20/09/2020 at 1:16 pm #93375williamtheboldParticipant
I see Harvey Weinstein is still being shunned and shamed.
I thought the ‘amish’ had cornered the market on that approach?
I saw this news item.
Harvey Weinstein: Jailed movie producer stripped of honorary CBE.
This is so illogical, I was shocked by the absurdity of it.
The way ‘shun and shame’ is being used against Harvey makes me think that Mr Ammann’s influence has spread much further than he thought it would?
I just hope Harvey doesn’t want the CBE anyway.
People tend to forget that we all live several different lives.
Broadly speaking, these are a private life and a public life, with each sub-divided in to various other ‘lives’.
For example, one’s public life can include a working life and a social life.
A private life will usually include a very personal relationship, and also interaction with a group of acquaintances.
These ‘lives’ are, generally, best kept separate.
Better to focus on just one thing at a time, and do that well?
Unfortunately, Mr Weinstein allowed instinctive behaviour, perhaps suited only to a very personal area in his life, to become part of his working life.
Understandably, this was harmful and demeaning to some of those around him.
Society quite rightly called a halt.
He was, and is, being censured severely for his mistake.
But because some of his behaviour is considered reprehensible doesn’t mean all of it is.
To say that bad behaviour in one area of his life means that everything else he has done is somehow ‘tainted’, is an attitude so superbly sub-intelligent that it almost defies description.
With what are these people thinking?
It is certainly not with a logical mind.
They are exhibiting instinctive behaviour which is just as bad and unreasonable as the behaviour attributed to Harvey.
Don’t they know any better?
Or to paraphrase a very old man I knew: ‘don’t they have anything better to do.’
(thank you don!)
Of course Harvey’s artistic talent should still be celebrated!
Are we going to destroy all copies of any movies with which he was associated?
That idea is so ridiculous it is not worth more than a passing thought.
If he earned an award because of his talent, that award should be inviolable.
It should remain intact.
Not be plucked away by his mean spirited peers!
One even wonders if they are able to think in any constructive way?
By contrast, Mr Weinstein is an intelligent man.
He has drive, initiative, and vision.
Few readers would have the necessary qualities to emulate his artistic work.
If the mean-spiritedness we are seeing is an indication of the calibre of those in control of the world, I think our cause is lost.
Time to sweep them all out, and replace them with men and women who can think in a more logical way?
Riding on the back of truth and logic is the only way we are likely to travel safely in to the future.
We need our ‘leaders’ to show they have the ability for clear and accurate thinking, right now!
But the treatment of Harvey is certainly no indication of that!14/10/2020 at 1:51 pm #93480tivolidreamerParticipant
Its always a very tricky issue.
I think I know where you are coming from.
Hw deserves all he gets however I realise thats not what you mean.
I often wonder if we should forget the whole body of work produced by Rolf Harris.
Today no radio station would darenplay TIE ME KANGAROO DOWN or any of the songs from our childhood.
I find it rather over the top.18/10/2020 at 1:32 pm #93487Dusty WAParticipant
Isn’t everything over the top these days Tiv, black lives matter ,taking the knee and other new things that seem to blow up every week and then die down,and some so weird you would be forgiven for thinking they came out of a home for the bewildered20/10/2020 at 1:35 pm #93492williamtheboldParticipant
This shows that someone who offends severely against public morals, is yet able to produce something of exceptional value to his fellow man.
And in this case, that fact is recognised, and even defended.
This is another example of why we shouldn’t deride the artistic output of persons such as Rolf Harris.
Or Harvey Weinstein.
There can be exceptions of course, when someone’s (public) artistic presence might be a stark reminder, to a large number of persons, of attendant pain and suffering.
Then perhaps the art could be reserved for private appraisal only.
But never totally obliterated.
Were it not art, but something more notable, would it be different?
Had someone perhaps been instrumental in saving a life in a public emergency, but also run dramatically ‘foul of the law’ in his private life, would you then try to ‘undo’ his public effort, and ‘unsave’ the life of that person?
Come on now. Let’s get real here.
Let’s get things in to honest perspective.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.