Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?
Very boring answer but JK Rowling.
Her books already had some questionable shit in them but witnessing that shockingly venomous transphobia really recontextualizes everything. I used to re read the Harry Potter saga every few years, but never again now, this whole, very nostalgic for me franchise is forever ruined now.
Can I recommend reading/listening to Ursula K. Le Guin’s Earth Sea books?
They’re also coming of age books about a young wizard, which almost certainly heavily inspired Rowling (although AFAIK she never admitted it), but the author is far less problematic. Also arguably much better books, so they’re more enjoyable to read for adults too.
And the cherry on top is this. You may notice a bit of misogyny built into a first couple books in the series, which is surprising given that Ursula is a woman. She not only noticed, admitted, and confronted that patriarchal slant, but corrected it by writing later stories in the same world that reversed that course. Those stories end up being much better than the foundational works in the series. I have become an instant fan of any author that can confront the flaws of their earlier writings and deliberately alter course to do better in their life and their writing.
Yeah, I actually read her last book in the series first, (it’s a distant sequel, very far removed from the rest of the series), and I can attest to the fact that she grew tremendously. I went back and read the first book, and was surprised at how different the last book was.
Another great choice is The King Henry Tapes by Richard Raley. It’s a take on HP, but the magical kid from a dysfunctional family is a juvenile delinquent with a foul mouth. One of my favorite series.
Terry Pratchett’s Tiffany Aching books are also great alternatives (and a gateway to the rest of the Discworld books, which are also great).
Yep! Harry Potter doesn’t teach you how to be a wizard, but Tiffany Aching teaches you how to be a witch.
Pendragon by DJ MacHale is also a great set of books.
Id kill for an HP quality set of movies of this series.
Hey I know that series! And agree, though I think the last few books kinda lost me.
The Quillan Games is the book I remember being a bit tougher. It’s been quite a long time since I’ve read the series.
Yeah if I recall correctly it was basically a mix between Squid Game and Hunger Games? Before either one existed.
I always thought harry potter was boring as shit. Never got through a movie, never read a book.
But the people who I did see reading the books in class were the ones who definitely would take issue with Rowling’s transphobia.
Yeah I was already a tiny adult when they came out. I tried reading them as an older adult and only got through one and a half.
Chamber of Secrets is definitely the weakest book in the series
Her vehement and vocal hatred for trans people is pretty strange to me. She just won’t let it go, no matter the fact that her very vocal opinions on the topic are destroying her own legacy.
I get that people are entitled to their opinions. But most people keep their thoughts to themselves if they start getting a lot of backlash. But she just keeps picking at it and making things worse for herself. I don’t know if it’s some sort of resentment born out of deeply hurt feelings, or unbridled arrogance that as a very rich and successful person people need to accept her opinions. Or maybe both. But it’s not working and she’s doing more harm than good, including to herself.
Try the Mage Errent series by John Bierce. It’s a full fantasy world with a hard magic aystem that’s about kids going to magic school.
This is the biggest one. It’s so hard to enjoy anything about it now. Even the movies, which were decently separated from her compared to the books, still reek. I just don’t get why she had to go on this vicious fucking campaign against people who were already struggling. Even in her fucking mind she thought they were mentally ill, well what’s next bitch you’re gonna go to war on unhoused people with dementia? There’s just no good interpretation of what that vile woman has done and continues to do.
same
Removed by mod
Oh I know all about that podcast trust me, it doesn’t change my opinion about Rowling in the slightest, and it’s far from being a good way to “understand this affair”.
If you’re genuinely curious, I highly recommend ContraPoint’s video about that very podcast, as well as her other video about Rowling.
I’ve linked to them as a reply to the comment you’re replying to.
Agree about the Witch Trials podcast .
Here’s a discussion of that podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmT0i0xG6zg
And another one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT_l2us
Yes, they’re long videos. Yes, there’s a reason they have millions of views. Genuinely interesting.
I looked up all her tweets, and I don’t see much to disagree with.
If you go to Thailand, trans men are called ladyboys and if you ask them if they are women, they say, no, I’m a ladyboy. There’s nothing wrong with having the opinion that trans women will not be real women. She’s not saying she hates trans people, just that they will never be the same as biological women.
