!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Wahlberg was arrested, charged, and served time (albeit a very little), also his main offense occurred in 1988. Spacey and Weinstein were continuing to offend, and along with Cosby were serial offenders.
So you have a Wahlberg who was a piece of shit as a youth and then (as far as we know) corrected himself and remained hate-crime/assault free for going on nearly 40 years now vs rapists who were active until they were publicly outed.
[Johnny Trinh] said he lost the eye in a 1975 grenade explosion while he was with the South Vietnamese army.
During the assault in Boston, Wahlberg punched Trinh in the eye after first hitting another Vietnamese man in the head with a large stick and hurling racial slurs.
“He was young and reckless but I forgive him now,” said Trinh, who did not know his assailant wound up a famous movie star. “Everyone deserves another chance.”
“I would like to see him get a pardon. He should not have the crime hanging over him any longer.”
There's an appreciable difference between beating up a guy and sexually assaulting many multiple people for decades.
Both are bad, but one is badderer.
Is beating up a guy baddery?
Baddery & a salt.
When Wahlberg assaulted people when he as 15 and 16 years old. That doesn't excuse the behavior, but 15/16 year olds aren't adults with fully formed brains. Wahlberg also went to the police and claimed responsibility for the attack. He then plead guilty in court and served time. It still bothers me how racially motivated it was and for that I would personally always have disdain for Wahlberg.
Cosby was 28 years old for his first time of rape allegations. There would be more than a dozen other women that came forward with reports. The most recent was Feb of 2000 when Cosby was then 63 years old. Cosby was a fully formed adult doing these horrible acts to women he had power over, and he used that power to abuse them.
Spacy and Weinstein also did their horrible acts as fully formed adults and had a repeated pattern of doing them again and again to people they had power over.
Cosby kept doing it, even after it had come to light, and he had been sued multiple times. I read an account by a guy whose job it was to take a bag of cash once a month, and distribute cash payments to Cosby's victims around town. Cosby's downfall was a huge disappointment for me. I had been a huge fan as a kid, buying his albums, and watching his shows.
And Weinstein was another true monster, and so were all those who knew what he was doing, and didn't do anything about it. One female agent said she refused to send female actresses to Weinstein auditions unless it came with a script, and was in a room with multiple people. She refused to send actresses to "private" auditions. But she didn't call the cops, either.
Polanski admitted raping a child and still worked without any issues for decades. Top actors didn't see any issues in working with him and he even won an Oscar. Why? I have no idea.
People totally ignored all the creepy things Micheal Jackson did because his songs were so good.
Woody Allen had to do some explaining but wasn't canceled.
Chris Brown is still getting to the top of Billboards 200.
It's not a simple "guilty/not-guilty" issue. It's a mix of how much money you have, how much money you can still make (how loyal is your fan base and what do they care about) and how good PR team do you have.
Polanski had plenty of issues, including that he could never come to America, which is a liability when you are trying to make movies within the Hollywood system. He found people to work with, but we don't hear about all those that refused to work with him, and I'm sure there were plenty. He managed to have a decent career, but to say he had no issues at all simply isn't accurate.
Michael Jackson's allegations are tough. I've been a big fan all my life, I seen all the allegations and evidence, and I'm still on the fence.
Woody Allen is definitely a weird guy, but I looked into those allegations, too, and there are a lot of problems with them. Family dynamics can be complicated, dramatic, and toxic, and that could explain this. Woody being such a bizarre character makes it easy for others to believe bad stuff. Or maybe it's true. Without a court case, evidence, witnesses, etc., it's impossible to know.
Chris Brown's guilt as a serious abuser is proven. Perhaps his continued popularity is due to his reputation. Even Domestic Abusers need tunes, and he's their man.
Did you see the MJ documentary where the kid (now adult) and his family came forward to tell what happened?
Even if you thought the info about MJ masturbating to the kid bent over is fake for some reason, the provable logistics are consistent with a grooming pedophile.
Flatter the kid, promise him fame, same with family. Pay for their trips to be with you on tour. Book kid into same room as MJ, but book parents on a different floor or other end of building. Etc
Yeah, I know, but I also know that at least some of the allegations really looked suspicious, too. I wrestle with it to this day. It's hard to see your heros fall. I was a huge fan, my entire life.
I mean it's like Bill Cosby who played the Wholesome dad, and did Jello Pudding Pop commercials, then revealed he's a young girl drug and rape guy. It sucks but people can be monsters beyond the facade. Fame gives a privilidge that seems a lot of people take advantage of.
He managed to have a decent career
Dude, he won an Oscar in 2003. Best Director. Calling this "decent" career is extremely disingenuous. He worked with Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, Ewan McGregor and Johnny Depp. All at the top of their careers, very much able to decide who they want to work with and they worked with him. He is still well respected in Poland and France and many different governments protected him from prosecution. When US tried to detain him Polish government ignored the laws to shield him.
With Woody Allen I'm taking about him marrying his step daughter, not the unconfirmed allegations.
Yeah, he won an Oscar, and it was incredibly controversial, and it was one of the things that started the conversation that eventually led to the Me Too movement. For the first time, Hollywood women let their outrage be seen and heard, and that kind of mysogyny in Hollywood began to meet resistance.
Again, I would not say that Polanski has had "no issues" in his career. I don't see Speilberg or Scorcese having to defend 50+ year old scandals literally every time their names are mentioned.
Me Too movement started after Harvey Weinstein scandal, over a decade after Polanski got his Oscar. I don't remember any controversies around The Pianist. The wiki doesn't mention anything. It got great reviews and got a lot of awards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accolades_received_by_The_Pianist
You're either making stuff up now or just misremembering it. Polanski is an admitted rapist. Of course he didn't have same career as Spielberg or Scorsese but he wasn't a pariah either. He worked all his life and was well respected in the industry. I don't know, maybe you just want to believe that Polanski faced some consequences. He didn't. He wasn't punished. There was no justice there. He raped a child and lived a happy life after that.
