Fantastic comment from Gawker (a stopped clock is right twice a day...) regarding the above article:
Can you enjoy/support an artist/athlete/public figure whose actions or politics you find deplorable? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jbutler
- Start date
Fantastic comment from Gawker (a stopped clock is right twice a day...) regarding the above article:
slisk250
Straight Flush
I wonder if I've been gone so long I'm becoming a 3rd culture adult. Sometimes Saudi and 'Merica seem more similar than not.
I can't seem to avoid the "controversy" in my twitter feed about Kurt Metzger's arguments on facebook about a sexual assault investigation conducted by the NYC UCB (Upright Citizens Brigade - a comedy club) that resulted in the banning of a comic after the UCB investigator evidently determined the comic had sexually assaulted at least one woman.
TL;DR version: a woman claimed a sexual assault occurred and a comedy club agreed and banned the alleged assailant. Then word spread (along with the guy's name), but no facts were given and Kurt Metzger (who, incidentally, is hilarious and had a great WTF episode) pointed out that it wasn't fair to try to ruin a guy without any facts being offered along with the summary accusation.
The slightly longer version: there was at least one complaint to UCB about a comedian who was a regular performer there and after an investigation, the alleged assailant was banned from the club. Someone began making these facts public - including publishing the alleged assailant's name on facebook - - explicitly labeling the guy a rapist. From there, the conversation continued among dozens and dozens of people calling this guy a rapist and trying to get him banned from other clubs, etc. Kurt Metzger chimed in to point out that there had been no facts provided by anyone and that it wasn't fair to try to excise this guy from all comedy clubs merely on the basis that someone - no one knows who or on what facts - at UCB determined this guy committed a sexual assault. Kurt being Kurt included a bunch of over the top rants about how absurd it is to say that we should always believe claims of sexual assault even when we're not given any facts.
But because Kurt writers for Amy Schumer's show, people lost their minds tweeting like crazy at Amy and writing articles and posts about how she should fire Kurt and how he's poison, etc.
So now we're back to trying to get people fired for personal actions that don't have nothing to do with their work. Even worse, now people are protesting the boss of the guy they don't like because she didn't do what they want her to do. And while ordinarily I can't fucking stand Vox, they wrote a pretty good piece (that nonetheless includes a bunch of irritating Vox-type nonsense) on how Amy Schumer is in a bad spot because people have projected upon her their political agendas rather than allowing her to just be a fucking comic.
Jesus. What a bunch of moronic dingbats.
TL;DR version: a woman claimed a sexual assault occurred and a comedy club agreed and banned the alleged assailant. Then word spread (along with the guy's name), but no facts were given and Kurt Metzger (who, incidentally, is hilarious and had a great WTF episode) pointed out that it wasn't fair to try to ruin a guy without any facts being offered along with the summary accusation.
The slightly longer version: there was at least one complaint to UCB about a comedian who was a regular performer there and after an investigation, the alleged assailant was banned from the club. Someone began making these facts public - including publishing the alleged assailant's name on facebook - - explicitly labeling the guy a rapist. From there, the conversation continued among dozens and dozens of people calling this guy a rapist and trying to get him banned from other clubs, etc. Kurt Metzger chimed in to point out that there had been no facts provided by anyone and that it wasn't fair to try to excise this guy from all comedy clubs merely on the basis that someone - no one knows who or on what facts - at UCB determined this guy committed a sexual assault. Kurt being Kurt included a bunch of over the top rants about how absurd it is to say that we should always believe claims of sexual assault even when we're not given any facts.
But because Kurt writers for Amy Schumer's show, people lost their minds tweeting like crazy at Amy and writing articles and posts about how she should fire Kurt and how he's poison, etc.
So now we're back to trying to get people fired for personal actions that don't have nothing to do with their work. Even worse, now people are protesting the boss of the guy they don't like because she didn't do what they want her to do. And while ordinarily I can't fucking stand Vox, they wrote a pretty good piece (that nonetheless includes a bunch of irritating Vox-type nonsense) on how Amy Schumer is in a bad spot because people have projected upon her their political agendas rather than allowing her to just be a fucking comic.