Yes, but Thailand is not the entire world, nor was it even the target audience of those tweets.
In the west, when you transition to another gender, it is because you want to identify as that gender. Thus when you say shit like ‘trans women aren’t real women’ you’re denying the identity of thousands of women worldwide.
But… the west isn’t the entire world either.
I think that’s the point. That culture matters and there’s not a one-size-fits-all interpretation or response that satisfies all of them.
People in the west want to believe their culture is the best and all others should follow, but that simply isn’t how the world works. That won’t stop them from getting mad over it, though.
We are talking about a western author broadcasting on a western platform in a western language, often directly in response to other westerners or western ideas of transsexuality. Makes it pretty clear who the target audience and culture is.
This may come as a shock to you, but a lot of westerners don’t believe in transexuality either.
Hey, we’re talking about one right now!
This is what I mean by thinking your culture is the best and all others should follow. Do you think Rowling would be justified if she tweeted in Thai? Lol. If not, then she isn’t unjustified for engaging with westerners.
Try to understand your way of life is not the only, or even the best, way of life.
This may come as a shock to you, but a lot of westerners don’t believe in transexuality either.
Hey, we’re talking about one right now!
No, they believe that transsexuals are heathen abominations that should be stripped of all human rights and dignity. There is a difference.
Try to understand your way of life is not the only, or even the best, way of life.
Try to understand that your way of life should not get in the way of others trying to enjoy theirs when it doesn’t harm other people.
they believe that transsexuals are heathen abominations that should be stripped of all human rights and dignity.
Some of them, sure. But some just disagree with the notion that trans-X are identical to their cis counterparts.
Try to understand that your way of life should not get in the way of others trying to enjoy theirs when it doesn’t harm other people.
I totally agree.
I am in the west and don’t think we have the best in every way culture. The more I travel the more I am aware of where we have plenty of room for improvement. I prefer living here, most people given the choice would as well, but that doesn’t mean best.
Just because one group that has a passing resemblance to another group says something doesn’t mean that it applies to every group with a passing resemblance. Especially when the group is from a completely different culture.
You “looked up all her tweets” as in, you were previously unaware of her issues? and you went and did “all” of the research in ten minutes? and thought, “Wow, the world really needs to hear my shitty half baked opinion!” And you got on Lemmy and typed it up and said “This is the voice of reason all those queers need to hear! They’ll totally get it now once they see that trans people in Thailand dont feel discriminated against and that’s what makes it okay for JKR to fund anti-trans campaigns in the UK!” You absolutely fucking clowned up by posting this.
What’s a biological woman?
They mean people born with female bodies. So Cis women or FtM men.
I want him to define it.
Even cis women might not be ‘biologically female’
It comes from a high school level understanding of genetics.I do get what you mean, it’s oversimplifying a complicated subject.
I guess I never learnt more than a high school level of genetics then, because I always thought a biological male was someone with the genotype (XY chromosomes) and the phenotype (male genitalia, beard, flat chest, etc) of a male, a biological female had the genotype (XX chromosomes) and the phenotype (female genitalia, breasts, less body hair, etc) of a female, and biologically intersex people had an unclear, different, or mismatched genotype or phenotype.
Please explain the complexities to me.
What is a human? What is knowledge? What is virtue? What is justice?
We have known for 2500 years that some words are very difficult to define in such a way that every single edge case is handled, it is complete, and short. The most famous example, 2500 years ago, was an academy defined human as a featherless biped. The next day someone released a plucked chicken.
For those words that are very difficult to define we develop criteria and gradually alter the criteria as time goes on, mostly based on the idea of ordinary language.
it’s a woman with biology you fking morning! like margrethe thatcher or natalie wynn
A major issue is that she isn’t loyal and has her own opinions on the matter.
Independents are seen as enemies in the eyes of tribalists. Eventually, they become enemies.
