this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
300 points (93.6% liked)
Today I Learned
17792 readers
4 users here now
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post 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.
Posts and comments 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 non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally 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.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
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.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I was called into this thread to give my opinion as a bona fide and official Jew. I will say this about Roald Dahl- yes, he was an antisemite. But I still grew up with his books. Even my dad, who was incredibly sensitive to antisemitism and definitely knew about Dahl could not deny that he was an amazing writer both of children's books and macabre adult fiction. I remember specifically that he gave me The Twits when I was a kid, while at my also very sensitive to antisemitism grandparents' house. I don't remember others he gave me, but I really enjoyed that one, so I remember it.
I don't know, I guess we all have the occasional intentional blind spot for these things. Sometimes people are just so talented that you have to overlook their flaws. Of course, some flaws can't be overlooked. I won't watch a Woody Allen film anymore. I won't watch the work of a pedophile.
But Roald Dahl's racism was one where didn't actually do anything to hurt Jews. As the quote says, he wasn't even pro-Hitler. So I can get past it due to his talent. He was not the real danger to my ancestors in his lifetime and he was not responsible for a genocide. On top of that, he didn't extend his bigotry to any of his novels that I ever read.
You can't say as much for H. G. Wells, who had a virulently antisemitic moment in War of the Worlds. It's considered a classic these days. And what about beloved Charles Dickens' novel Oliver Twist? I would bet that the character of Fagin caused a lot more issues with British Jews than anything Roald Dahl said or did considering that novel was and is so popular that 19 films based on it have been made, including one based on a hit Broadway musical.
Piece of shit rapist Roman Polanski made a straight remake as recently as 2005 (and that's just weird because he's Jewish). It did really well at the box office and got a lot of positive reviews.
Imagine if a book with a character that was a disgusting caricature of a black person in it who is also one of the villains of the book and they were still making movies about it within our lifetime.
Edit: Also re Oliver Twist, I hear that in the version Alec Guinness is in, he's an especially antisemitic Fagin, but I'm going to choose to never watch it and pretend that isn't true because that man was amazing. Never mind Star Wars, ever see Kind Hearts and Coronets? He plays 8 members of the same family- believably- including a woman.
Jonathan Pryce received a fair bit of criticism in the nineties for his "politically correct" (read, not explicitly antisemitic) portrayal of Fagin in the musical Oliver!. Listening back to the cast recording, it's actually a revelation — Reviewing the Situation, which had always been played for antisemitic laughs, is suddenly revealed as an incredibly powerful song, brimming with pathos.
I don't feel like Fagin is explicitly Jewish in that version. I only found out it was originally "Fagin the Jew" later in life. He's kind of a loveable rogue with a London accent.
Edit: wrong version of the film, on second thoughts I think he might definitely be definitely supposed to be definitely Jewish in the Alec Guinness version.
I really don't think that makes it much better.
Imagine if the original written version A Christmas Carol had a big, stupid, lazy black character that was also needlessly aggressive. And then they made a movie, but instead of "Big Black Buck" or whatever Dickens decided to name him, he was changed to "Buck" and was played by a white guy? I doubt people would say that was a story worth making a movie about at all if you're going to have to erase the racism to make it work for a modern audience.
Well that would be Huckleberry Finn wouldn't it, I'm not sure if there's a film. Don't get me started on The "Merchant" of Venice, either.
Apparently played by Serge Nubret in one version. That's incredibly funny to me.
Absolutely not Huckleberry Finn. Jim has a terrible nickname, but the whole point is that Huck and Jim become the closest of friends and companions despite Jim being black. It is an *anti-*racist book.
Here's Twain with his long-time friend John T. Lewis. He said of him, "I have not known an honester man nor a more respect-worthy one." Lewis apparently inspired Jim in the novel.
Twain (or more properly Clemens) and Lewis grew up together going to the same church in Maryland, which had slaves but also a large free black population, and that church was an abolitionist church and had been since the late 18th century.
https://marktwainstudies.com/john-t-lewis-mark-twain-a-friendship/
But yes, definitely The Merchant of Venice. People think the "hath not a Jew eyes" speech makes up for the rest of the play. Gee, thanks for recognizing Jews as not some sort of other species from you. Very generous, Shakespeare.
I know, I know. I'm being facetious.
Sorry, I didn't realize that. Anyway, I hope this might have helped someone else who hasn't read Huckleberry Finn and only knows about Jim's racist nickname.
This is the crux of a lot of the counter arguments to 'cancel culture'. Don't get me wrong, if you're a racist shitbag, or a pedophile, you are a terribly flawed human, but that doesn't detract from other merits in other areas in my opinion. This may seem like a cop out, or an excuse for shitty behavior, but in my view you can be 'Flying Squid, the Nobel Laureate in physics and Racist Cocksniffer'. Humans are very complex beings: how can we fit them into black and white categories of good and bad?
I had an emotionally volatile childhood, devoid of positive influences that were beyond reproach. People I looked up to certainly had their flaws. I quickly learned to take the best out of what they had to offer, and be mindful of their faults. If we simply discarded people who were flawed we wouldn't have many people around us. Similarly, think about how much music came out of the 60s. Now think about how shitty a lot of those artists were, morally. Does that make their music less beautiful? No, but it does add an overtone, I suppose.
Well - you kind of answered your own reservation there: He's a piece of shit rapist. So I believe it's safe to say his main character traits are probably not defined by the religion he was born into, which makes it not quite so weird to me, as I generally do not try to rationalize behavior of people who have otherwise proven a complete disconnect from ethical norms.
I already had one Lemming absolutely lose their shit when I challenged them on this assumption, I hope you won't be another one. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
You mean apart from the word of the person he molested, right?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dylan-farrow-interview-today-gayle-king-full-transcript-woody-allen-me-too/
Yes, I know, "she was coached."