Jesus. What a bunch of moronic dingbats.
tommythecat
Flush
Was watching this unfold on Twitter and listened to the episode of Race Wars about it. Kurt's initial response was way over the top but he is 100% spot on. The manufactured outrage machine in this country has gone ridiculously off the rails. It's mind boggling how they got this far at all. People were pissed because Amy was blocking anyone that asked her about Kurt..also 100% behind that move. She walked a fine line with the 'I can't fire him because he technically isn't working for me right now' response.
I love that podcast but I wish they would shut the fuck up and let people talk. I know they aren't technically a podcast but a radio show so it's expected, but that's part of why I stopped listening to radio.
I see it a lot in movie criticism, too - the faux outrage - in the form of people criticizing a movie on the basis of the actions of the characters rather than on the basis of the work itself. IMO these are people in search of a way of demonstrating their allegiance to their chosen cause rather than actually providing any insight into the thing they're commenting on.
So instead of talking about whether a piece of attempted comedy is funny, they talk about whether the subject of the piece of attempted comedy is appropriate for the joke. Instead of talking about whether a film is good on its merits, they want to discuss whether the actions the characters took in the film are right and just.
I'm sure it's happening elsewhere - other than in film criticism and comedy - but those are two areas with which I'd be more familiar than others.
Listened to most of the relevant part of Race Wars at lunch and the video is on youtube now as well.
I don't actually think he went so far overboard in those facebook posts (at least those that I saw). I mean, do these people not recognize that they're talking to a comedian? He's not a fucking trauma counselor.
It blows me away that we've entered a universe in which fucking stand up comedians are supposed to be responsible in any way for the way anyone feels.
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
5 minutes in and they still have not told the story. Its like each person on a mic is paid by the number of times they interrupt the current speaker. I cannot imagine how you could manage nearly an hour and a half of that.
It's styled after talk radio, so that's pretty much the format of all episodes. It's not really intended to be a medium for storytelling.
If you're just looking for the story best to read the articles. I'd post links but I'm on my phone, so difficult to do. Easily google-able if you want to read them, though.
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
OK, so guy says/writes stupid stuff. It may or may not reflect poorly on his employer. So he may or may not be canned. If I post something offensive, on my own time, on Facebook, my employer was (and has to others) fire them for conduct unbecoming. I don't agree with it, but at the same time I am aware that my city and I have an image to maintain.
Comics, whose job it is to entertain, also have an image to maintain. So do their employers, be they Comedy clubs, TV shows, movies, or radio programs or whatever. If you offend enough people you tarnish your image, and the image of those who employ you. That eventually translates to dollars being lost. Celebrities have to accept this. The more famous they are, the more likely someone will hear them acting offensive (because sooner or later we all say something stupid) and fame = recognizably, so you are less likely to get away with it.
That's the risk you take when you make the big bucks.
Comics, whose job it is to entertain, also have an image to maintain. So do their employers, be they Comedy clubs, TV shows, movies, or radio programs or whatever. If you offend enough people you tarnish your image, and the image of those who employ you. That eventually translates to dollars being lost. Celebrities have to accept this. The more famous they are, the more likely someone will hear them acting offensive (because sooner or later we all say something stupid) and fame = recognizably, so you are less likely to get away with it.
That's the risk you take when you make the big bucks.
bergs
Royal Flush
Eddie Murphy never would've made it if he first burst onto the comedy scene today. That's just sad. The movie "PCU" has actually become real-life.
F-ing with someone's livelihood because you don't agree with what they've said or done is a vile practice.
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
I disagree. Eddie Murphy is a versatile comedian. His early club days were hilarious, but crass by today's standards. But that was the time. You could get away with that, and people were used to being insulted when they saw a comedy act - in particular minorities like fat people, or old people.
His early movies were little to nothing like his stand-up, except to paint him as a slightly "outside the lines" character. His SNL performances were legendary and a little edgy. His modern stuff is either family friendly, or PG-13.