Kanye. Piece of shit narcissist through and through.
yeah kanye for me too. used to be my favorite artist, paid out the ass for tickets on multiple tours, knew all the words to his first like, six albums. haven’t listened to him in like a year and a half after the Alex Jones interview and Adidas stories came out. it’s not even virtue signaling, it’s just too much work to not think about all the horrible shit he’s done and said. i count myself extremely lucky that i never got a tattoo
Exactly, it’s laborious separating them. Even shit he’s just produced like Hov or Pusha T. My favorite songs come on shuffle in the car, vibin, 30 sec in… “oh shit… right… hmm… ugh… argghhh” next track
It was always funny watching him talk about Jesus in his songs as though his lifestyle didn’t promote everything Christ went against.
And of course, the next generation sucked it up like a sponge.
Apparently Kanye has copied some great music, and we’ll know for sure if he ever releases some.
Manic episodes aren’t the same thing as narcissism, but he’s still an asshole
Kanye West. Maybe he was never ‘all there’ mentally to begin with, but the guy was clearly a role model to a lot of young people and utterly destroyed his own legacy.
Yep, I was a young person that loved Kanye back in high school when Graduation was the CD I had on me all the time.
Can’t listen to it anymore. It’s ruined. :{
I honestly wonder what happened to this guy. It was like a switch was hit and suddenly he was spouting nonsense and getting in trouble.
His mom dying on the table during an implant surgery was 100% the catalyst that thrust him towards what he is today. Totally unexpected, and she wasn’t anywhere near the age that her death would have been a thought.
A surgery that he paid for, iirc
I am just thinking about something my wife told me, she is a nurse in cardiac unit mostly. She told me the ones that are the most devastating to the families is when there is nothing wrong until there is. Grandma was fine yesterday, she is not fine today.
Lost Prophets. Lead singer fucked babies.
I honestly believe that if you’re convicted of shit like this the band should be able to sue to have your rights to royalties and any songwriting/producing credits revoked. Even if they have to surrender any monetary outcome to the victims or their families.
I know I loved the band growing up and the band have tried to separate themselves from the singer, but how can you? The music is still good but it can’t avoid leaving a bad feeling knowing he used the fame generated by the shared music for such heinous thing
It would make it a bit easier for people who can if you knew that the scumbag wasnt getting royalty cheques anymore.
Ian Watkins is a fucking extreme example, but imagine putting in a dozen years of your life and career, your art and passion into a band and its catalogue only for the lead singer to make it absolutely radioactive.
Hmm not a lawyer but I wonder if there might be some old law about this. Kinda feel like there is one since it’s retroactive.
Lead singer
fuckedraped babies.FTFY
deleted by creator
It’s necessary bc by your logic, “fucking” is a euphemism.
The point is that we should try to stop using euphemistic language around rape. It happens all the time, and it lessens the impact of the act for the reader. We should be explicit.
deleted by creator
Yeah, he’s reddit-brained for sure.
You mean the distinction between engaging in consensual intercourse (aka “fucking”) vs committing a heinous crime?
If you think pointing out that babies can only be raped, is the problem, not saying he “fucked” them, this is a you problem…
deleted by creator
I’m making the point that babies cannot be fucked, only raped, which obviously isn’t “inherent” to the person who said “he fucked babies” which minimises the reality of the “scenario” as you call it (more minimisation, why do you do that? To preserve your own comfort of course!). Words matter, and if you think pointing that out is “splitting hairs” (when you’re literally the only one making a load of fuss over this valid distinction), then again, you’re the one with the problem here (and taking issue with someone pointed out that babies can only be raped, not “fucked” is definitely a problem that needs addressing, like seriously - imagine being the person dying on the hill to defend the use of “fucked” to describe baby rape… 🤦♀️).
deleted by creator
You seem awfully interested in this topic… Is there something we should know?
Lemmy sucks. This isn’t a you thing. Nobody IRL would ever spend the energy debating you on this. And of course a follow-up of “whoa relax don’t get triggered bro”
There is no understanding that words matter round these parts at all. This place is a dangerous bubble bc it started as a place where one assumed everyone was on the level. So if you were the outlier opinion, maybe it really was you: I’d challenge myself and question my opinions. Now, if I’m downvoted, I dig in and entrench.
Others might just call it being pedantic.
Omfg. I’m a big slippery slope, legal precedent, kind of guy. But this demands capital punishment if not castration/sterilization. Just make them laws for one day for this dude. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-25108439
And still laughed about it/tried to reoffend after being imprisoned. A truly sick, warped individual.
