Instances where you can't separate the art from the artist. vs. instances where you can.

yeah i mean, vick went to prison and was $17 million in debt. is it just that he was an athlete w/ access to some measure of wealth that means he shouldn't be able to go back to his job? if a guy who worked at home depot went to prison for 2 years for animal abuse would you argue that he shouldn't be allowed to go back to working at home depot? what job should vick have been "allowed" to have? also, not to be too pedantic, but it's not true to say that vick was allowed to pick up where he left off. he returned to the NFL but as a back up w/ a salary that paled in comparison to the money he was making previously, and also to the debt he owed creditors once his income was wiped away as punishment for his crime. it was only after a few seasons that he was able to "pick up where he left off," which is to say he didn't really at all, unless you strip away all context and leave it at "he got re-hired by an NFL team." this isn't a defense of michael vick but this conversation is interesting esp with prison abolition being an increasingly important political topic in left discourse

I have an ex-felon friend who basically has to get four job offers for one to stick because his background check often gets the offer rescinded. the felony was drug-related and happened in the *late 90s* and he's had no subsequent arrests or legal trouble.

NV and j0rdan otm.

animal abuse is one of the most offensive acts any human being can participate in, but i also want/have to believe in rehabilitation.

Often an early sign of psychopathy, of course.

I mean, let's really call it out: https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/michael-vick-pro-bowl/Content?oid=78072588

don't do that. my thoughts on this have nothing to do with skin color.

he seems like a guy who has dutifully accepted his consequences and seems genuinely remorseful, but it's kinda like jeff skilling diving right back into venture capitalism immediately after getting out of prison — why put yourself back into a similar scenario that got you into trouble in the first place?

and yeah: getting dinged on background checks for 20+ year old victim-less convictions is bullshit. feels a little irrelevant here tho.

but who am i, maybe getting right back into that environment and proving they are truly rehabilitated and changed is is exactly what they need.

What "environment" are you talking about here? I don't think being in the NFL made Michael Vick abuse dogs.

putting aside that one person committed crimes directly related to his work and the other did not, the answer to the question is pretty simple: because when ppl need to make money they generally tend to do what they already have experience doing. but it's also an irrelevant question bcuz the original point was whether the individual should be "allowed" to return to the work they were doing prior to imprisonment, not why they would want to

DJP and Jordan otm.

The anti-Vick stuff always made me queasy and I didn't really like him as a player before his fall.

The main difference between Vick and the hypothetical Home Depot worker is that people still think of celebrities in general and athletes in particular as "role models". It's bs for that fact to limit their livelihood independent of their experiencing other consequences for their transgressions, but there is truth to the notion that lots of kids pay really close attention to star athletes, and in the mind of a child who is trying to learn by example from the adults they look up to how to be a human, the adulation that they receive for their sports exploits can easily bleed over into their behavior off the field.

So based on that I get the icky feelings around Vick's return to NFL success. But like table alluded to in his initial posts, looking to the NFL for moral authority or modeling is already an absurd proposition for countless reasons.

and, footnote given that this thread is about artists, not athletes: I think some of the same "public figure = role model" thinking applies, but people have more of a sense that artists of any stripe are moral degenerates. Sex, drugs, rock and roll. I'd say that in reality it's dubious at best that athletes are better role models than musicians or actors or whatever, but I do think artists get away with more because of the double standard

I am not sure why someone who owned up to a mistake, accepted the consequences of his actions, and actively promotes things intended to reduce/eliminate the thing he got into trouble for would be considered a bad role model.

I 100% agree that there was a lot of gross racist bullshit in Vick's case but I do slightly object to categorizing what he did as a "mistake", even if I do agree with DJP's take on his atonement and what he's done since.

To my mind, one instance of drunk driving and swiping into some parked cars is a "mistake", financing a dogfighting operation over an extended period of time is not a "mistake", but an active choice.

Again, though, no intention of taking away from your larger point of how he handled the consequences and what he's done since.

what bothers me about the Vick thing is that there are several NFL players who actively abused women (and were completely unapologetic) yet don't have anywhere near the same level of stigma as Vick does. like I agree that animal abuse is abhorrent but its weird that we seem to care more about dogs than women (particularly black women). Ray Rice would probably still be playing today if there wasn't a damn video

Yeah, I mean, there's a whole separate thread about how terrible the NFL is.

So based on that I get the icky feelings around Vick's return to NFL success. But like table alluded to in his initial posts, looking to the NFL for moral authority or modeling is already an absurd proposition for countless reasons.

― Lavator Shemmelpennick, Monday, June 28, 2021 3:53 PM (forty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

in general i agree w/djp and jord but just as a factual correction there seems to be this idea that he came back and was instantly restored to the level he'd been at before. he did have a couple good seasons with the eagles but then got benched for nick foles, traded to the jets and was a backup sometimes starter, then as pittsburgh as a backup..these were mostly 1 year, non guaranteed deals

he also had to pay back almost $20 million in signing bonus to the falcons

and...he lost 2 seasons. that's not comparable to a musician or director or whoever, 2 years of your prime in football is a lot, a significant portion of the time in your life in which you are physically able to play at that level

i guess i just feel like this is being conflated with a football version of chris brown (and also frogbs points out there are numerous abusers playing right now with little to no repercussions) and it's not really the same thing at all

I am not sure why someone who owned up to a mistake, accepted the consequences of his actions, and actively promotes things intended to reduce/eliminate the thing he got into trouble for would be considered a bad role model.

― an eco-conscious Music Box (DJP), Monday, June 28, 2021 5:18 PM (forty-one minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Because we live in a society that doesn't tolerate that level of complexity or allow for redemption for misdeeds? i.e., I agree with you

Vick was convicted and spent time in jail for charges relating to racketeering, not animal cruelty.

