Should We Separate The Work From The Man? | Page 2 | Vital Football

Should We Separate The Work From The Man?

Stephen Jay Hawkings said:
I think it depends on the severity of the "crime".

If JFK and Einstein were womanizers, I couldn't give a shit. If they were abusers and rapists that would be different.

I was a big fan of Louis C.K before the #metoo movement, and I'm still a big fan, even listened to his first set since the scandal, and laughed my arse off. Does he have weird sexual kinks? Yes. Do I care? No. He didn't harm anyone, sorry #metooers.

Bill Cosby on the other hand....
Click to expand...

I think that's fair. Louis wasn't charged with anything but was convicted on Twitter. Bill, on the other hand, is rightfully behind bars.

Still, where do you draw the line?

Personally, I'm pretty liberal. Drugs, prostitution, that kind of thing aren't for me but each to his own.
 
Last edited:
Suppose the line comes when someone has done harm to others?

Some lived in a non politically correct world, not correcting the era they grew up in, but they have to be given a bit more leeway surely than those brought up with a bit more social responsibility?
 
If someone turns out to be a rapist (convicted), a child abuser, murderer, or admitted racist, then I would find it very hard to appreciate their work anymore, whether music, film, sport, politics etc.

But if someone holds some non-liberal views, is a bit of a sleazebag, or retweets Alex Jones, I couldn't care less. Nobody is perfect.

But the "Woke Gestapo" are relentless in trying to destroy people. John Wayne was trending on Twitter a few weeks ago because he used a homophobic slur in some Playboy interview in the 50's. My grandad would have used the same word. I'm amazed Wayne wasn't dug up and made apologise.

More recently The Guardian went after Bill Hicks, asking a bunch of young "comics" what they thought of him, the headline being "Bill Hicks was a bit misogynist". That was the last straw for me. It's war now.
 
Loops back to another thread we had last week? about conviction now based on rumour rather than proof and the presumption of guilt rather than innocence because you get a hashtag as a jury these days.

There also seems to be little perspective on the alleged severity as the standard reaction now is 'cut his balls off' irrespective of whether it's a rape allegation or they simply stole a Mars bar when they were 16.

It actually demeans the real search for truth and justice.
 
I merged the MJ thread into this one as it is basically about the same kind of subject. Just keeps things tidier if that's ok.
 
Stephen Jay Hawkings said:
If someone turns out to be a rapist (convicted), a child abuser, murderer, or admitted racist, then I would find it very hard to appreciate their work anymore, whether music, film, sport, politics etc.

But if someone holds some non-liberal views, is a bit of a sleazebag, or retweets Alex Jones, I couldn't care less. Nobody is perfect.

But the "Woke Gestapo" are relentless in trying to destroy people. John Wayne was trending on Twitter a few weeks ago because he used a homophobic slur in some Playboy interview in the 50's. My grandad would have used the same word. I'm amazed Wayne wasn't dug up and made apologise.

More recently The Guardian went after Bill Hicks, asking a bunch of young "comics" what they thought of him, the headline being "Bill Hicks was a bit misogynist". That was the last straw for me. It's war now.
Click to expand...

I was listening to Blindboy earlier today talking about using gay as a derogatory term when he was a teenager. I think he's in his mid-twenties. We certainly did when I was in school but that's more than 20 years ago now.
 
Ghandi is alleged to have slept naked with young girls to 'test his celibacy'. There is no accusation that he had his way with them but it would certainly fall foul of the MeToo brigade. Even if he did, would it change what he did for India?
 
BodyButter said:
Ghandi is alleged to have slept naked with young girls to 'test his celibacy'. There is no accusation that he had his way with them but it would certainly fall foul of the MeToo brigade. Even if he did, would it change what he did for India?
Click to expand...

How young were these girls, and were they there against their will? I suppose that is the question.

It wouldn't change what he did for India, but if it wasn't all above board, it would certainly tarnish (to say the least) his reputation. It still comes down to abuse of power and position for me (not Gandhi as you say - no proof of wrong-doing).
 
BodyButter said:
I was listening to Blindboy earlier today talking about using gay as a derogatory term when he was a teenager. I think he's in his mid-twenties. We certainly did when I was in school but that's more than 20 years ago now.
Click to expand...

So did we, still do! But never meant about homosexuals, just things that are "gay", lol. Is that what he meant?