I think if he came onto the scene today, he would cut his teeth the same way. Preforming comedy that meets expectations, but just a little bit off-color. For a man that was called out by Bill Cosby for swearing, Murphy quickly got a gig as a writer on SNL, where he suddenly had to "clean up" his act. He did, and that led to a successful movie career, and his early movies are classics (ignoring "Best Defense").
This doesn't really have to do with the point I was making. Kurt's employer (to the extent Amy Schumer is his employer given that we know nothing about the extent of the control she has over the writing staff on her show) has chosen to take no action to this point and is being pilloried for it by those who demand "justice" in the form of punishment for his speech. Her perspective is that she isn't some kind of civil rights leader pushing forward their feminist cause. She's merely a comedian. But that's not good enough for people who have glommed onto her for some kind of validation or vicarious defense of an agenda they're deluded enough to think that she shares. They're not satisfied with her being a comedian. She has to be Susan B. Anthony reincarnated.
So sure, his employer could justify action in all sorts of ways. To do so would show them to be weak-willed and motivated by something other than the actual art they were paying him to produce, but if they wanted to take such action, yes, they could rely on the rationale you put forward above. But they didn't and people are mad because someone who believes something different from them gets to have a job. To these thought police morons, people who don't believe the right things should evidently be unemployed until they go to some workshop and learn what opinions are permitted.
And what were they mad about in the first place? Because he made the point that is obvious to everyone who hasn't been brainwashed: that before we collectively decide someone is a rapist, perhaps there ought to be, at the bare minimum, some facts put forward to support an allegation of sexual assault. From things that have evidently come out since this began, it seems there is likely some truth to the allegations, but at the time that Kurt made his statements, there was literally nothing other than someone passing on the fact that UCB had conducted an internal review that resulted in a comic being banned from the club.
If this all seems retarded, it is. Because we shouldn't be looking to the crack investigative staff of a fucking comedy club to determine whether someone has been raped and we certainly shouldn't be using second hand information about the findings of that crack investigative staff to spread the word that someone is a rapist. But as soon as that obvious point is made, someone has to lose their job because they didn't toe the line.
What's more, his point wasn't simply, "Hey be careful that you don't spread a lie about this guy." His point was also, "Hey if this guy is a rapist, should he face something more severe that not being able to perform at a comedy club? Like maybe prison? So why is this being investigated by comedians instead of, you know...the police?" But it's a lot easier to simply avoid any nuance and say, "He hates women and should be fired by my advocate Amy Schumer."
Eddie Murphy hasn't done shit worth mentioning since Harlem Nights (maybe Boomerang if we're being really generous) and Raw and Delirious destroy any of his movies (yes, even 48 Hours and Trading Places). And @bergs is right that those stand up specials would likely end his career if he were an up and coming comic today, which is just sad. His "modern stuff" is pure garbage front to back and completely ball-less.
Eddie Murphy is one of the better examples of the castration of comedy. The guy who put out Raw is now Dr. Dolittle. He's a joke and not a good one. But I'm sure he brings in a lot of money for Viacom.
This is my point put much more succinctly. And it's a particularly vile practice, imo, when the person's livelihood is creative and in which they intend and are encouraged to push against social mores.
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
You make strong points. I will counter, but I am simply playing devil's advocate and am mostly in agreement with your viewpoint.
However, when someone gets embroiled in a Facebook war they need to realize that their reputation is the only thing they stand to lose. As a public figure, That could mean something. To joe-blow, a raving poli-correct crusader, or some gun toting redneck, they risk nothing. It would be in the public figures best interest to back down, not amp it up.
Not saying that the public figure should, but they are the ones that have something to lose - and that goes back to the OP. Do you watch a team or a movie that includes an athlete or artist whose actions or opinions you can't stand? I can, provided the perceived entertainment value is greater than my disgust of one member of the cast/team. But I have few controversial causes that I am a strong advocate for.