I also think it's possible to believe that Vick should have been banned from football, and still be for prison abolition. There's nothing in those positions that is contradictory.

xxpost that's somewhat hairsplitting, he plead guilty to charged with violating federal law 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture. So yes, Racketeering, but dog-fighting was a key part of the charge.

Federal animal cruelty charges didn't exist prior to 2019, so they actually couldn't bring them.

idc about american football but isn't it full of rapists, why the selective outrage

do we go down the road of judging what jobs are "too good" for ex-convicts who have served their time?

especially when they face incredible hurdles as it is

oh look how timely

now what do we do?

Well he's leaving prison early due only to prosecutorial misconduct so I still say fuck him

hoo boy, i have my popcorn. i will say only that.

not even remotely comparable to the Vick discussion

Have your popcorn for what?

he will say only that!

popcorn is a tasty snack

lemonade was a popular drink.

and it still is.

God, Left, you're such miserable fucking cunt— being outraged about animal abuse doesn't preclude being outraged about sexual assaulters. Fuck off.

no you

if you can't see how specific and selective the outrage is in this case - and in many others - idk what to say

why do you think that dead klansman senator was so passionate about this

The line of discussion is entirely about Michael Vick which is what tabes was replying to.

It's nobody's job but yours to dig up ILX's multi-year database of posts for you.

I'm not in agreement with table here but your characterization of him is ridiculous here

what characterisation, i'm talking about a broad tendency whether or not any poster is part of it

there are things which might merit some level of outrage but where the tenor of the existing outrage is so toxic that adding to it is not always a good idea

imo

ILX threads for example

Wait, what the fug has Brendan McCarthy done?!

― OrificeMax (Old Lunch), Saturday, September 26, 2020 6:36 AM (nine months ago)

Had a peek at his twitter. Busy arguing that he was against racism and apartheid at college because he was young and dumb but "wised up", huffing that the "MSM" will ignore all Mike Lindell's evidence that the election was stolen by "cell phone cards" in the voting machine, cheering for Jim Jordan posting eight-minute videos of him arguing with Fauci, propounding that the pandemic is rigged by Bill Gates to enact the Green New Deal of food shortages and power outages, moaning about "wokies," earnestly asking astral travellers and predictive dreamers to reveal more about the visions they've "brought back from the other side," and politely answering questions about Road Warrior vs Fury Road.

This article is largely about Dr. Luke, but also touches on some of this thread’s main topics of discussion.

a lot of people I know who are loudest about not watching movies or television shows with sketchy people seem outright unaware of the pasts of some of the people in shows they actually do watch.

one friend today started lamenting how Chris Pratt had sullied P&R, which was tainted now because of the stupid comments Pratt has made in public and his misogyny, but I got a dumb stare when I joked that Rob Lowe was finally happy that the heat was off of him. I think he outright didn't know about Lowe's late 20th century foibles. meanwhile, this guy is also a huge fan of the Sopranos, which is FULL of actors who are useless pieces of shit (not necessarily in lead roles, but LOTS of supporting cast, some of whom who actually spent time in the mob, or at least doing their best to live like a mobster).

I don't know if it's recency bias or what but it feels weird to me in a way that stopping listening to sketchy musicians doesn't. a television show or movie is a group project reflecting a collective vision, whereas a musician, particularly a solo musician, is giving you *their* singular vision. so if you listen to someone who sings tender love songs and on the side is beating all of his romantic partners, that pulls away the veneer the musician created that drew you towards them. I don't know that Chris Pratt being an asshole (for me at least) hurts the collective fun of P&R, esp since he's playing someone far more likable than the real Pratt.

but even that has its limits I guess. The Cosby Show was so built around Bill that, supporting cast or no, I still haven't been able to watch it since I first heard of the allegations against him. so I do get it in specific circumstances. I guess like music, it's context-driven?

I can absolutely still watch & enjoy NewsRadio, and even chuckle at Joe Rogan's character, contemporary Rogan notwithstanding.

Agree the Cosby thing is different; though I happened to catch 10 mins. or so of The Cosby Show which happens to also be 10 of the greatest minutes of any sitcom ever, and was able to put everything aside and appreciate it on that level.

The Cosby Show is kind of like that joke in the Simpsons where Flanders says that he likes Woody Allen films "except for that nervous fellow who's always in them", it's hard to imagine someone enjoying most of Allen's movies or Cosby's sitcom without 'buying in' to the comedian persona at the centre to some extent, find them charming or likable. I don't think this is the case with every show based around a comedian's stand-up persona though, like I don't think the Flanders joke would work with Seinfeld, someone who like the show Seinfeld but dislikes Jerry does not seem ridiculous in the same way.

Yeah - for me, Seinfeld is all about Elaine & George at this point.

(Flanders joke aside, I kinda could imagine someone liking Woody Allen movies but finding Woody himself to be irritating?)

Friend gave me a book last night, telling me that it is one of the moe extraordinary books of poems to come out in the past few decades...and that saying so publicly can't be done, because the author is a convicted collector of child p0rn. Not sure if I'm going to keep the book, but even looking into a few pages, I can see why I thought I'd like the work-- it's incredible stuff.

Makes me sick to my stomach.

horrible to have to deal with that sort of cognitive dissonance

otoh, there are other poems by people who aren't monsters

otoh, really good poetry can be hard to find

if one can still enjoy the first two seasons of The Thick Of It (which feature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Langham as a main character)...but then again, that is an ensemble work, whereas in your case there is only one author, one mind responsible

not sure what to tell you; it's your decision