She was 7. I know I don't have many memories from that age I can be 100% confident about.
The simple fact is that neither of us know for sure what, if anything, happened. That's why I find it curious when people jump to the "he's 100% guilty" point of view.
"During the investigation the Connecticut State Police referred Dylan to the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale–New Haven Hospital, which concluded that Allen had not sexually abused Dylan and the allegation was probably coached or influenced by Mia Farrow. The New York Department of Social Services found "no credible evidence" to support the allegation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_sexual_abuse_allegation
It happened to me when I was 8 (not by Woody Allen). I can still remember every detail. It sticks with you
I'm sorry to hear that. Surely you can accept that everybody is different and that may not be the case for someone else?
I can. I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to assume I know what everyone’s experience is, or to claim my experience is the single universal experience.
Surely you can accept that it is the case for some
Of course. I hope you're in a good place now.
Thank you
Why are you willing to believe this person's claims? No experts have weighed in at all.
Blocking you now. Your approach to this discussion has been embarrassing.
What sort of thing on that level of trauma happened to you when you were 7?
Maybe believe victims.
Like I said, I don't have many memories from that age and none I would be 100% confident about in their accuracy.
Good grief, no. Take victims seriously, give them support, get their story, investigate, absolutely. Believe everything everybody says who identifies as a victim? That's asinine.
Scroll up, you didn't answer my question. You're choosing to believe something based on what evidence? Please explain why you're certain when the people who actually investigated these allegations are not.
That is not an answer. What sort of thing on that level of trauma happened to you when you were 7? Because, believe it or not, people remember traumatic things that happen to them at that age quite well. They spend years in therapy because of it.
There's a difference between remembering something traumatic and remembering what happened at your birthday party.
Also, let's say she isn't "100% confident." Let's say she's "70% confident." Maybe still believe her.
The man literally made a movie, at age 44, where he's fucking a high schooler.
Again, maybe believe her.
"On August 17, 1992, the Connecticut State Police announced that they were investigating the molestation allegation. In September the police referred Dylan to the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale New Haven Hospital. The main questions were whether Dylan was telling the truth and whether she was sexually abused. Frank Maco, State's Attorney for the Litchfield district, declared in 1997 that he asked the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic to evaluate whether Dylan would make a viable witness. The clinic's professionals met with the police and Maco for preliminary information. Between September 18 and November 13 they conducted nine separate interviews with Dylan and her mother. On October 14 they interviewed Groteke, and between November 17 and January 7 they had three interviews with Allen. Finally, they met with Farrow to review the recording she had made of Dylan between August 5 and 6. Berge, the other nanny present on August 4, was also interviewed, as were the two psychotherapists treating the children, Coates and Nancy Schultz. The Child Sexual Abuse Clinic medical director, Dr. John M. Leventhal, signed the team's report while Dylan was interviewed by the social workers. Completed in March 1993, the report concluded: "It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_sexual_abuse_allegation
You're still refusing to answer a simple question. More to the point, what on earth gives you the confidence to pass judgement from a distance when your judgement is 100% at odds with experts who were directly involved in the case?
You piss off the wrong person, they go to the police with a story that you committed a violent sexual assault against them. You didn't.
By your logic, you're a rapist.
See how stupid that is?
The only question I can see that I haven't answered is the one you asked after I asked you what sort of thing on that level of trauma happened when you were seven.
I'm not sure why you expect me to answer any of your questions when you have refused to answer the one I asked you twice.
I answered as best as I could. What do you want me to say?
Notice I've supplied you with plenty of information from people who are far, far more familiar with this matter than you or I.
It speaks volumes that you're completely unwilling to engage with it.
You could have given three possible answers:
And if it was 2 or 3, good for you. Plenty of people who suffered sexual abuse at that age remember it very, very well. I know more than one of them.
But you haven't answered with any of those. All you said was, "like I said, I don’t have many memories from that age and none I would be 100% confident about in their accuracy." That is not an answer. Because that could mean anything.
No, it's an honest answer, you just don't like it.
It isn't an honest answer. It could mean "I have 99% confidence something traumatic did happen to me." It also could mean "I have 1% confidence something traumatic did happen to me."
This is the level you're stooping to? I think you need to reevaluate your approach to this.
It could mean that, as I originally said, "I don’t have many memories from that age and none I would be 100% confident about in their accuracy."
That's the truth. You may not like it but that's not my problem.
Anyway, I sense you're pulling on this thread for all it's worth to avoid discussing literally everything else I've brought up. Let's leave it there. It's like talking to a brick wall.
You're just avoiding telling me whether or not you remember going through anything traumatic. Either you remember something or you don't. If you don't remember going through anything traumatic and no one told you you went through anything traumatic, then you can say you probably didn't. If you remember something or someone told you that it happened, maybe you did.
You won't tell me either way. You seem to think that there is some 'trauma happened/didn't happen' superposition where you can just say 'I'm not sure if my memories of childhood are true' and get out of that.
Would you say that if I asked you if you broke any bones as a child? How about if I asked you if you ever got hit by a car as a child? Would you say, "I can't say with confidence what happened to me as a child" as an answer to that question? Because, again, that's not an actual answer to the question.
You would make a great witness to the a crime....I would love you if I was defending.
I don’t follow?
Because you testifying would be great for the defense.
How so? If you have a point to make here, please go right ahead.
Because a good defense attorney could take you right out. Do I need to ELI5 for you?
Yes please. Spell it out, why would I be a witness and why would an incomplete recollection of me being seven years old, several decades ago result in me being called to testify?
You aren't making sense.
How about marrying your adopted child as soon as they are of legal age?
Neither of those things are true.