Metzger's "support" for the rapist was bound to offend women. It is commonly publicized that 1 in 5 women are victims of rape on college campuses. 1 in 5 men are not arrested on college campuses, so we assume that most these rapes are less "brutal" and more "violations". Demographics would also probablly show that Amy Schumer (a slightly overweight but still attractive woman) has a large female audience. So when Metzger "supported" (because I know that was not his intent, but that's where it slid) the sexual violator, he was offending 20% of Schumers college educated audience - in a very, very visceral way. He's stupid if he doesn't think there would be backlash on that front. When/if Schumer goes back to her show, she will have to consider whether it's safe to hire Metzger. Time heals all wounds, and people forget or find new villains that are newer (therefore greater) threats to their cause.
However, when someone gets embroiled in a Facebook war they need to realize that their reputation is the only thing they stand to lose. As a public figure, That could mean something. To joe-blow, a raving poli-correct crusader, or some gun toting redneck, they risk nothing. It would be in the public figures best interest to back down, not amp it up.
Not saying that the public figure should, but they are the ones that have something to lose - and that goes back to the OP. Do you watch a team or a movie that includes an athlete or artist whose actions or opinions you can't stand? I can, provided the perceived entertainment value is greater than my disgust of one member of the cast/team. But I have few controversial causes that I am a strong advocate for.
Metzger's "support" for the rapist was bound to offend women. It is commonly publicized that 1 in 5 women are victims of rape on college campuses. 1 in 5 men are not arrested on college campuses, so we assume that most these rapes are less "brutal" and more "violations". Demographics would also probablly show that Amy Schumer (a slightly overweight but still attractive woman) has a large female audience. So when Metzger "supported" (because I know that was not his intent, but that's where it slid) the sexual violator, he was offending 20% of Schumers college educated audience - in a very, very visceral way. He's stupid if he doesn't think there would be backlash on that front. When/if Schumer goes back to her show, she will have to consider whether it's safe to hire Metzger. Time heals all wounds, and people forget or find new villains that are newer (therefore greater) threats to their cause.
First, most of what you write here is arguing that he should have known he would get a negative response. Those points aren't counter to mine because no one was arguing otherwise. Since he knew he was pushing against the majority view, by definition he was aware he would get something negative thrown back at him. What's at issue isn't whether it should have been expected, but whether it was justified.
Again, the point is that they're advocating that a comedian be fired because he said things they don't like. And those things they don't like are manipulated versions of his statements intended to inflame rather than bring about discussion. You conveniently manipulate his statements as well. While you acknowledge that he didn't intend to "support" the rapist, you nonetheless use that language because it's easier to frame as reasonably "offensive" to others.
That's dishonest imo, but more importantly, who gives a fuck if they're offended? Why would you want someone to be fired because they offended you? The only purpose it could serve is retribution. So they're simply proving right all those who call them social justice warriors. They want to mete out justice to those who say things they don't like.
And fwiw I don't think you're doing Amy Schumer or her followers any favors by noting that she's "slightly overweight but still attractive" and claiming that a history of sexual abuse justifies irrationality. It's not justified no matter what their personal history and Kurt isn't a "threat to the cause" of feminism or justice for sexual abuse victims simply because he argues against a public lynching of someone on the basis of a mere allegation with no factual support.
the3rd
Pair
Does anyone involved know if the woman making these accusations went to police or was even encouraged by the club to do so? Our criminal justice system may be flawed, but it is the appropriate avenue to try to get justice. Even if no conviction is made, the fact that a grand jury reviewed the evidence and said a trial is warranted would go a long way to support the demands of recreational outrage enthusiasts.
Maybe SJWs could burn down a city with riots before all of the facts are clear. That would teach Metzger and Schumer.
Maybe SJWs could burn down a city with riots before all of the facts are clear. That would teach Metzger and Schumer.
I don't believe she did, no. But frankly while she obviously should have, that she didn't is no bar to me believing her on the basis of what she might tell me or anyone else.
The problem in this case was that the victim had made no statement or offers any evidence whatsoever to anyone other than the UCB and yet simply on the UCB's determination - without their having provided any information either - people expected everyone to just immediately tar and feather this guy as a rapist.
