What?
This story is another blip in the grand scheme of things. He revealed his character publicly, I’m allowed to form an opinion just like you.
So we’re back to victim blaming and unvirtuous women again. Okay.
19 Likes
Black and white, either or, with us or against us. There’s way too much emotion involved for most folks to be rational yet. Arguments shoved into that mode will always dissolve to a stalemate. Bickering, not reason.
1 Like
Yes, us emotional women, how dare we have emotions and be asked to be treated as equals to you rational logical men. /s
17 Likes
All I have to say right now is this:
2 Likes
It’s not a gender thing; it’s a behavioral science thing.
10 Likes
Gonna have to unpack that one because I honestly can’t infer much from that statement alone.
Edit:
And so much to infer about you from this statement because you didn’t make any effort to unpack it.
2 Likes
Because violence is fine when you don’t like what someone says
I disagree. We are being asked, directly and less so, to throw Gilliam on the trash heap because he said something awful.
Also, the lack of female protagonists in Gilliam’s work tends to be for a reason, a lot of it is autobiographical.
Mr. Beschizza comes off as reactionary and hyperbolic in his response to Gilliam’s interview. There is a special place in hell for sexual abusers, rapists, and their enablers. I understand the emotion, but lack of mindful restraint and too quick condemnation dilutes the power of #metoo and #itstopsnow.
If Gilliam had perpetrated sexual assault himself, I’d no longer be interested in the auteur, but the films would still have relevance. The films are not solely the work of Gilliam.
Or perhaps I’m blinded by my love for Gilliam’s work.
2 Likes
I’m guessing they love you at Breitbart.
6 Likes
Hmm, looking back, the point would be better made without that sentence. To wit: “Black and white, either or, with us or against us. Arguments shoved into that mode will always dissolve to a stalemate. Bickering, not reason.”
The sentence you quote means just what it says, nothing too deep. The more emotional people are about a topic the more likely they are driven by bias than reason. It’s natural, human behavior.
What you infer is all on you.
1 Like
Terry needs to STFU about this one. I love his work but someone really need to stuff a sock in his mouth. 
5 Likes
Sound argumentative inference relies on articulate statements. Based on what you’ve written, I can only infer that you think there is a threshold of emotion beyond which it becomes counterproductive to rational thought.
What remains unarticulated by your statement are many things that cannot be inferred:
- What does this person (you) mean by ‘rational thought’?
- Does this person view emotion as being inherently antagonistic to such thought? Conditionally synergistic? In general, what does this person view as the relationship between the two?
- What emotions? Under what conditions?
- Are there any exempting conditions?
What I can infer is very limited because you haven’t articulated your views. And that is very much on you.
11 Likes
Well, we can ponder some analagous situations in the recent news.
4 Likes
You don’t know, but you are implying I do have “issues”?
You seem not to be interested in a conversation.
And you go further than that:
Dear @greenberger, if you think I am in favour of mob mentality, you clearly haven’t been around on this forum much. If you think insulting me is going to win you any favourable reputation on this forum, you are also not really in tune with this forums general tone, or rules.
If you want to challenge my view what the unsaid part, this rhetorical method in Gilliam’s interview means for many people in the context of current debates about sexual harassment, please do. But try to make a coherent argument, FFS. Do try to make a point.
You are doing what you yourselve criticise, and you don’t seem to notice.
I assume you are willing to try change this. But you are not exactly advocating in this direction.
I agree, and I have done nothing of the sort. I like many of his films and other works, and I can distinguish the work from the creator, and the person from what he said and importantly didn’t say. I can disagree with him, and I spelled out what a lot of people did read into the unsaid. If you re-read what I wrote, you might find out.
Good day to thee.
No, there is not. You know the famous line L’enfer, c’est les autres? Pretty much the people you mentioned. Back then. Here and now. But if we can change, maybe not in the future.
6 Likes
yet, somehow, it’s women who are always the emotional ones.
14 Likes
Please show me where anyone said that, as opposed to saying that they’ll not be patronizing his work anymore.
Most people here are more concerned about what he said. You don’t have to give a shit about it and continue to enjoy his work. Others decided that his statements crossed a line.
9 Likes
You think so? I don’t. I think the phenomenon occurs in everyone.
1 Like
Yet it’s almost always how women who are taking on politically active roles are described. Funny that.
13 Likes
This is rapid downgrade from “one of my favourite film makers” to “maker of some of my favourite films.”
I probably would have really liked his next movie, too.
19 Likes