I remember Bill Burr talking about using the word "faggot", and it's kind of the same thing. We grow up with these words and use them and don't really know what they mean until later in life.
 
Stephen Jay Hawkings said:
I think it depends on the severity of the "crime".

If JFK and Einstein were womanizers, I couldn't give a shit. If they were abusers and rapists that would be different.

I was a big fan of Louis C.K before the #metoo movement, and I'm still a big fan, even listened to his first set since the scandal, and laughed my arse off. Does he have weird sexual kinks? Yes. Do I care? No. He didn't harm anyone, sorry #metooers.

Bill Cosby on the other hand....
Click to expand...

Have to agree re womanising etc. It's a horrible thing to do but it's not sexual abuse type stuff. Being a woman it doesn't amuse me but it ends there.

I couldn't give too monkeys about Churchills alcoholism either, for obvious reasons. Not that I don't care about what he did. However it's not a #metoo situation.

Don't know if I know the Louis case so not commenting on that. I probably do know it, however there are so many these days I have lost tracks.

I am sure the majority of us of a certain age can look back and think of things we once said, we would cringe at now and wouldn't want it to see the light of day. That was what my Dr said to me recently when we had a brief Brexit convo
 
Stephen Jay Hawkings said:
Don't think I'm gonna watch this, since he's not around to defend himself.

Also wasn't he chemically castrated as a youngster by his father? He hardly had much sex drive.
Click to expand...
No evidence apparently that he was castrated only the word of the disgraced doctor who killed Jackson.
 
kefkat said:
Have to agree re womanising etc. It's a horrible thing to do but it's not sexual abuse type stuff. Being a woman it doesn't amuse me but it ends there.

I couldn't give too monkeys about Churchills alcoholism either, for obvious reasons. Not that I don't care about what he did. However it's not a #metoo situation.

Don't know if I know the Louis case so not commenting on that. I probably do know it, however there are so many these days I have lost tracks.

I am sure the majority of us of a certain age can look back and think of things we once said, we would cringe at now and wouldn't want it to see the light of day. That was what my Dr said to me recently when we had a brief Brexit convo
Click to expand...

Indeed, bad behaviour is bad behaviour, we've all done stuff we're not proud of.

Remember that old saying "Everyone deserves a second chance"? When did that stop being a thing? These days people are determined to destroy a persons career over smacking a woman's arse back in 1992 or tweeting something offensive 7 years ago.

The intolerance of this social justice movement is astounding.
 
Yup, the world should absolutely move with the times and people need to move with it, but there has to be degrees to the outrage.

An accusation isn't proof and there should always be an investigation.

But Rudd's cock up today is a world apart from the real issues yet it's headline news.

Somebody selling a film/book has to be looked on differently from someone chasing justice.

We've been here before - Kavanagh recently - Blasey was credible, the less credible going for the press pay rightly got shot down. There were issues with some of Harris' complainants, but they didn't take away from the credible. There were issues with some of Cosby's complainants, but it didn't take away from the credible.

The credible with Jackson rubbish the claims, admit he was weird (as said previously I'd love to know a proper determination on his real mental age), the shock jocks are out for cash - changing their own story but have been incredibly well primed by a PR specialist for statements that create headlines.

Louis CK, the bloke who faced calls for refunds on his tour in the UK based purely on allegations and so on.

Christ, even in fairness, Trump and R Kelly - the genuine claims have gone to court - how many are trying to sell a book? I'll side with those going to court every day of the week.

Metoo has been fantastic and much needed, but like all things, it now needs to find its own balance so it doesn't disappear up its own arse. Criminalising guilt based on accusation and no proof and leading with the 'buy my book' cause don't forget there's no smoke without fire has to end.

If it doesn't, the charlatans out there will damage those who deserve justice and I know it doesn't apply to Jacko given this thread, but I fear there will be a massive backlash in favour of 'asking for it'.

And yes, whatever the truth re Chandler and these chaps - (the only bit of the Doc I watched was 'coming out to the mother' and that told me all I needed to know about the claims and their reasoning) all of the parents should be taking a close look in the mirror.
 
Wurzel said:
No evidence apparently that he was castrated only the word of the disgraced doctor who killed Jackson.
Click to expand...
Chemical castration is an on going process unless I've missed something?

Wouldn't explain the numerous childish behaviour stories in later life either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.