12thMan
Full House
I missed it, has it came out that the guy looks guilty? I heard about this when it first started but then quickly lost interest, my opinion is one of "get the facts" before shit like this goes down, but I know that is not our reality and once something gets rolling facts become the least important aspect of it. (hands up dont shoot)
It sucks though when things like this happen and you look like you are standing up for a rapist if facts come out to show it probably happened...
It sucks though when things like this happen and you look like you are standing up for a rapist if facts come out to show it probably happened...
I've heard enough to prove to my personal satisfaction that he is more likely than not guilty. The most damning evidence that has been presented is that two women went to Barry Crimmins apart from one another and complained about this guy sexually assaulting them in a very similar manner on two separate occasions. To me that means it's more likely than not that he's guilty. Admittedly, the standard of proof is pretty low since the entirety of the "punishment" he receives as a result of my personal adjudication is that I'll think to myself, "Yeah, that guy is probably a piece of shit." So not much weighing in the balance.
I personally have no moral or ethical problem defending someone on the basis of there having been no evidence presented. If it turns out later they did it, then fire away with the Twitter posts or what the fuck ever, but if they want to later claim I or anyone should have been quicker to condemn someone on a mere allegation then that's just results oriented thinking.
But yeah it sucks for the optics and that's mostly what keeps people from taking that position. They don't want to hear the lectures about how we should "always believe the victim". And it seems very likely that the vast majority of people who are accused of sexual assault actually committed the assault, so obviously the likelihood is that any pushback against the tar and feather crowd will result in the later claim that you "defended a rapist".
You can't win with those loons imo. You can just hope they grow up one day.
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
A something I haven't seen:
Did the club release a publicity notice about the investigation, or did they just quietly cancel the comic's contract? How did this all become public knowledge? If the alleged rapist released it himself, Metzger should have known guilt was presumed and acknowledged. Why? Because if someone published something about me being a rapist (without evidence, or legal conviction) and it cost me my job, I would have an open-shut case of defamation.
Did the club release a publicity notice about the investigation, or did they just quietly cancel the comic's contract? How did this all become public knowledge? If the alleged rapist released it himself, Metzger should have known guilt was presumed and acknowledged. Why? Because if someone published something about me being a rapist (without evidence, or legal conviction) and it cost me my job, I would have an open-shut case of defamation.
the3rd
Pair
Couldn't agree more.
I'm OK with ruining a rapist's life, finances and social standing..., but trying to do that to a third party just to score some brownie points is becoming a tiresome trend. These simpletons are going out of their way to show how much they won't tolerate sexual assault, like there is some huge evil majority out there that does support sexual assault. The irony is that these same people are pandering to, apologizing for, and conferring special protection to the one religion that does condone such sexual behavior and the wholesale subjugation of women.
Maybe this is a topic for another thread, but what do you think made people so knee jerky (for lack of a better term)? The speed at which we are bombarded with info? Dissatisfaction with their own lives being projected on others?
Neither the club nor the accused nor the victim publicized the action taken by the club. Rumor spread nevertheless that the club had banned the accused as a result of at least one accusation and that's what started the ball rolling. People started posting that the guy was a piece of shit rapist and others, Kurt among them, started asking for more information. Then those asking for more information were told they were defending the rapist and then we were off to the dingbat races.
As far as a case for defamation, there are a number of reasons that case is very unlikely to be filed.
Now the American Film Institute has canceled a screening of the upcoming film Birth of a Nation (which received absolutely rave reviews at Sundance where the rights were sold in the largest deal in the history of the festival - $17.5MM) and a Q & A with the writer/director, Nate Parker because there has been more recent aggressive reporting about Nate Parker's 1999 rape charge (for which he was acquitted at trial). Instead, the AFI will hold a "special moderated discussion so we may explore these issues together as artists and audience." Vomit.
This movie looks insanely good (trailer here) and this guy looks to be pretty damn promising and now he has a decent chance of being virtually blacklisted as an artist.