An Oscar Out Of Reach For Polanski
Polanski's nomination had triggered a spirited debate over whether it was appropriate to separate a person's misdeeds from his art and award Hollywood's highest filmmaking honor to someone facing a still-unresolved criminal case.
In 2017, he was forced to quit the jury for the French equivalent of the Oscars, and in 2018 he was expelled from the American Academy as well.
So there WAS much controversy about his Oscar, it did put Hollywood under a microscope leading to MeToo, and eventually led to expulsions, so he certainly did see major repercussions from his unresolved criminal behavior.
And it simply cannot be argued that it has indelibly stained his legacy.
I'm not making stuff up, or misremembering it, you are. And let this be a lesson in why your teachers don't like to accept Wikipedia as a solid source.
This article only quotes District Attorney spokeswoman saying that he still fugitive. It doesn't mention anyone actually opposing the award. According to the article even the victim didn't oppose it. Saying that this placed Hollywood under microscope and lead to MeToo a decade later is pure fabrication on your part.
There's really nothing to discuss here further. You're convinced that Polanski could have been one of the greatest directors in Hollywood but because of the rape he's only a great director. In you're opinion that means he was punished.
I believe that the fact that he had a very successful career at all shows that he was mostly forgiven by the industry and the public.
It's a matter of perspective, we're not going to agree here.
The only QUOTE in the article was the DA, but I will REPEAT the passage I quoted in my previous post:
Polanski's nomination had triggered a spirited debate over whether it was appropriate to separate a person's misdeeds from his art and award Hollywood's highest filmmaking honor to someone facing a still-unresolved criminal case.
That is pre-MAGA CBS News making that claim that there was a "spirited debate," and you are simply dismissing that because they don't quote or name every person involved in that debate? Are you claiming that CBS News just made that up?
Because my recollection, which includes multiple conversations about this with my son who is a cinephile, with one degree in film, and getting another, is very different. I'm not an expert, but he definitely is, and he will tell you that Polanski's career definitely suffered, and his legacy will definitely be badly compromised.
I've offered sources that support my position, but you haven't offered any evidence of your position, other than he was given a very controversial Oscar. You haven't offered a single source that reinforced your claim that Polanski's career has been untouched by his sexually criminal past.
You haven’t offered a single source that reinforced your claim that Polanski’s career has been untouched by his sexually criminal past.
Because I didn't claim it was "untouched". Of course it was. He had to hide in Europe and was somehow controversial. As I explained in the previous comment, you think that what happened to him was adequate punishment for raping a child and I don't. This is were we disagree. I think that a different person, even different celebrity, would end in prison and have trouble working in the industry at all. You think that... I don't really know. That Polanski wasn't protected by his fame? That any other person would also face similar troubles and continue their careers, get awards, be rich? Because..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Glitter - prison
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Collins - In 2014, his career came to an end after he confessed to sexual abuse against multiple minors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Salva - Coppola's protégé. Prison, hiatus and protests over his later movies
No to mention Me Too that completely ended careers of many people. Yes, Polanski raped that girl in the 80s but to this day he's well respected and defended by many people. In my opinion he got away with it. That was my whole point. Some people do get away with terrible crimes, other get cancelled over minor things. Winona Ryder had serious issues working because of shoplifting...
I know people who are plugged into film studies, academia, etc., and there is definitely a bias against him, and his legacy will be stained. You can point to as many stars as you want, but you will never know how many turned him down.
She wasn't his step-daughter. He wasn't married to Mia Farrow, and she wasn't a biological daughter to Mia, either. Still gross, but technically, y'know?
I'm just saying that many directors would kill to have a career like him and he admitted to rape. Could he achieve more if he didn't rape a child and was allowed entry into US? Maybe but it's really hard to argue he was punished by the industry.
Both him and Woddy simply show that some people can get away with things others can't. Depends on the factors I mentioned.
There is no doubt that his fame and talent bought him a LOT of sanctuary, but it definitely indelibly stained his legacy. We'll never know how much more he could have achieved, but looking back, he would have been better off serving the couple of years in jail, and moved on with his life. He'd still have that old stain, but it would be mostly forgiven as a youthful slip, blame it on drugs, and the times, and it would be overlooked for the most part. But he would have been welcomed back to Hollywood, and would have have had full access to the Hollywood system.
The fact that you have no scale on how to rank those things is very concerning. Like, wow. You actually do not see the difference between an accident, violence, and rape? Just wow.
i think beating someone up is less vile and disgusting than the other crimes listed
It's a lot more than just beating someone up. Mark has committed numerous hate crimes.
His last incident was almost 25 years ago from the looks of it. And he's since apologised for his actions, sincerely enough for the victim to forgive him. At what point does somebody get away from the mistakes of their past?
Besides all the other things people listed, in law we appreciate that sexual violence is kind of worse than just physical violence, and if there's power dynamics at play and psychological dependency, it gets even more morally apprehensive.
What I'm saying even just the sexual nature makes it worse for me, but of course there's more.
That said, I did not know about what Mark Wahlberg did, and obviously not great.
I think sex crimes are much more character defining. Personally, I dont think there are many who push themselves toward violence and murder. Sure there are those okay with violence and psychos that kill for pleasure but nowhere near the level of sex crimes.
I also think that violent people can be rehabilitated whereas sexual deviants can only hide from themselves.
I dont think a single instance 40 years ago is enough to hold someone to account today but if it were sexual I would not believe it were a single instance.
Murder has a very specific legal definition. That is not what Matthew Broderick did.
It is wild what celebrity scandals do and do not stick!