Society/Culture wrt to Roebuck - When is it wrong to mourn?

[Sweet Jesus]

However I don't think Roebuck's flaws were totally damning.

That's pretty rich coming from an avowed homophobe like yourself.

I weighed in to defend a bloke being attacked, post mortem, by people offering nothing more than suspicions to substantiate their slurs.

Are you still willing to defend this sexual predator?

You were pretty firm in your objections to gay marriage. But more forgiving of sexual predators, apparently.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I thought this was an interesting reflection on the extent to which someone's work can be separated from their life, and whether it should be.

If it were true, I would view Roebuck's life as a balance of his contribution to cricket, his philanthropic work and some dark aspects as well. I certainly wouldn't sanctify him because of the positives or hang him because of the negatives.

Tell that to Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey etc.

Imagine if Weinstein died tomorrow and the eulogies focused exclusively on his successful career.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I agree with many posts here in saying that jumping to conclusions of pedophilia tendencies, or sexual orientation is out of line. Even if these presumptions were true, who are we to judge a person who was born with these tendencies?? I'm not defending Roebuck, and I know nothing of his writings, but at the end of the day he was just a human being. No superhero. Not immune to ordinary life events. Why must we place such high expectations on him? Because he wrote critically, perhaps sometimes out of line, about our cricket idols?

Human nature is a funny thing and a lot of people we admire aren't perfect or even close to it. Roebuck wasn't, but the continual muck raking over what has happened is a little distasteful, and disrespectful.

For me, he was a great cricket broadcaster and from that perspective he is missed already - by me anyway.

Some of you little homophobe's just can't seem to get your head around the fact that some gay men like to have younger (but still legal) partners.

He was a sexual predator and you defended him. Shameful.

 

[blackcat]

How should we regard Peter Roebuck's apologists in light of the #MeToo movement?

No one is defending Kevin Spacey as "complex" or focusing on "his craft". But that was the tenor of plenty of eulogies for Roebuck. Oh he was "complicated" and a "fine writer" (he wasn't - he was awful). Let's talk about that instead of the fact he was a sexual predator.

The journalism and cricketing fraternity bent over backwards to defend this dirty bastard. Shame on them. Fairfax hired him despite knowing about his perverted caning of schoolboys in England.

Look at this tripe from Jim Maxwell. The last paragraph:

There was a sense of justice about everything he did? Are you kidding? This was a man who used his power and privilege to take sexual advantage of young black cricketers. Imagine someone said that about Kevin Spacey today. The moral blindspot on this s**t was/is inexcusable. People who went into bat for Roebuck - including those in this thread - should be held to account for their hypocrisy.

#moralpanic #sexpanic #moralscare #sexscare

fux sake, we in the prosperous* west have nothing else to worry about

#JWH *prosperity qua prosperous[sic] /grammar

evo ?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

#moralpanic #sexpanic #moralscare #sexscare

fux sake, we in the prosperous* west have nothing else to worry about

#JWH *prosperity qua prosperous[sic] /grammar

evo ?

That's a very glib view of sexual assault.

 

[blackcat]

That's a very glib view of sexual assault.

a pointer finger on the top of a thigh aint sexual assault.

#pointerfinger #meta

 

[Sweet Jesus]

a pointer finger on the top of a thigh aint sexual assault.

Is that what you think Roebuck did?

 

[Feerits Elf]

People who went into bat for Roebuck - including those in this thread - should be held to account for their hypocrisy.

What's the hypocrisy?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What's the hypocrisy?

In the case of the journalists, they've been enthusiastic in their condemnation of the recent high-profile perpetrators of sexual assault, but failed to do so in the case of Roebuck. They airburshed that and eulogised him as though he wasn't a sexual predator. Should Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey be assessed exclusively on their work? Clearly not. Nor should have Roebuck. They failed the test of moral clarity, just as Hollywood did with Roman Polanski.

 

[Feerits Elf]

In the case of the journalists, they've been enthusiastic in their condemnation of the recent high-profile perpetrators of sexual assault, but failed to do so in the case of Roebuck. They airburshed that and eulogised him as though he wasn't a sexual predator. Should Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey be assessed exclusively on their work? Clearly not. Nor should have Roebuck. They failed the test of moral clarity, just as Hollywood did with Roman Polanski.

No, I mean what's the hypocrisy of those in this thread who went in to bat for Roebuck?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No, I mean what's the hypocrisy of those in this thread who went in to bat for Roebuck?

Assuming that they are not generally prepared to defend sexual predators?

 

[blackcat]

In the case of the journalists, they've been enthusiastic in their condemnation of the recent high-profile perpetrators of sexual assault, but failed to do so in the case of Roebuck. They airburshed that and eulogised him as though he wasn't a sexual predator. Should Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey be assessed exclusively on their work? Clearly not. Nor should have Roebuck. They failed the test of moral clarity, just as Hollywood did with Roman Polanski.

Hollywood never had it, the dreamfactory always confected a script.

The media are just as bad with hypocrisy, see: Chris Gayle and how they impugned him for being a clumsy sportsman who had the gall to ask a female reporter out on air. Why being on air is a problem? The are myriad of female media professionals getting hitched to sportsmen, or atleast having katefitzpatrick dalliances #Imran

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Hollywood never had it, the dreamfactory always confected a script.

Well, the industry was pretty quick to blackball Spacey and Weinstein et al when those stories broke. Nobody defended them because "they did great work". And the industry has since made a massive spectacle of its principled objections at awards ceremonies and so forth. Rightly so. But many of these same people (Meryl Streep, for example) actively defended and worked with Roman Polanski over the years despite the facts of his case being widely known and not in dispute. They were horrified by Spacey aggressively and inappropriately hitting on young men but apparently Polanski drugging and sodomising a 13-year-old girl was OK. Again, that is not a mere allegation. It is an established fact of the case. It is not in dispute that he did that. But they gave him an Oscar and a standing ovation anyway. They apparently weren't against statutory rape - and that's the least of it - back then.