So in the last discussion we were really concerned about whether there had been any investigation - or even whether we had been provided any facts at all - to support the allegation of rape by the artist. Here, there was an investigation and a trial and the guy was acquitted. The complication is that now information is being released and people are concluding on the basis of that information (it's only "evidence" in the colloquial sense since it isn't clearly explained in anything I've read what was and what was not admitted into evidence at trial) that Nate Parker is indeed a rapist despite his acquittal.
A relatively brief summary of the allegations is here on Jezebel and a fuller version in the context of an interview with Nate Parker is here on Deadline.
The basic underlying facts are admitted. When he was in college, Nate and a friend had sex with a woman after they had all been drinking. She claims she was passed out and they claim it was consensual. Nate and his friend were arrested and charged with rape. Nate was acquitted and his friend was found guilty. The alleged victim later withdrew from school, entered counseling, and later filed a lawsuit against the university which was settled with a $17,500 payment by the university to the plaintiff. Twelve years after the alleged rape, she committed suicide.
On the basis of the available information, I can understand believing either account. So do we now restrict alleged rapists from showing their films?
I guess we could easily get into the hypocrisy of the AFI being the censor here given that, as part of a 2011 festival, they chose as their featured screening Carnage by Roman Polanski, a man convicted of drugging and raping a 13 year old girl. But it's too easy to attack the messenger. As Gandhi said many times many ways, it's better to be inconsistent if in doing so one tries to get closer to the truth.
So disregarding possible hypocrisy, at what point do we exclude public figures on the basis of their conduct unrelated to their profession? Does it depend on the severity of the offense or on the certainty with which we can say they committed it? If there were reports but no evidence that Hitchcock gave money to Hitler would we then ban his film from festivals? If Steven Soderbergh admitted to driving drunk and killing a pedestrian would we hope for his movies to be pulled from Netflix? I'm no fan of the slippery slope argument, so that's not where I'm going, but I don't have a handle on why we're supposed to decry the enjoyment of some art on the basis of the artist's life.
This example is particularly well-suited for this question because Nate Parker's movie is quite purposefully named after the 1915 D.W. Griffith silent film The Birth of a Nation. Despite the fact that the film is an explicitly biased propaganda piece in favor of the Ku Klux Klan and depicting blacks as unintelligent and animalistic, it's nearly universally regarded as a groundbreaking artistic achievement (and to bring back the hypocrisy angle just because it's too good not to mention, the 1915 film sits at number 44 in the AFI's top 100 films list).
I can't seem to come to any conclusion but that we should entirely separate art from the artist and allow people to make their own decisions with regard to what they care to watch and what they wish to avoid. So if an entity like the AFI has as its mission statement to advance social justice, they should feel completely comfortable canceling the screening and the Q & A, but if its mission is to advance film as a medium, they are being corrupted by another agenda.
This movie looks insanely good (trailer here) and this guy looks to be pretty damn promising and now he has a decent chance of being virtually blacklisted as an artist.
So in the last discussion we were really concerned about whether there had been any investigation - or even whether we had been provided any facts at all - to support the allegation of rape by the artist. Here, there was an investigation and a trial and the guy was acquitted. The complication is that now information is being released and people are concluding on the basis of that information (it's only "evidence" in the colloquial sense since it isn't clearly explained in anything I've read what was and what was not admitted into evidence at trial) that Nate Parker is indeed a rapist despite his acquittal.
A relatively brief summary of the allegations is here on Jezebel and a fuller version in the context of an interview with Nate Parker is here on Deadline.
The basic underlying facts are admitted. When he was in college, Nate and a friend had sex with a woman after they had all been drinking. She claims she was passed out and they claim it was consensual. Nate and his friend were arrested and charged with rape. Nate was acquitted and his friend was found guilty. The alleged victim later withdrew from school, entered counseling, and later filed a lawsuit against the university which was settled with a $17,500 payment by the university to the plaintiff. Twelve years after the alleged rape, she committed suicide.
On the basis of the available information, I can understand believing either account. So do we now restrict alleged rapists from showing their films?