I’m convinced he’s not all there. Dude was talking about what he’s going to do when he gets out of prison. He doesn’t seem to understand they’re going to wheel him out on a trolley.
whenever I see a meme with art from stonetoss (a neo-nazi) in it, I have a visceral response
Damn, source on the neo nazi thing? It’s usually just memes that I’ve seen with his content, now I’m wondering what he really draws about.
Here’s a video covering it by Thought Slime
Hitler
That guy is literally Hitler.
Heard he killed Hitler though
deleted by creator
For me he is the perfect counter example. I despise that cunt as much as the next guy, but god damn he is a good actor.
He also signs on to REALLY GOOD scifi scripts that might not have gotten as much budget without his name.
Same. Guy gives me the creeps. As do far too many others from Jack Nicholson to James Franco (not sure why those came to mind first, and I was going to continue listing, but honestly there are just too many, some, like Russel Brand it was obvious way before any public allegations were made, so there are those as well, where we’re just waiting for the other shoe to drop. There are also those who I can’t stand seeing/hearing because they’re bigots, so I really could be here all day).
I’m not claiming any purity by the way, there are far too many to flat out avoid them all, but some simply make my skin crawl more than others, and I just don’t need to consume something that makes me feel that way. ¯\(ツ)/¯
deleted by creator
Why would I try to do so in the first place?
Imagine someone telling you “you have to separate the product from the corporation. Yes, they lobby to permit slave labour and are directly funding the genocide in Palestine, but they make one fine chicken sandwich - and if you don’t put down your silly objections to focus on that, you have failed as a human being”.
Fuck that, fuck everything about that.
Art is political. Fiction doubly so. You cannot and should not try to rip art free from its cultural context, because that context is the perspective that gives it meaning in the first place.
And extra-splintery fuck the idea that the onus is on the audience to sweep everything under the carpet for horrible people.
We’re in no danger of running out of art. We have an unlimited supply of artists just waiting for a break in the canopy to sprout up and grow into something new and exciting. If a handful of toxic assholes get canceled despite being popular, then so much the better.
I disagree. You can both admit that the company makes one damn fine chicken sandwich and still not buy it because they support slave labour. Them supporting slave labour doesn’t make it a bad chicken sandwich, just as them making a damn good chicken sandwich doesn’t stop them from supporting slave labour. It’s the method that’s important, not the reason itself.
First up, fandom is free advertising; fuck them I’m not promoting their product for them, even if I don’t buy it.
But more than that, it’s sending a message that the behaviour is something we’re willing to condone, that we stand with the abuser rather than their victims.
Imagine telling a sexual assault survivor to just lie back and enjoy the masterful comic stylings of Bill Cosby, or at least to shut up and let you enjoy it, because they’re ruining the funny.
Would that person have reason to consider you a friend or ally after that?
The Harry Potter IP, for instance, is just a giant anti-trans flag now, and the people who wave it around are picking a side. They can’t pretend they’re not; pinning the logo to their chest is explicitly endorsing the author’s views, and spitting in the face of every trans person in their life.
I think you missed their point. They explicitly said that you can at something is a good product and just not buy it because fuck that company. Same point with artists, they can be talented shitbags, we avoid them for the shitbag part, no other reason.
Every work has the author’s stank all over it, it can’t not. It’s seen through their eyes and spoken through their lips (or fingers I guess).
Once you know what it is, it will - and should - colour your perception. If it turns out to be something toxic, then you’re allowed to be viscerally repelled by it. It’s okay. It’s not intellectual dishonesty to have an emotional-based opinion on art ffs.
Now if you let your opinions on engineering get affected by emotion, that’d be another matter. When deciding whether a bridge is safe to carry traffic, you absolutely should not let your personal feelings about the architect factor into the decision.
But this is art we’re talking about. Entertainment. Works designed specifically for emotional impact, with no value outside of that. How you feel about them is the only valid criterion.
If a work squicks you out because the author is a piece of shit, that’s a genuine, valid and authentic opinion - it’s pretending otherwise that would be dishonest.
And in my experience, the ones shouting the loudest about the intellectual integrity angle tend to be fanbois with a huge emotional attachment to the work from their adolescence. Buncha simps, in other words.
