Should we discard achievements made by unlikable people?

[Anomalocaris]

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

One has to weigh the assness next to the size of lasting contribution.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

One has to weigh the assness next to the size of lasting contribution.

^^This.  I mentioned Michael Faraday in another thread.  He was, by all accounts, one of those annoyingly fanatical 'primitive' Christians.  Doesn't mean I'm going to stop using electricity.

Boru

[Edwardo Piet]

Discard achievements by everyone

No but seriously, what do you mean by discard them?

People achieve stuff, whether they're awful people or not. The question is only whether we should give them credit for it. And why give anyone credit for anything regardless of how good or bad they are as a person? Even when someone's a good person, gratitude is a better emotion than pride.

---

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 fact Cosby has done bad stuff is what makes him a bad person. Imagining awful things doesn't make someone bad at all.

Acting nice in public has nothing to do with how good a person is. Fake niceness is not the same thing as good actions.

[mlmooney89]

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.

[bennyboy]

?????

The fact Cosby has done bad stuff is what makes him a bad person. Imagining awful things doesn't make someone bad at all.

Acting nice in public has nothing to do with how good a person is. Fake niceness is not the same thing as good actions.

It seems to me that you could look at it another way: the innate tendency to act badly is itself badness-- like the start of rot in an apple-- even if someone's never done wrong; at best, we'd expect such a person might be a ticking time bomb, right? But I'm not so sure that people who do bad things are necessarily bad people all the time-- plenty of war heroes have risked life and limb for their countrymen, then gone home from war to beat their wives. So are they heroes or villains?

Hermann Hesse in Steppenwolf talks about the divisions in the apparent unity. In that book, Steppenwolf sees himself as a division between the nature of human and wolf, but Hesse seems to suggest that a human is so fractured that finding a unified individual is impossible. (or at least so far as I've read-- I'm in the hospital now and I don't have that book here)

I for sure wouldn't excuse Cosby's crimes against women. Rape is rape, and it's a terrible crime and should be punished. However, I suspect that when he was educating kids or doing light-hearted stand-up, that he wasn't a fraud-- in that mode, he was also expressing a very real side of his humanity.

---

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 gotta say that in looking at rape-y scenes in some of these guys' movies, it does affect my perception of what was behind the camera. I mean, The Cosby Show even used to have a lot of sexual education: I recently watched an episode about the dangers of pornography: "Hey hey heyyy!"

---

Like what? You imagine Sam Harris is a notorious rapist? Or that Joe Rogan is a traitor, who fights to keep black people enslaved? You seem to think, that demented sociopaths constitute a much larger percentage of the population, than is the case.

It might just be me. Whenever I close my eyes, my visual field slowly fades to black (it takes about 3 seconds). Sometimes I'll open and close my eyes to see how long I can hold that fading image. I assumed that everyone is like that. But so far, nobody I've talked to has confirmed they have the same effect: for them, when you close your eyes, there is a complete and almost instant total lack of visual imagery.

Maybe I really am a sociopath, like the 1%. I've had daydreams where I imagined someone harming my daughter, and then had a complete scenario unfold in my head of how I would react; sometimes, I get so engrossed in it that it borders on hallucination.

I'm a pacifist vegetarian. I've never fought anyone since grade 5, I've never beat my wife, I've certainly never raped. But given my experiences, I can imagine that in the right climate-- maybe sleep-deprived or very upset, maybe in wartime or when attacked-- there's a real tendency toward violence hiding under the surface. I think that at least part of my humanity consists of a real capacity not only for evil, but for the lust to do it.

I wish these guys could elaborate: really honestly open up and explain how they ended up doing the things they did (Cosby and Weinstein, I mean). I suspect they'd tell stories of guilt, of abuse, of addiction, of insecurity, etc. I also wonder about the degree to which normal or even especially decent people struggle with negative thoughts and impulses. I'll bet that Joe Rogan is about 1 bad day from being the Devil incarnate, for example.