The media are just as bad with hypocrisy, see: Chris Gayle and how they impugned him for being a clumsy sportsman who had the gall to ask a female reporter out on air. Why being on air is a problem? The are myriad of female media professionals getting hitched to sportsmen, or atleast having katefitzpatrick dalliances #Imran

I'm not sure that's analogous.

 

[blackcat]

Well, the industry was pretty quick to blackball Spacey and Weinstein et al when those stories broke. Nobody defended them because "they did great work". And the industry has since made a massive spectacle of its principled objections at awards ceremonies and so forth. Rightly so. But many of these same people (Meryl Streep, for example) actively defended and worked with Roman Polanski over the years despite the facts of his case being widely known and not in dispute. They were horrified by Spacey aggressively and inappropriately hitting on young men but apparently Polanski drugging and sodomising a 13-year-old girl was OK. Again, that is not a mere allegation. It is an established fact of the case. It is not in dispute that he did that.

hollywood are expedient. see: CateBlachett's last speech re:women's inalienable rights to wear what the wish to wear, not be asked about it, do work with whomever the wished.... well, ok cate. I agree. But why take the millions from Chanel to wear their dresses on the red-carpet(and NOT!!! be asked about it), where their perfumes and be in the Vogue campaigns, and do a multimillion 5min film advertisment for Chanel by Baz Luhrmann?

The hypocrisy is manifest.

Snake_Baker

 

[Sweet Jesus]

hollywood are expedient. see: CateBlachett's last speech re:women's inalienable rights to wear what the wish to wear, not be asked about it, do work with whomever the wished.... well, ok cate. I agree. But why take the millions from Chanel to wear their dresses on the red-carpet(and NOT!!! be asked about it), where their perfumes and be in the Vogue campaigns, and do a multimillion 5min film advertisment for Chanel by Baz Luhrmann?

The hypocrisy is manifest.

She also named her son Roman, after Polanski. #MeToo

 

[Feerits Elf]

Assuming that they are not generally prepared to defend sexual predators?

So you're levelling a charge of hypocrisy based on an assumption?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So you're levelling a charge of hypocrisy based on an assumption?

If people want to go on the record and say they are all good with sexual predators generally, I will happily withdraw it and give them extra points for consistency. By all means, defend all sexual predators if that's their position. Let me know when that happens. That is the price of defending Roebuck.

 

[blackcat]

#d'affaireDreyfus

 

[medusala]

hollywood are expedient. see: CateBlachett's last speech re:women's inalienable rights to wear what the wish to wear, not be asked about it, do work with whomever the wished.... well, ok cate. I agree. But why take the millions from Chanel to wear their dresses on the red-carpet(and NOT!!! be asked about it), where their perfumes and be in the Vogue campaigns, and do a multimillion 5min film advertisment for Chanel by Baz Luhrmann?

Her finest hour. Hugh thinking that his PR firm going to get the tijuana brass sooner rather than later for involving him in such nonsense.

 

[Ron The Bear]

That's pretty rich coming from an avowed homophobe like yourself.

Are you still willing to defend this sexual predator?

You were pretty firm in your objections to gay marriage. But more forgiving of sexual predators, apparently.

*in' hell. Go back a few more years, I was in nappies. I don't wish to revisit this topic.

 

[Ron The Bear]

How should we regard Peter Roebuck's apologists in light of the #MeToo movement?

Maybe it was an arrangement like... I dunno... Hollywood actresses prostituting themselves for movie roles?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

****in' hell. Go back a few more years, I was in nappies. I don't wish to revisit this topic.

Are you still willing to defend this sexual predator?

How is the timeframe relevant? As a younger man, you were OK with sexual predators but now you're not? Please explain.

Maybe it was an arrangement like... I dunno... Hollywood actresses prostituting themselves for movie roles?

Sorry, what?

You are aware that Harvey Weinstein is accused of raping women? Or was that merely "an arrangement"?

It's jarring how you're willing to claim the high ground when it comes to ostracising gay people yet your radar for other stuff is completely skewed.

Beware the gays but make excuses for sexual predators. What a peculiar, warped line to take.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Are you still willing to defend this sexual predator?

How is the timeframe relevant? As a younger man, you were OK with sexual predators but now you're not? Please explain.

Sorry, what?

You are aware that Harvey Weinstein is accused of raping women? Or was that merely "an arrangement"?

It's jarring how you're willing to claim the high ground when it comes to ostracising gay people yet your radar for other stuff is completely skewed.

Beware the gays but make excuses for sexual predators. What a peculiar, warped line to take.

Don't think I've ever taken a Mundine line and suggested gays should be shot. I voted no to gay marriage, is all. You're just looking for an argument.

Re the prostitution comment, refer to Sir Ian McKellen's observations.

 

[skilts]

The are myriad of female media professionals getting hitched to sportsmen, or atleast having katefitzpatrick dalliances #Imran

Had dinner with her and a few others at the Waiters Club one night. A riotous affair, enlivened by a stunning woman of considerable intellect. I've always admired Imran too.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Don't think I've ever taken a Mundine line and suggested gays should be shot.

How open-minded of you.

I voted no to gay marriage, is all.

We both know your distaste for homosexuals runs deeper than that. Because you've said so.

You're just looking for an argument.

Actually, I'm looking for clarification. Are you still willing to defend Peter Roebuck, the sexual predator?

It's interesting that you find homosexuals objectionable but sexual predators less so.

Re the prostitution comment, refer to Sir Ian McKellen's observations.

No. I'll refer to your comments.