Which fine, feelings are valid - but they should damn well own it. If nostalgia > victims, then have the balls to just say it, don’t try to well-ackchewally it into some lofty principle, because it isn’t.
That’s the point though, that some people will use the ‘but chicken sandwich is good’ as a justification to overlook the other problems and still buy them. My ex and Hobby Lobby, for instance - she’d want to go there and shop for paints because they ‘might have a sale’, and I was just uh, no? Fuck Hobby Lobby.
Continue buying products direclty supports the company, that doesn’t necessarily apply to art. Me simple enjoying a piece of art doesn’t support the creator. Only when I buy or licence it.
The popularity of art can both increase it’s value and promote the creator, making their other works more valuable.
Potentially, sure. But that also doesn’t apply if you’re enjoying it in private.
Privately inside your own head or from a book you already owned that you then proceed to never discuss, sure. But views, downloads (even pirated), word of mouth, all help promote the work.
What about when the artistis is dead and can no longer profit of his work by any means? Does that make the art “ok” again?
Sure, but overlooking moral misgivings is the similarity. Just like I wouldn’t tell someone ‘hey, I love this sale at Hobby Lobby!’ I wouldn’t feel right about endorsing a star or director or artist or musician who was found to be a terrible person. The same applies to enjoying it in private - my knowledge about the creator would somewhat ruin my enjoyment of their work.
I wouldn’t feel right about endorsing a star or director or artist or musician who was found to be a terrible person.
I don’t think enjoying or even endorising a piece of art is equivalent to endorsing the people that produced it.
For example I will always enjoy Firefly and will keep recommending it to people, simple because it’s an amazing show. What ever Joss Whedon has done doesn’t change that. Hell, I wouldn’t care if it was directed by Hitler and produced by Jeffery Dahmer.
That seems to be the topic here… some people do feel uncomfortable about works having a connection to a terrible person, others don’t. Personally I do think about the creator of artistic works when consuming them or as a fan, and I don’t really want to be thinking “huh, I wonder what Hitler and Dahmer were thinking when they made that decision”. On the other hand, some people love thinking about awful people like serial killers.
You’d never buy or listen to anything ever again if you do that for every transgression.
I am a fat guy, there sandwich is only marginally better than the lowest end stuff, any fast casual local place is going to do it better. You can trust a fat man about fried meat.
Right except we can’t apply this evenly. You can go right now to any big museum, see elegant wood carvings from like 800 years ago, and we know nothing about the artist except his name. How do you know he wasn’t a murdering psychopath? You don’t. What you do know is Rowling said some shit on Twitter. We are holding more modern work to a higher standard compared to older work simply because we can document the lives of modern artists better. If you can’t enforce a moral principle with anything resembling consistent application I question how good it is.
Also comparing it to Chick-fil-A is bullshit.
A good moral principle is ‘don’t do things that needlessly harm people’, but unintended consequences are everywhere. By delaying a passerby two seconds while you give a homeless guy $5, you might end up causing them to get hit by a garbage truck that would otherwise have missed them.
You can’t enforce the principle consistently, but that doesn’t make it worthless; you give it a good-faith, best-effort go, and that’s all you can do. If your best efforts turn out to be disastrous, that’s shitty, but life’s unfair like that.
Also, whatever else was going on with the person 800 years ago, JK is right now causing ongoing harm in her relentless campaign of hatred for trans people. Waving her IP around is promoting her cause, and so harming more people, right now.
If nobody knows whether the 800-years-ago guy was a piece of shit or not, then promoting their work isn’t supporting some piece-of-shit cause and harming people.
As for chicken sandwiches - without explaining why you think my analogy was inapt, calling it bullshit is no more of a slam-dunk rebuttal than if I called you a poopoohead.
Entity X makes product Y and does shitty horrible thing Z. By being a product-Y fanboi and promoting Y all over the internet, you’re expressing approval for X and condoning Z (at least enough to cut them slack for it).
What difference does it make whether Y is a media IP or a food product?
Fine your analogy is in apt because you can get a fried chicken sandwich anywhere. It isnt exactly intellectual property.
Also you are muddling the difference between not being all knowing with not being consistent. Not the same thing at all.
