Should we discard achievements made by unlikable people?

[vorlon13]

Newton was an ass. Don't even get me started on Tesla.

Edison could have invented 3 phase AC electric power except he couldn't do the mathematics involved.

I had it in sparky school 35 years ago, and managed to 'get it' but fortunately my subsequent career path never intersected that stuff.

[Rev. Rye]

Newton was an ass. Don't even get me started on Tesla.

Edison could have invented 3 phase AC electric power except he couldn't do the mathematics involved.

I had it in sparky school 35 years ago, and managed to 'get it' but fortunately my subsequent career path never intersected that stuff.

He was just too obsessed with DC power to bother, and if he did figure it out, he'd probably be doing more shit like this:






I probably should have done a content warning of some kind, but given that A) the title gives it all away, and B) the makers of built AN ENTIRE EPISODE around this clip and it still got a TV-PG, I guess the point is moot.

EDIT: Okay, for some reason, the forum won't allow me to post the words "The makers of Bob's Burgers built an entire episode around this clip" without some of the words vanishing. Why?

[Fireball]

Newton was an ass. Don't even get me started on Tesla.

Edison could have invented 3 phase AC electric power except he couldn't do the mathematics involved.

I had it in sparky school 35 years ago, and managed to 'get it' but fortunately my subsequent career path never intersected that stuff.

Shit, we got 3-phase electricity training in "A" school in the US Navy ('73), and I was a mechanic (Machinist's Mate). Taint all that difficult. We all study a vast swath of technical topics at the university. I know a ton of nuclear stuff from the Navy, but never used it in civilian life, except for a few months in '84. I used the 5 semesters of electromagnetic theory for far more time.

---

Edison could have invented 3 phase AC electric power except he couldn't do the mathematics involved.

I had it in sparky school 35 years ago, and managed to 'get it' but fortunately my subsequent career path never intersected that stuff.

He was just too obsessed with DC power to bother, and if he did figure it out, he'd probably be doing more shit like this:






I probably should have done a content warning of some kind, but given that A) the title gives it all away, and B) the makers of built AN ENTIRE EPISODE around this clip and it still got a TV-PG, I guess the point is moot.

EDIT: Okay, for some reason, the forum won't allow me to post the words "The makers of Bob's Burgers built an entire episode around this clip" without some of the words vanishing. Why?

That part must be classified secret.

[henryp]

We've had this discussion with regard to civil war greats like General Lee, and now with cinematic greats like Harvey Weinstein.  I'm pretty sure if we knew more about Socrates or Sam Harris, about Ghandi or about Joe Rogan, we'd find quite the horror.

I've looked in my mirror more, and I have to say that I've seen the entire gamut of horrors and greatness in myself-- deep, deep depravity, inexplicable generosity, complete selfishness, and life-risking altruism.

Is it possible that Cosby, when he's in the public, actually IS a great guy?  Or is it that he is always, 24/7, a monster, and he's hiding the truth?  Am I a 24/7 monster too, someone who has imagined rape, murder, theft or violence in the past, but have had either the discipline (or the simple lack of opportunity) to keep my actions under control?

The duality of people.  There's who someone is, and who they want to be.  For many people, the discrepancies are simple.  I wish I would eat healthier and go to the gym more, but they don't.  But then there are people suffering from alcoholism, or drug abuse, or rage, etc... 

Mel Gibson has always been fascinating to me, because who he is is an alcoholic with rage problems and all sorts of racism.  But it's not who he tries to be, which is why people who work with him tend to rave about him.  I think because his experience fighting himself allows him to be more sympathetic to others who are also in that sort of fight, and he's shown some understanding to folks who others that the mob wanted to toss in the trash.  

---

I just don't think people are a sum of their parts.  I think we are just a lot of parts.  There's no need to add them up unless we're forming a personal relationship with them.   Cosby is a rapist and should be in jail.  But that doesn't change that he was iconic as a comedian.  I think trying to add it all up to 'bad' is unnecessary.  He was an amazing comedian who liked drugging girls.  He's both those things.  It's okay to stop there, rather than squish them together into an ultimate conclusion.

What's interesting with art, is that the people who just want to eat healthier and go to the gym as their big personal conflict don't seem to make a lot of art.  I don't think it's a coincidence that so many great artists have so many problems.  A lot of art is rooted in an alternative perspective.  And there's usually some baggage that comes with seeing/experiencing the world in a different way that gives that perspective.

---

 I'll bet that Joe Rogan is about 1 bad day from being the Devil incarnate, for example.

That's pretty funny.  Joe Rogan is on my list as well.  Bill Burr, Louis CK, George Carlin, and Jerry Seinfeld being some others.  People who have a real skewed take on reality.  There's just that list of assumptions about how people should act that I think is hardwired into most people, and for some it's just not there.  And when it's not, it creates a very distinct perspective.

