I see. Am I right in assuming then that this is less about Nate Parker as a filmmaker and more about him as a person? As obvious the latter is to some, I’ve been talking about him in terms of his career since it’s his area of success and ultimately how we indirectly communicate with him.

I wouldn’t go as far as to say objectors should boycott either. But there is a binary choice: either see it, or don’t see it. While either choice is acceptable (to me), the people I spoke with were talking about different things. They virtually always fell back on not wanting Parker to profit, and while I understand…

I haven’t researched the details of this case enough to have an opinion. But let’s say they’re true: Nate Parker really raped this woman. At this point, the only thing I can hope for is that he’s remorseful and living a moral life. I understand why sexual abuse is an absolute deal-breaker for many people. But in my…

It does have value, and plan on seeing it in fact. I think a lot of my point has been lost in the string of my posts... what I was arguing is that if someone doesn’t want to see this movie on moral grounds, then they ought to simply not see it instead of creating this loop-hole wherein it’s torrented. No. I actually…

I agree that it’s important to know how to separate the art from the artist. But what I’m saying is that because people like us choose to do that, then we need the courage to own up to supporting these things in one way or another. While I suppose someone could argue that illegal torrents, in this case, is a lesser…

No, it’s not meaningless. The argument I was making is that non-support on moral grounds should extend to total non-consumption because even illegally downloading this movie is a form of support. The more a movie is downloaded, the more visible it becomes. It’s still distributing the film, even if the director doesn’t…

I’m using context clues... MLPB’s stance is a moral one. One doesn’t need words like “morals” or “ethics” outright written to see that this is a decision based on morals/ethics/whatever.

It’s a straightforward statement that’s straightforward bullshit, and I was calling that out.

No one’s talking about living an angelic Pure Life, free from decisions that directly or indirectly harm others. This is one person talking about a single decision. If you’re trying to dismiss my points because we overall live in a society that largely benefits off the suffering of others, then you’re only interested…

Of course people do. And I’m arguing that those differences are nonsense.

It’s implicit support because regardless of whether or not your money sees the box office light of day, it’s an approval of his work. It says that his work should be consumed. I wanna see this in theaters, and have no issues with people who don’t. What irks me is when people think torrenting (in this case), is some…

Good grief, enough about the money. Anyone can say “fuck you.” Parker is providing an entertainment service he needs to profit from in order to be successful. However, consuming his distributed service, even if illegally, still supports him in that it makes him more visible, not to mention that you’re still deriving…

I can imagine that. And I’m saying that unless I’m willing to make a sacrifice like, say, not consuming a critically-acclaimed piece of art on moral grounds, I’m not gonna be faux-sanctimonious with generalizations of how so-and-so isn’t getting my support, because even unpaid support is still support. You can either…

I have no internal conflicts about disavowing the likes of Woody Allen and Bill Cosby and still enjoying their work. The fact that you do is fine, but you also don’t get to be wishy-washy. If you’re serious about what you say, then don’t watch the movie, period. Forget the acting: just buck up.

I feel for the suckers who are gonna watch this.

*eye-roll* You’re still supporting his career by consuming his art, knucklehead. Back up your words, or back your ass out.

Is it complicated? The issue of past sexual assault and harassment, alleged or convicted, will always come down to one question: as long as the man seemingly lives the rest of his life ethically, should we have the capacity to forgive? I say yes. This brief profile of Parker is all I know of him, but he seems to be…

Phelps is an Olympic athlete: of course he wants the “glory and the spotlight.” And his attempts have paid off since he’s now a 22-time gold medalist at the relatively advanced age of thirty one.

Results are results. Deal with it.

There’s only one way to settle this...

I hope Arthur isn’t an asshole.