Don’t muddy the water: you were talking specifically about chick-fil-A, even though I was using it as a generic example of a product people might get attached to. The ‘separate the art from the artist’ crowd would have you ignore any unpleasantness on the part of the producer, so long as the product is enjoyable in isolation - and hold it a moral failing not to do so.
And your entire point was that you couldn’t be consistent because you werne’t all-knowing; not knowing the character of your 800-year-old artist is no different in this instance from not knowing the future: to perfectly apply the principle would require full knowledge of every situation where it could possibly apply (which is of course impossible). This does not, I contend, render the principle, or attempts to apply it as consistently as your knowledge allows, worthless.
Do better, and try again.
JK Rowling. Fuck Harry Potter.
Removed by mod
For anyone thinking about listening to this podcast, it still platforms a lot of her crazy ideas. The following excerpt is from near the end of this article.
March 2023: A new podcast, The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling, produced by Bari Weiss’s The Free Press and hosted by prominent former Westboro Baptist Church member Megan Phelps-Roper, featured interviews with Rowling. In its fifth episode, Rowling begins discussing the modern trans rights movement, calling it “a cultural movement that was illiberal in its methods and questionable in its ideas” and insisting, “I believe, absolutely, that there is something dangerous about this movement and that it must be challenged.” She then compares the movement to Death Eaters — the villainous supremacists in her books, analogous to Nazis…
Bari Weiss is not someone to give your time to so thanks for posting that. Nearly everything she writes now is dishonest and she pretends to espouse liberal ideas while constantly taking conservative positions and then calling herself a “left-leaning centrist”. It’s hot garbage.
I wouldn’t call it good. Contrapoints covered that podcast here
I listened to the podcast. The interviewer doesn’t challenge Rowling at all and simply lets her speak/answer with her incorrect assumptions. However it also shined a light on how badly thought out her ideas are and how informed she is, not by empathy, but by her own prejudice. After listening, I became even more confident in my opinion of Rowling.
I also think it’s worth a listen is you can swallow your bile for the first few episodes.
This is interesting, I’ll listen to it.
I watched the Contrapoints video already, which has good evidence of J. K. Rowling being insulting on Twitter. That is true. It also has evidence of some of her friends being even hateful, but I think this kind of falls into a fallacy, because either she’s exposing her affiliations to show how she must share those ideas (without actual evidence) or to remark how much worse she must be for having them. But, again, there is evidence for J. K. Rowling alone turning rude towards trans people. I thank Contrapoints for the time and effort of putting this together.
She says the main topic of this documentary you’re sharing is whether it’s fair to cancel J. K. Rowling or not. She argues that it is fair because of the whole ideas and tweets she’s been presenting. But this is a weird generalization as she only demonstrated that Rowling is low-key hateful in her personal tweets, not that the entirety of gender critical feminism is wrong or hateful. Even if she demonstrated that every single gender critical feminist is hateful, that does not refute GC feminism per se or the need to consider these ideas. So it might be fair to cancel Rowling for her tweets (at least to censor the acid, hateful humor), but the rest?
What is still unresolved is whether GC feminism should be listened to and not censored (defended by a non-hateful person). Contrapoints herself addresses gender critical feminism in another video, an old video, where she goes through some of the arguments presented by this movement. This reveals that, behind the hateful activists, there is a conversation to be had that can advance without harm.
This I just said is a very complex issue. Many feel like listening to gender critical or other critical movements will undermine their lives and will endanger the help they receive today, and I think there lies the importance of ‘provisional moralities’. It is not bad to question whether autism exists, in which sense, with which characteristics, with what implications; it is not bad to wonder if gender is what we believe it is, what other takes there are, and what would that mean to everyone. Those are important questions, but pondering this should not take away what is making people comfortable. As we change and correct our paradigms, we can better support autists, trans people, etc. I’m sorry I’m mixing the neurodiversity movement in this last part of my comment. While different, I see a similar aspect here, in which we want people to live to the fullest, but we all are using concepts that go beyond our current understanding and, of course, debates arise. I consider them necessary and even helpful. As a person risking a lot in these topics (they are personal), I also think I can gain a lot.