That doesn't exonerate anyone, ever, at least in my opinion. But maybe after all this, we are finally going to arrive at a better understanding of how so many people end up in these places.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm pretty sure 100% of the population are psychopaths, and the vast majority merely non-criminal ones. I mean, I can't see it any other way or how anyone else could be any different, being one myself

[bennyboy]

I'm pretty sure 100% of the population are psychopaths, and the vast majority merely non-criminal ones. I mean, I can't see it any other way or how anyone else could be any different, being one myself

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

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?

[vorlon13]

Nixon started the EPA, better disband it !!


Glad we cleared that up !!!

[bennyboy]

Nixon started the EPA, better disband it !!


Glad we cleared that up !!!

Not disband it, for sure.  But should he be credited for it with a nice portrait and a few kind words online, or should history be white washed of his name?

[Rev. Rye]

Here's what I think about the question: why bother?

Bennyboy talked about Socrates, well, if the Symposium is any indication, he was an early lover of Alcibiades; Alcibiades was a famous general from the Peloponnesian War who also wound up being infamous for being a textbook sociopath; Hervey Cleckley once said of him that he "had the gift of every talent except that of using them consistently to achieve any sensible aim or in behalf of any discernible cause" and he "may have been a spectacular example of...the psychopath." And then, bearing in mind that Socrates was apparently about 20 years older than Alcibiades, and looking over the Homosexuality in Ancient Greece Wikipedia article, it seems less like the sort of reciprocal relationships preferred in today's society and more like pederasty: Socrates, the older man (erastes), was meant to educate the beautiful, younger man (eromenos) in exchange for a sexual relationship. In Ancient Greece, it was not only accepted, but the pinnacle of love. These days, well, it would be hard not to draw a cause-and-effect relationship between the later impulsivity and sociopathy of Alcibiades and his earlier relationship with Socrates? Given that he has had an incalculable influence on philosophy, does this mean it's all a waste because of a bad apple?

On a perhaps smaller level, with the recent fall of many men in the film industry from the sexual predators to the mere guy who engaged in boorish behaviour with them without recognising what they were doing until it was way too late to do anything, really, I still don't see much of a point in dismissing a work just because someone bad was involved in it (or even its prime mover). One of the earliest examples I can remember talking about this phoenomenon (well, the earliest I've ever heard of it, anyway) was in an episode of "Hey Arnold" called "Crabby Author." Arnold is assigned to write a report about his favourite author, in his case, a woman named Agatha Caulfield. She turned out to be a recluse with serious anger issues, dismissing her entire body of work in an attempt to get him to stop hanging outside her home. And when it's over, Arnold says he still considers her his favourite author, saying that, even if she is such a bitch in real life, her work still touched him in a way that transcends her abrasive personality.

Let's face it, there's no point in finding paragons in the real world. The only real difference between good people and bad people in the real world is that the good people haven't been caught. Many of my favourite authors have dark sides; I sleep with the collected books of J.D. Salinger on my nightstand, and as a person, well, he's had a lot of unresolved personality issues that led to him alienating everyone around him, including his daughter Margaret. And that's only the tip of the iceberg for the authors I like who I'd probably detest if I knew them in real life. I have no problem appreciating "Jack and Diane" even though Doc Rosser, the pianist on the track who may very well have been the glue that held the song together, ended up being the first man to end up on the FBI's 10 most wanted list for sex crimes against children. It's all about making the world a more interesting place to live in; it may not exactly be a better place, but, really, the world has never really been even halfway decent a place at all.

I suppose I'm comfortable not listening to Lostprophets after Ian Watkins turned out to be doing shit can only be described as "totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct." I'm not really interested in Nu-Metal that doesn't involve Jonathan Davis.

