Son, I am very disappointed in you.
I’m sorry dad - but if you haven’t proven it in court I won’t go up to my room, you still have to come to the school play - and they’ll be no change in my allowance.
9 Likes
Was Frank her poppa?
3 Likes
No, the court case was dropped because making Dylan relive all that shit on the stand would’ve done even more psychological damage.
5 Likes
I think this is different from Weinstein. For one thing, with Weinstein, nobody is denying that he did what he is accused of, whereas in Allen’s case, Moses Farrow has said that Mia Farrow created an atmosphere of fear and hatred towards Allen in their household, was physically and emotionally abusive, brainwashed him, and coached his sister to accuse Allen. So I think there is at least some doubt as to Allen’s guilt whereas with Weinstein there is no doubt.
This line is not actually spoken by Allen’s character, it is spoken by an elderly priest, referred to as “Your grubbiness”.
1 Like
I think the reason Allen still gets away with is is simple: public opinion. Many people don’t want to see him as a sexual offender. To them, Allen is either the friendly, goofy character from the 70’s or the psychologically awkward guy from the 80’s and later on.
The thing here is that when we observe the whole dynamic of when people get away with these crimes or not, it has a lot to do with public pressure. Weinstein was never an appealing figure to start with, so of course the public is against him and justice has to be served.
What we see here is still a society where certain charges are only being raised on a larger scale under massive public pressure, which means that the institutions have not yet adapted to the current moral standards.
2 Likes
21 is a generous estimate for when Farrow found out about it, not when the relationship began. Per Wikipedia, citing Vanity Fair:
Previn’s true age and date of birth are unknown, but are estimated based on a bone scan; her passport indicates a date of birth of October 8, 1970.
Previn’s intimate relationship with Woody Allen began in the late 1980s
Their affair came to light when Farrow allegedly discovered Allen’s nude Polaroid photographs of Previn in late 1991 or early 1992
Quite likely two years younger, and it had been going on for that point for a year or two more?
6 Likes
Sick pieces of shit like Polanski only get away with their crimes because other sick pieces of shit like Bernard-Henri Lévy shield and enable them.
6 Likes
I know this might blow some minds, but children can have two abusive parents.
You distrust his accuser because you dislike her mother?
5 Likes
Pedophile jokes are funny? [ETA for spelling dumbness]
7 Likes
Jokes about anything under the sun can be funny. But obviously, some subjects demand more talent than others.
5 Likes
I guess for me, it depends on if it’s punching up or down… I’m all for black humor, properly deployed. In this case, not so much.
10 Likes
My misread I thought you were referring to Woody Allen
I thought we’re referring to a joke that hasn’t been made. In which case, I’m reserving my judgement.
But yeah, folks who punch down can totally fuck right off.
7 Likes
I feel black humor is essentially existential. It’s a cackle in the face of our angst and our sorrows. When you share this sense of humor with another, indulging in it is a shared act of compassion.
Sometimes the weight of these sorrows or fears is too great for us to draw enough air in to laugh. When we sense that others are feeling this degree of weight, even if they share that sense of humor, we hold back out of compassion.
Jokes whose fulcrum is not the inevitable suffering of simply being alive but rather the sufferings imposed by human wills of neglect, hatred, and/or evil–jokes about spousal abuse, rape, pedophilia, genocide–are not ‘black humor’. They are not ‘poor taste’. They’re a tacit dismissal of the value of a human being.
9 Likes
There seems to be some willingness to fall back on the kind of mob justice that used to prevail earlier in the society but I don’t really see a point going back to it. Accusations of laws being broken should be taken to a court of law and dealt with there. If they cannot be proven in court, then there should not be any additional Ad hoc court anywhere that distributes random, extrajudicial punishments, however tempting that might be to those who think the courts didn’t get it “right”.
Ms Farrow here seems to think that extrajudicial lifetime punishments should be handed out outside courtrooms. It’s not an opinion I have any desire to support. But if she wants to hand out such punishments herself, the first to be punished should be her mother who mercilessly turned her into a tool in her own divorce proceedings and blurred the line between truth and her bitterness so that they cannot be separated from each other any more. As long as she lets her mother walk away free from that, I don’t have much sympathy to share.
Thanks for your input, person who joined 35 minutes ago and has made no other comments.
6 Likes
I indeed commented on this forum for the first time now, irritated to no end by the rampant foolishness prevailing here. And thanks for trying to dismiss my comment by attempting to dismiss me - always the best sign I posted the right stuff.
Prosecutors may not decide to press charges. Courts sometimes get it wrong, juries are not always given the right information or may not convict despite being given sufficient proof of the crime. There are also statutes of limitations that may not allow formal charges to be brought. That’s why sometimes people declared not guilty are brought to civil courts and made pay for their crimes that way, the standard of proof is different. And the standard of proof for public scorn is different again, and there are no statute of limitations for it.
6 Likes
I agree with your sentiment, but “innocent until proven guilty” is a fundamental safety mechanism that composes a significant element in the mesh that captures us humans before we descend into abstracted chaos and wild west retribution.
It stops my neighbour accusing me of stealing his wallet over a petty slight.
It is complex, and difficult, to prosecute. It doesn’t always work.
Personally, I agree that Allen should come under significant scrutiny and lose whatever protective shields have prevented criminal penalties, if they are warranted - because, no matter the explosiveness if the issue, it is vital we do not resort to mob rule.
To be clear, I am raising two young girls into this world. I am revolted at Uber, Weinstein, the lot. I don’t care about Woody Allen’s freedom, and wish upon him every awfulness, should everything I’ve read in the media about hom be true; and equally, upon the apparently maggot-ridden system that has protected him.
I have seen this system at work, and viewed the destructive impacts on friends, family, and partners. In no way do I dispute the underlying legitimacy of the reporting on the situation. I believe it. It all rings true.
But to protect myself, and my neighbour, from facile and malicious accusation and unjust retribution, I cannot stay silent while any tampering is perfomed on that fundamental doctrine.
Be clear: I am separating your general commentary, the white of that, from the yolk of what I feel is an erosion of that doctrine. These are moments when situations can spiral out of control.
The legal system is obviously open to abuse and bias. I would not be surprised to see vengeance enacted on people. But if, for instance, an alleged perpetrator is murdered, the murderer must be passed through that legal system.
So your comment both entertained and saddened me. There it is.
1 Like