Sorry for the long comment and my grammar.
P. S.: Our nicknames are funnily similar.
John Kricfalusi, creator of Ren & Stimpy. That man is a demon.
The Rick & Morty guy kind of ruined his show, too.
New season with replaced voice actor is really good.
Damn I saw the trailer but had no clue the entire season was out already
What he do?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kricfalusi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Happy_Joy_Joy:_The_Ren_and_Stimpy_Story
Tldr. Basically, he was a piece of shit tyrant edgelord who kept trying to push boundaries and didn’t quite understand humor. His show was only made good by everybody around him trying to rein him in and fix his fuck ups. Also for good measure, he’s a sex pest.
I once met Bob Camp in Atlantic City in 2015 and he told me this whole story. He said he hated JohnK and that he was possibly the most deranged person he had ever met. He then told me that the only thing that came out of this that was good in the end was SpongeBob.
Sick Little Monkeys: The Unauthorized Ren & Stimpy Story is the book that he referred me to if I wanted more details.
Watched a documentary about him recently and it seems like he was using the show/animation staff as therapy, which is incredibly wrong.
Classic
Sweet didn’t know this was made! I would also recommend Sick Little Monkeys by Thad Komorowski if you are interested in the behind the scenes stuff.
deleted by creator
Didn’t know all this about him. Not surprised. It was so gross, God knows how it informed our development. It’s really uncomfortable to watch as an adult. And my goodness - did you watch the adult version when they brought it back years ago? Jfc
The adult version was unfunny and unwatchable. Didn’t make through ten minutes.
“DJ” Khalid. I’ve heard that he’s actually a very talented musician. I’ve never been shown proof that the claims are true.
Following is also proof that he can read
Is it proof he can read? He has someone else read the note for him. Seems more like proof he can’t read.
Edit: or did I just get whooshed? If you’re being sarcastic it’s not clear.
You’ve been whoosed. Not only could he not read the note, he also had no idea what a guitar was or how to play one…
That probably should have been more obvious to me then it was. I’m really sick and taking lots of cold medicine. Should probably stop commenting on anything for a while.
lots of people don’t know how to play an instrument, which is fine. this dude sucks because he just refuses to admit it.
I’ve heard he’s a crappy musician but he’s good at getting clashing personalities to work together.
He like Mozart^2
Ian Watkins, lead singer of the band Lostprophets. Never read the court transcripts of his crimes, they really are that horrible and will ruin you for some time.
Exactly who I thought of.
Ian Watkins. Leaf singer of Lost Prophets.
Convicted baby rapist.
this is the correct answer. no matter how hard i try i cringe playing rooftops on lego rock band
his password for his CP computer was “ifuckkidz”
I still listen to Michael Jackson but I won’t listen to R Kelly.
Well to be fair one was found guilty in a court of law and the other (I don’t believe but feel free to correct me) didn’t even have a criminal case brought against him.
Well, one’s alive and the other isn’t. As long as the inheritors of MJ’s estate are decent people, I think it’s fine at this point. Still skeeves me out to listen to his stuff, though. Two verses in and my brain is popping.
You know that while he was incredibly strange, there were never any credible accusations right? There were a lot of people fluffing the stories trying to get a payout but there was never any evidence of wrongdoing.
As far as I’m aware none of MJs accusers still say he did anything, and nearly all of them say their parents pressured them to say stuff he didn’t do for a settlement. He was definitely a weird guy but you look at his upbringing and it was trauma after trauma by adults exploiting him for money.
If you put all the weird things he did with those kids that his estate does not challenge it’s pretty damn creepy and looks like textbook grooming.
If it was one kid? I’d have doubts. Once it passed into double digits? Nope.
If there is one accusation still active, sure. But every single case I’ve heard of, the family withdrew and admitted they were looking for a cash settlement.
Loved Michael Jackson music so fucking much. Can’t stomach it anymore.
But the first few moments of Billy Jean…
I was looking for this comment. I used to love his music, but the lyrics hit different now…
Roman Polanski and by extension Jack Nicholson
Wait, what’s up with Jack Nicholson?
Polanski’s known crime happened AT Jack Nicholson’s home. Nicholson tooooootally didn’t know about any of it.
