Party sympathizers or members. But who gives a shit? They were great artists.

So do any liberals refuse to watch Apocalypto even though it was amazing just because it was directed by Mel Gibson? Or do any conservatives refuse to watch O, Brother Where Art Thou? because it stars George Clooney?
 
I can answer from a sports perspective. I think everyone has a line that can't be crossed and where it's drawn differs for everyone. I'm still a Cowboys fan even though our brain-addled owner signed several thugs with suspected or confirmed criminal ties. I didn't support the individual player, but I still support the franchise. But if Jerry Jones signed Michael Vick and he saw one minute of playing time, I'm taking several thousand dollars worth of Cowboys memorabilia, putting it in a box and topping it with a Romo jersey with my turd tied up in it, and shipping it first class USPS to Jerry at Valley Ranch.
 
You lean towards a liberal idealogy? I would have never guessed[emoji14]
Seriously though, everyone comes with their own baggage. I'm a huge dog lover, so when the Eagles signed Michael Vick, I thought it was a disgrace. Granted, he "paid his debt to society", but I still thought that anyone who could do what he did is a piece of shit. Do I believe people deserve redemption? Absolutely, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I will like or respect them. Then again, artists/athletes/public figures don't need my praise or approval in the grand scheme of things, so I suppose it doesn't matter. I am not a self-aggrandizing person and do not presume that my opinions are important to anyone but me.

Another example - my brother is mentally retarded, not autistic or any other designation, dude was born a month late and has brain damage (doesn't make him any less of a wonderful person). I've met people who have corrected me when I use the term "retard(ation)", and that's fine. Everyone has their things. In the end, I try not to judge as much as I can.

Am I a fan of Mel Gibson or George Clooney? Not particularly, primarily because I subscribe to the belief of "too much of anything can make you an addict". If someone is hardcore for or against a certain cause or set of beliefs, I feel like they blind themselves and end up with beliefs that are not well-researched. There are certainly exceptions to this, but some of the most knowledgeable people that I've met in my life have also been some of the most open-minded people when it comes to accepting contrary opinions from others.

My wife's family is from the South and they are bible thumpers (pejorative term in its own right, but I mean no offense), whereas I was raised as a lazy Catholic in Philly. When it comes to gay rights, I almost have to accept their beliefs because it is based on a belief structure that is literally written in a book. Do I agree with them? No, but I'm also not changing their minds. Therefore, if anyone argues a cause based on religious beliefs, be it an average person on the street or a public figure, I typically don't waste my breath.

In general, people do and say dumb shit. Some will praise them, others will malign them. I've said and done plenty of dumb shit in my life that if everyone knew about it, I would be respected much less. As a species, we are prone to making mistakes, so I just try to be as understanding of others as I possibly can.
 
Last edited:
I don't have many on my list, but once there I am done with you. Polanski, Allen, Jane Fonda - that is it (though Cosby might make the list too). I did not pay to see their works and I'll turn off stuff of theirs or leave the room when it is on. I guess I might care about some atheletes if I watched that stuff, but I am not much of a consumer of sports programing so those guys don't make my list.

I really don't care about what comes out of the flapping lips of well known entertainers. The opinions of ignorent, ill-educated, ill-informed people with no authority to act on their thoughts aren't of much interest to me anyway. If they are entertaining, fine! If not, well someone else must like them. If a family of backwoods bearded duck hunters can persuade folks to watch their show and buy their stuff - that is ok with me, even if they spread hate and intolerence. If some dumb as rocks actress wants to rant about the dangers of apples or opine about which arm to use to immunize against mumps, who cares? A washed up actor hates Clinton / loves Trump - so what?

Bottom line, they have the right to hold an opinion. Lots of people fail to agree with me on some issue or the other. I'll still watch their stuff, buy their books, even take their money over the poker table. What you say matters little, what you do rarely is another matter.
 
Last edited:
For me it's a bit complex depending on the issue and context so I'll just focus on pro sports. I used to be a huge NFL fan and other pro team sports in general. There was a shift in our culture that maybe started about the time gangsta rap mentality took off in the 90's. If I think back to the NBA, I liked the Magic/Bird years and once too many started acting and looking like thugs, It seemed like a collection of individuals in place of a team. I still love my Steelers and Broncos, but in general, the thrill is gone for me and team sports. Free agency also added to it. Less team, more individual. It even starts in college now. I don't know that the end result of professional criminals/ball players has anything to do with that culture shift I mention about the 90's, but I admire players that score a touchdown and then just walk the ball to the ref. No "look at me", just getting the job done. So yes, I shy away from criminals and their teams. I remember doing a student trip to Bali in 2012 and ended up in a restaurant bar with my chaperones having a few beverages with 4 ladies who asked to join us. One of them claimed to be the ex wife of Brad Daugherty. I didn't believe her and since we were all on our computers, I did some searching and determined she was 100% telling the truth. So we asked her about all the crap NBA wives had to deal with since she was readily dealing the dirt. I was absolutely shocked at the level of depravity that too many NBA players engaged in (assuming she was telling the truth and I have no reason to doubt her). We all asked about maybe 30 players and their story. I couldn't believe that what she said could be true. I asked her who the real gentlemen were. The family guys that stood out. She named two, David Robinson and Steve Nash going on to say that if any groupies tried to sneak in to get to Steve, he would call the police/security to have them removed from the premises. Probably the best life story about character and a pro athlete is about Joe Erhmann (Baltimore Colts). I admired him and had a chance to listen to him speak to coaches near ASU in Tempe about Building Men for Others, false masculinity, and the opportunity that coaches had to show young men the right path. If every coach in America operated as he did, our culture might not be dealing with this issue today.