But, really, to see how extreme the sort of shit you'd have to avoid if you were serious about discarding the achievements of evil people, listen to this tale of Arthur Freed. He was the big prime mover that kept making sure that The Wizard Of Oz wound up being made into a movie that will delight people everywhere. Let's see what Shirley Temple had to say about him:

“First we get rid of the baby fat,” said the little man seated behind the wide desk. “Then new hair. Teach you to belt a song, and some decent dancing.” . . .

Best known as producer of the blockbusting The Wizard of Oz, Freed was rumored in some adult circles to have an adventuresome casting couch. At the time I knew none of this, not would I have recognized such furniture even when sitting on one. To visit an executive of such stature was enough to send my spirits soaring.

“I have something made for just you,” he continued, fumbling in his lap. “You’ll be my new star!” That phrase had last been used when I was three years old in Kid in Hollywood. Obviously, Freed did not believe in preliminaries. With his face gaped in a smile, he stood up abruptly and executed a bizarre flourish of clothing. Having thought of him as a producer rather than an exhibitor, I sat bolt upright . . . Not twelve years old, I still had little appreciation for masculine versatility and so dramatic was the leap between schoolgirl speculation and Freed’s bedazzling exposure that I reacted with nervous laughter. Disdain or terror he might have expected, but not the insult of humor.

“Get out!” he shouted, unmindful of his disarray, imperiously pointing to the closed door. “Go on, get out!”

If you're serious about dismissing something solely because of some bad apples who were involved, then, if you have a copy of The Wizard of Oz, destroy it. Burn it with fire. If you don't, never watch it again. And in any case, thank your lucky stars Shirley Temple had the instinct to laugh at Arthur Freed's mighty sword.

And if you're thinking about some of the more recent examples, like, say, Kevin Spacey. Some might say that continuing to enjoy his work even though he seems to have sexually assaulted 20+ people is wrong; I've addressed these points earlier. If anything, given how many villainous roles he's played, the fact that he's really a bad person might enhance them. They might also point out that, given his popularity, the fact that people might still watch his works perpetuates his behaviour and it's best to boycott them so they get the message. I'd also like to point out that boycotting is probably the least effective form of nonviolent resistance, and that even if they're not, you will invariably affect the livelihoods of many more, far less powerful and dangerous people long before your target starts to feel the pinch.

And since some people don't seem to understand the point Bennyboy is making about someone possibly being a nice person who just happens to do monstrous things, here's an example from my own life, although on a much smaller scale: when I worked at my college's theatre scene shop, I had a female coworker. To describe her personality in a nutshell, it seems "childlike" is one of the first words to come to mind. She had an inordinate obsession with ducks (or as she'd call them "duckys") and a lot of her Facebook page had her cooing over cute things (including one memorable exchange where she and two girlfriends fought over a random squirrel). She was also bisexual (though she wouldn't admit it for whatever reason.) She did end up in a relationship with the only other girl on the shop who swung that way, but she still made passes at several of the others. I can remember one point, we were crowded around (the reason escapes me) and she decided, bubbly as all Hell, to cop a feel off of another girl. I can remember the look of terror she had on her face, wondering which of us grabbed her so she could report it. I think something like this happened multiple times. At another time, she talked to another girl on the team, and I can remember hearing her talk to her about getting her topless in a car and "it's going to be great." The coworker was unnerved by this, and so she just laughed it off. Looking at her Facebook page, interspersed with her cooing over cute things, she'd also take shots of her fooling around with her female friends, often in sexualised ways (no nudity, though), and while it seems they have gone along with it for the most part, sometimes, I can't help but wonder about it. I can even remember a photo of her overtly sniffing a female friend's hair. And it seems like the "overexaggerated little girl" personality seems to be A) exaggerated only slightly, and B) intertwined with her far more questionable actions. For most of the last couple years, I've seen her as the sort of "truth is stranger than fiction" story I find interesting. Then listening to the scandal with Melanie Martinez, her behaviour looks a lot darker.