The Fall of Joss Whedon

[Maurice]

You're not qualified to make that kind of determination.

Unless a person's conduct is actually criminal and is prosecuted as such, no-one has a right to pass judgment on said conduct.

He's qualified to state an opinion. Live with it.

 

[Gaith]

I doubt anything will happen to WB regarding Whedon

Apart from almost certainly getting fired from his HBO show (a WB division)?

Maybe he was also behaving badly there, and his almost certain firing had little to nothing to do with his professional history, but I doubt it (the second part, that is).

 

[STEPhon IT]

Arguing that it's not actually incest if a man in his 50s has sex with a girl in her 20s whom he met while she was still a minor and whom he co-parented as a father-figure with his then-partner, just because they don't happen to be blood relations, is a very interesting hill to choose to die on. It is a doubly so when that man has also been accused of molesting his adopted child. It is an even more interesting choice when that man literally made an entire movie about a fictional version of himself in his 40s having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old minor.

You sure this is the hill you wanna die on, @DigificWriter?

So, let me get this straight. I'm in my early 20's and this means: I'm a girl??? Does the 20 year old girl, like myself, have a choice on who she wants to love and be with? And when does being accused mean: guilty of anything that's alleged?

 

[Jedi_Master]

So.. this Joss Whedon guy seems like kind of a jerk....

 

[STEPhon IT]

Seemed like it, but would be better to know the full context of the situation, or the series of situations than bits and pieces before making a conclusion.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Public opinion and the court of law are two different things - for good reason. A consumer doesn't have to hold a public figure to a legal standard to determine whether or not they will purchase/watch/support the things they create.

 

[STEPhon IT]

A consumer doesn't have to hold a public figure to a legal standard but maybe they should.

 

[Ovation]

A consumer doesn't have to hold a public figure to a legal standard but maybe they should.

No.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Fine.

 

[BillJ]

Seemed like it, but would be better to know the full context of the situation, or the series of situations than bits and pieces before making a conclusion.

A single situation? Maybe? Once the accusation flood gates open up? It isn’t hard to believe there is some truth in there.

A consumer doesn't have to hold a public figure to a legal standard but maybe they should.

How do you intend to enforce that?

 

[Jedi_Master]

A consumer doesn't have to hold a public figure to a legal standard but maybe they should.

In this context "should" is a useless word.

 

[STEPhon IT]

And you're right. Hate to learn later that public figure didn't do what was accused of. Knowing the whole story is better than half the story and who's POV is true or false?

 

[cooleddie74]

I don't know the entire story about O.J. Simpson and all the details about his life with his wife Nicole but I learned enough that even as a man who beat a double murder rap he was an asshole and very likely a killer.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Okay, with your response that means Joss Whedon and everyone accused is guilty. Fine. Not for me.

 

[cooleddie74]

No, I just said that I learned enough about him to see him that way. With Whedon I have yet to reach the point where he's a scuzzbag to me. It may happen. It may not. But his behavior so far isn't encouraging.

 

[Maurice]

A consumer doesn't have to hold a public figure to a legal standard but maybe they should.

That's a preposterous notion on the face of it. We can't know with 100% certainty that anyone accused of a crime did it (even DNA evidence is not foolproof)—regardless of whether or not they are prosecuted or convicted—but if there's a strong indicator of bad behavior—legal or not—on the part of that person, we can decide not to support them.

 

[BillJ]

And you're right. Hate to learn later that public figure didn't do what was accused of. Knowing the whole story is better than half the story and who's POV is true or false?

It can be tough to let go of that hero worship. I struggled with Roddenberry for a long time before finally realizing the guy just wasn't a great person. Sounds like for a lot of people, the same thing is going on with Whedon now.

 

[STEPhon IT]

No, I just said that I learned enough about him to see him that way. With Whedon I have yet to reach the point where he's a scuzzbag to me. It may happen. It may not. But his behavior so far isn't encouraging.

Have you seen Joss Whedon's behavior towards his colleagues? And does a series of partial stories told or mentioned about him less heartening?

 

[BillJ]

Have you seen Joss Whedon's behavior towards his colleagues? And does a series of partial stories told or mentioned about him less heartening?

What kind of standard do you want? Where Whedon is concerned, this isn't a single isolated incident from twenty years ago, it seems to be a behavior that has been with him for a long time, reported from disparate sources that seem to have nothing to gain from it.

 

[STEPhon IT]

That's a preposterous notion on the face of it. We can't know with 100% certainty that anyone accused of a crime did it (even DNA evidence is not foolproof)—regardless of whether or not they are prosecuted or convicted—but if there's a strong indicator of bad behavior—legal or not—on the part of that person, we can decide not to support them.

The "cancel culture" is real. I hope they don't come for you.