I love hearing about the best people in sports but don't waste too much time watching a bunch of criminals any more.
 
I can answer from a sports perspective. I think everyone has a line that can't be crossed and where it's drawn differs for everyone. I'm still a Cowboys fan even though our brain-addled owner signed several thugs with suspected or confirmed criminal ties. I didn't support the individual player, but I still support the franchise. But if Jerry Jones signed Michael Vick and he saw one minute of playing time, I'm taking several thousand dollars worth of Cowboys memorabilia, putting it in a box and topping it with a Romo jersey with my turd tied up in it, and shipping it first class USPS to Jerry at Valley Ranch.
I have a romo helmet you can send. Actually spent some time with the franchise behind the scenes. People get the wrong impression of the ownership. It is s business but they do many things for the layers and families that the everyday sports fan knows nothing about.
 
I don't follow a lot of celebrity gossip (I don't know what clooney did, was unaware of polanski's rape) so a lot is lost on me. If there is a repugnant piece of garbage on the screen, if their acts take me out of the moment, I'd stop watching. It's probably worse with TV/movies than sports, since the actor and character are different people. I can't imagine watching Cosby at this point, as it would be a distraction, but I always assumed at least half of the NFL were douches anyway, so even though Vick sickens me, I still can watch a game he's in.

It's weird, I can no longer watch @jbutler in a courtroom since learning of his immoral lifestyle. He's an officer of the court, and blatantly supports breaking the law by playing in raked home games.
 
My wife's family is from the South and they are bible thumpers, whereas I was raised as a lazy Catholic in Philly. When it comes to gay rights, I almost have to accept their beliefs because it is based on a belief structure that is literally written in a book. Do I agree with them? No, but I'm also not changing their minds. Therefore, if anyone argues a cause based on religious beliefs, be it an average person on the street or a public figure, I typically don't waste my breath.

Yeah this is certainly a related issue and one I've thought about quite a bit: having longstanding personal relationships with people who hold opinions you find not only wrong, but potentially harmful.

I have lots of family members and friends who fall into this category. My old boss actually represented Trump in some transactional matters and was a big Christie bundler. Nevertheless, we're still friends and it doesn't much come up other than a little ribbing.

Something my wife said has stuck with me about these things. I was going off about something or someone (not atypical obv) and she said - and I'm paraphrasing - "If someone had asked you 15 years ago what you thought about gay marriage you probably wouldn't have had the same opinion you do now. Some people take longer to come to a position than others, but they'll take a lot longer to get there if they're told they're assholes in the meantime. You're drawing a hard line when 15 years is a pretty brief delay." She was right.

I don't know that the end result of professional criminals/ball players has anything to do with that culture shift I mention about the 90's, but I admire players that score a touchdown and then just walk the ball to the ref. No "look at me", just getting the job done. So yes, I shy away from criminals and their teams.

I think those players who make spectacles of themselves on the field are a different question because it instantly and directly impacts one's experience of the game.

I guess to get to the meat of the question, what if none of the players made spectacles of themselves, but still had the off-court/field character deficits you mention (womanizing, criminal activity, etc.)? Would you still not watch the games?
 
I actually have no problem with player celebration in a game. It should be emotionally charged for them, and their success warrants an emotional response.
 
DCS_01_LEWIS3_526058.jpg

rice-court.jpg


a0359205d2d628f472d9b5a62851db18.jpg
 
Had to google the first two - had no idea who they were (the third was helpfully captioned).

These are pretty good analogs to the Polanskis/Allens of the film world. I really don't know how I'd feel about watching these guys. I've never had to think about it much because none of the players in sports that I watch have done anything that I'm aware of on the same level.
Murder for Ray Lewis. Beating the shit of his gf for Ray Rice. Pouring bleach on his wife for Suggs, and also leaving the scene of a crime.
 
I think as a sports fan it's easy to rationalize when someone on your sports team breaks the law. Either it wasn't that bad, or they didn't do it, or I can still root for the team but not the player. Of course, when it's someone on your rival's team breaking the law, they're a thug, an evil person, and it's indicative of not only the team, but the whole community they represent. Fan is short for fanatic, after all.
 
I have a romo helmet you can send. Actually spent some time with the franchise behind the scenes. People get the wrong impression of the ownership. It is s business but they do many things for the layers and families that the everyday sports fan knows nothing about.