[Edwardo Piet]

This is how we learn-- we start with our own experience, and then attempt to communicate with others.

That's irrelevant. Societal conditioning is not the same as learning. There's a such thing as being miseducated.

And though you are clearly just try to charm me with your usually love and support, I think a little knowledge might lead you to wonder if your statement should be taken literally.  It seems to me that all of WWII Germany pretty much resulted in a mass triggering of underlying psychopathy.  Is perhaps some of Hollywood or political culture of abuse rooted in some of the same psychology as we see in Milgram?

A triggering of psychopathy? What utter bullshit. Psychopathy is either 1% of the population, 3% of the population or 100% of the population. And I am either one of the biggest psychos around and everyone else is as well . . . or I am not a psycho.

[paulpablo]

Depends on the achievement and how it helps us. Great inventions that we use can be celebrated without acknowledging the inventor. Trivial things can be forgotten. Lead singer of the Lost Prophets was caught doing very bad things and despite liking their music I will never again listen to it.

I think with singers or leaders of bands, or people who have their personality entwined closely with their product, it's tougher to separate their personality with their product.

If it was the producer, or the bass player instead of the lead singer of the Lost Prophets I think their music might be more listenable for people who did like their music (I didn't).

I like some of Michael Jackson's music and I think his case was less blatant than the case of Ian Watkins I suppose that's why I can still listen to his music.

As for everyone else it just depends what good they did and what they did that was bad and weighing it up.

[bennyboy]

This is how we learn-- we start with our own experience, and then attempt to communicate with others.

That's irrelevant. Societal conditioning is not the same as learning. There's a such thing as being miseducated.

Conditioning is in fact learning, by definition. But I'm not sure wtf you are talking about right now, to be honest. I was talking about psychopathy, and about how I communicate with others to discover if my own impulses and instincts are unique to me or common among others. What does "societal conditioning" have to do with any of that?

A triggering of psychopathy? What utter bullshit. Psychopathy is either 1% of the population, 3% of the population or 100% of the population. And I am either one of the biggest psychos around and everyone else is as well . . . or I am not a psycho.

Again. . . not sure what you are trying to say right now. You seem to be excited about something, given your language, but I'm having trouble seeing a point that you're trying to make.

---

The duality of people.  There's who someone is, and who they want to be.  For many people, the discrepancies are simple.  I wish I would eat healthier and go to the gym more, but they don't.  But then there are people suffering from alcoholism, or drug abuse, or rage, etc... 

Mel Gibson has always been fascinating to me, because who he is is an alcoholic with rage problems and all sorts of racism.  But it's not who he tries to be, which is why people who work with him tend to rave about him.  I think because his experience fighting himself allows him to be more sympathetic to others who are also in that sort of fight, and he's shown some understanding to folks who others that the mob wanted to toss in the trash.  

Interesting discussion. If someone is struggling against for example addiction, but sometimes relapses and does something terrible (like drive drunk and get caught ranting by Jews), what stance should we take? "He's such a noble guy-- he struggles with his addictions and personality problems, and finds a way to produce great art" or "Fuck that guy. . . fucking drunk driving Jew hater!"

He's both at times, but the intent seems primarily to be toward the art.

[John V]

No, you just fail to realize the distance, that a "normal" human being has to cross, in order to go from imagining horrible things and performing them in a calculated manner.

The distance just seems to be enough money/power that one thinks he can get away with it.

[henryp]

---

The duality of people.  There's who someone is, and who they want to be.  For many people, the discrepancies are simple.  I wish I would eat healthier and go to the gym more, but they don't.  But then there are people suffering from alcoholism, or drug abuse, or rage, etc... 

Mel Gibson has always been fascinating to me, because who he is is an alcoholic with rage problems and all sorts of racism.  But it's not who he tries to be, which is why people who work with him tend to rave about him.  I think because his experience fighting himself allows him to be more sympathetic to others who are also in that sort of fight, and he's shown some understanding to folks who others that the mob wanted to toss in the trash.  

Interesting discussion.  If someone is struggling against for example addiction, but sometimes relapses and does something terrible (like drive drunk and get caught ranting by Jews), what stance should we take?  "He's such a noble guy-- he struggles with his addictions and personality problems, and finds a way to produce great art" or "Fuck that guy. . . fucking drunk driving Jew hater!"

He's both at times, but the intent seems primarily to be toward the art.

My take is I think Mel is a decent person who creates great art, and suffers from a disease and I wish him the best in overcoming the disease.  

Rehabilitation/Treatment over punishment just makes so much more sense now that we recognize how much of what we do is motivated by things not particularly under our control.

[ignoramus]

Madame Curie apparently was not very sociable but I still admire her.
She had a nice glow about her...