I guess we could easily get into the hypocrisy of the AFI being the censor here given that, as part of a 2011 festival, they chose as their featured screening Carnage by Roman Polanski, a man convicted of drugging and raping a 13 year old girl. But it's too easy to attack the messenger. As Gandhi said many times many ways, it's better to be inconsistent if in doing so one tries to get closer to the truth.
So disregarding possible hypocrisy, at what point do we exclude public figures on the basis of their conduct unrelated to their profession? Does it depend on the severity of the offense or on the certainty with which we can say they committed it? If there were reports but no evidence that Hitchcock gave money to Hitler would we then ban his film from festivals? If Steven Soderbergh admitted to driving drunk and killing a pedestrian would we hope for his movies to be pulled from Netflix? I'm no fan of the slippery slope argument, so that's not where I'm going, but I don't have a handle on why we're supposed to decry the enjoyment of some art on the basis of the artist's life.
This example is particularly well-suited for this question because Nate Parker's movie is quite purposefully named after the 1915 D.W. Griffith silent film The Birth of a Nation. Despite the fact that the film is an explicitly biased propaganda piece in favor of the Ku Klux Klan and depicting blacks as unintelligent and animalistic, it's nearly universally regarded as a groundbreaking artistic achievement (and to bring back the hypocrisy angle just because it's too good not to mention, the 1915 film sits at number 44 in the AFI's top 100 films list).
I can't seem to come to any conclusion but that we should entirely separate art from the artist and allow people to make their own decisions with regard to what they care to watch and what they wish to avoid. So if an entity like the AFI has as its mission statement to advance social justice, they should feel completely comfortable canceling the screening and the Q & A, but if its mission is to advance film as a medium, they are being corrupted by another agenda.
Psypher1000
Straight Flush
I remember when I first read about colleges having "safe spaces", and I remember the feeling of my face contorting into a question mark as the, "What the fuck are you thinking!?" question ran through my mind. I'm 100% okay with clubs & such employing "safe space" rationale in their bylaws, regardless of how generally silly and intellectually harmful I think it is, but the idea that a college or university would offer safe spaces is, frankly, disgusting & does a disservice to their students & the world around them.
bergs
Royal Flush
Of all the places to have trigger warnings and safe spaces, college is the last place I'd expect them. More than the education you receive, college opens you up to new ideas, new ways of thinking, new concepts, etc.
Preventing people from being able to experience this turns college into something you can get via an online university.
Preventing people from being able to experience this turns college into something you can get via an online university.
Chicken Rob
Full House
I've been blissfully unaware of trigger warnings and safe spaces until just a few months ago. Where besides colleges do these things even exist?
Psypher1000
Straight Flush
Trigger warnings are somewhat common in a lot of blogs, podcasts, and other social/new media. The only other place I've heard of advertising itself as a "safe space" is a hobby game store; in general, non-CCG/TCG hobby gaming is very inclusive and carebear-ish.
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
The battered and abused woman's shelters counts as safe spaces.
When I was in college at Auburn (in Alabama for the unfamiliar) in the late 90s, there was a movement among the faculty to use a small "safe space" sign on their office door to indicate to gay and lesbian students that they were allies at a time when it was believed by most of the student body that the morality of homosexuality was debatable. So in that context and limited to the offices of faculty without causing any change to the curriculum, I was and am all for such an indication of a "safe space".
The risk comes when the academy as a whole decides that its curricula should be subject to approval for any kind of agenda other than discussion of the area of study and when students are given alternative assignments on the basis of what subjects might "trigger" them. Then people are allowed to move along in their cocoons. There were plenty of people on the Philosophy department who entered college convinced that Jesus was their personal savior and I promise those classrooms were not "safe spaces" protecting against criticism of that belief.
The risk comes when the academy as a whole decides that its curricula should be subject to approval for any kind of agenda other than discussion of the area of study and when students are given alternative assignments on the basis of what subjects might "trigger" them. Then people are allowed to move along in their cocoons. There were plenty of people on the Philosophy department who entered college convinced that Jesus was their personal savior and I promise those classrooms were not "safe spaces" protecting against criticism of that belief.
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.
Similar threads