I don't doubt for a minute that Jerry is a great business owner and treats the players exceedingly well....

But the fucking guy had to be physically restrained by his son from drafting the walking disaster that is Johnny Manziel, and the laundry list of harebrained GM moves he's made can only be possibly exceeded by Al Davis, who was in his own right an unmitigated moron when it came to football.

As a fan it's fantastically frustrating to watch this team. We're stuck with Garrett the ass puppet as coach because nobody worth their salt is going to put up with Jerry's bullshit, and any draft success they have is in spite of Jerry, not because of him.
 
Murder for Ray Lewis. Beating the shit of his gf for Ray Rice. Pouring bleach on his wife for Suggs, and also leaving the scene of a crime.

You left off illegal treatment of the football for Tom Brady and several instances of Bill Bellichick cheating. I mean, murder is bad, but we can all agree that Tom Brady deserves to be drawn and quartered, right?
 
I don't doubt for a minute that Jerry is a great business owner and treats the players exceedingly well....

But the fucking guy had to be physically restrained by his son from drafting the walking disaster that is Johnny Manziel, and the laundry list of harebrained GM moves he's made can only be possibly exceeded by Al Davis, who was in his own right an unmitigated moron when it came to football.

As a fan it's fantastically frustrating to watch this team. We're stuck with Garrett the ass puppet as coach because nobody worth their salt is going to put up with Jerry's bullshit, and any draft success they have is in spite of Jerry, not because of him.
Good point. Having spent time with both sons we are lucky Steven seems to be the heir apparent!
 
You left off illegal treatment of the football for Tom Brady and several instances of Bill Bellichick cheating. I mean, murder is bad, but we can all agree that Tom Brady deserves to be drawn and quartered, right?

You just hate cuz you ain't...or something like that (I think?).
 
You left off illegal treatment of the football for Tom Brady and several instances of Bill Bellichick cheating. I mean, murder is bad, but we can all agree that Tom Brady deserves to be drawn and quartered, right?
Personally I think wasting bleach is the most disgusting act someone can do. There are plenty of soccer moms who need that to keep the jerseys nice and clean.

2nd place is Ray Rices incident because it took place in a casino. That casino elevator was probably closed down for investigation purposes for weeks, I cant imagine how many people in their rascal scooters had to circle around to find another open elevator.

Shame in both cases TBH.

Murder, meh, doesnt move the needle for me
 
I think those players who make spectacles of themselves on the field are a different question because it instantly and directly impacts one's experience of the game.

I guess to get to the meat of the question, what if none of the players made spectacles of themselves, but still had the off-court/field character deficits you mention (womanizing, criminal activity, etc.)? Would you still not watch the games?

I think there is a big difference between being Billy "White Shoes" Johnson the showman and the "all about me" attitude I alluded to that permeates pro sports today. I place a connection between today's attitude, false masculinity, and the crime associated with pro sports today. I like a team celebration as much as the next guy but the first pumping pointing to one's self in the end zone is telling about the general attitude.
 
I think as a sports fan it's easy to rationalize when someone on your sports team breaks the law. Either it wasn't that bad, or they didn't do it, or I can still root for the team but not the player. Of course, when it's someone on your rival's team breaking the law, they're a thug, an evil person, and it's indicative of not only the team, but the whole community they represent. Fan is short for fanatic, after all.
This is a good point. It is indicative of human nature in that we have to measure our beliefs versus our desires. The owners of Chick-Fil-A have conservative Christian values that some find culturally inappropriate, but it won't stop you from eating their tasty chicken. Random sports players can do some grimey shit, but if they are helping your team win, you'll let it slide. I could see footage of Bryce Harper clubbing a baby seal, but if he were on the Phillies jacking bombs, I may give him a pass, until he goes into a slump, then I'll think he's an asshole. We are all phony to a certain extent and our feelings can be bought. Just the way it is.
 
@jbutler - How do you get through the OP without a mention of the Catholic Church

Jesus good point.

Perhaps because he isn't a consumer of the Catholic Church?

True, but I was at one point in my life.

My view of the implied question - Can one justify remaining in the Catholic Church following the abuse scandals? - is that it requires that people answer a fairly straightforward question: do you believe that the Catholic Church has been uniquely called by god, to the exclusion of all other religious bodies, to act as his representative on earth?

If so, then it matters very little what individual members of the Church have done even if it includes the abuse of children, the systematic, purposeful cover up of that abuse, and the continued efforts to prevent victims from obtaining justice for the decades of malicious action by those at every level of the Church. If you don't believe that the Church has the type of authority described in the question, then I would think that any reasonable person would feel morally compelled to leave the Church and I doubt that they could make a convincing case for doing anything else.

For me, the question is meaningless in several ways, so I don't much concern myself with the Church. And like @MegaTon44 said above, you won't get very far with a religious fanatic who is completely immune to reason and logic because his beliefs are dictated by an infallible authority, so I try not to waste too much time on the subject.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom