Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2020 19:22:28 GMT
www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/polanski-request-denied-1.5700241In 1977 he was convicted of drugging and raping a minor. While awaitng sentencing, he fled the US to Europe. He has been a fugitive ever since; the US has not been able to extradite him. Over the years he has continued to make films and have them nominated and sometimes winning an Acedemy award; the Academy has only recently (2018) revoked his membership. Polanski has never denied he did it. Should they have restored his membership? His conviction has never been a problem for the last forty years; for some reason kiddie rape was ok with Hollywood. You even had several actors like Johnny Depp and others take up Polanski's cause when he was nearly caught in a country that had an extradtion treaty with the US in the early 2000's. It make one ask why is it a problem now? It wasn't for over forty years.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 1, 2020 20:51:41 GMT
No.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Sept 2, 2020 5:57:36 GMT
He never will. The backlash would be too huge. And Hollywood as things are is already losing support from the average joe.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 2, 2020 11:43:52 GMT
Many artists have had deplorable morals. Begin removing them all from the lists of honorariums and academic bodies that award their work, and you'd have few names left. Tough though it can be sometimes, I still think the personal behavior should be separated from the professional output when it comes to considerations of pure aesthetics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2020 23:36:06 GMT
www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/polanski-request-denied-1.5700241In 1977 he was convicted of drugging and raping a minor. While awaitng sentencing, he fled the US to Europe. He has been a fugitive ever since; the US has not been able to extradite him. Over the years he has continued to make films and have them nominated and sometimes winning an Acedemy award; the Academy has only recently (2018) revoked his membership. Polanski has never denied he did it. Should they have restored his membership? His conviction has never been a problem for the last forty years; for some reason kiddie rape was ok with Hollywood. You even had several actors like Johnny Depp and others take up Polanski's cause when he was nearly caught in a country that had an extradtion treaty with the US in the early 2000's. It make one ask why is it a problem now? It wasn't for over forty years. The dynamic surrounding Polanski and his sexual involvement with a 13yr old girl is more often than not hyped, distorted and wrongheaded. He was NOT convicted of drugging and raping her. He plead guilty to having sex with a minor and was sentenced to 90 days observation under a plea deal. The justice system had him locked up and THEY were the ones who let him go after serving half that time. He absconded because of the unethical and corrupt judge presiding over his case. He refused to plead guilty to a rape charge and had it gone to trial, it would not have fared well for the girl he had sex with, nor her scheming mother who whored out her own daughter and DID know her age. As for the Academy, he has an Oscar, something that was awarded to him well after this well documented but overtly sensationalised case, and if they didn’t feel disgusted by his actions by then and had absolved him, why suddenly change their minds much later? Oh, that’s right! Hollywarped are phony virtue signalling hypocrites where no-one can be expected to tell the truth. It covered up Weinstein’s behaviour for eons. He still drugged then fucked the 13 y/o.
|
|
avocadojoe
Sophomore
@avocadojoe
Posts: 367
Likes: 159
|
Post by avocadojoe on Sept 4, 2020 1:01:58 GMT
www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/polanski-request-denied-1.5700241In 1977 he was convicted of drugging and raping a minor. While awaitng sentencing, he fled the US to Europe. He has been a fugitive ever since; the US has not been able to extradite him. Over the years he has continued to make films and have them nominated and sometimes winning an Acedemy award; the Academy has only recently (2018) revoked his membership. Polanski has never denied he did it. Should they have restored his membership? His conviction has never been a problem for the last forty years; for some reason kiddie rape was ok with Hollywood. You even had several actors like Johnny Depp and others take up Polanski's cause when he was nearly caught in a country that had an extradtion treaty with the US in the early 2000's. It make one ask why is it a problem now? It wasn't for over forty years. Too little, too late. At this point, who the hell cares? Polanski has been living in Paris since 1977. I hope he's happy. Too much suffering got doled out to this poor soul.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2020 1:07:49 GMT
He still drugged then fucked the 13 y/o. As far as Polanski is concerned, the hype surrounding this situation, in context, pales mega times in comparison to other events in his life that preceded this. He did do the wrong thing and took advantage of a situation. He took the bait in which the mother dangled her 13yr old daughter off for a nude photo shoot, yet his victim never felt like a victim, there is plenty of evidence of her stating this, has forgiven him and it wasn't her first, nor last time either with older adult males.
You do realize the US DON'T really want him back. Due to the mess that was made of this by Judge Rittenband, he ruined it, it would open up another can of worms and expose the lies of Geimer and her mother and the deceit behind the legal corruption. I also wouldn't be surprised to find out that Polanski's clandestine passage out of California, was aided by the authorities.
Why do you have an image of a semi-naked male teen as an avatar and call yourself 17weenie. Is that to incite, or can it be taken as an issue regarding some personal fetish?
It really sounds like you are victim blaming here... Imagine this scenario....A 40 y/o man is explaining why he had forcible sex with a female. He says it's because the female was walking around buck naked teasing him and everyone around who could see her and virtually begging to be ravished and made love to. How old was this female? Answer - Four y/o. As for my avatar...it's actor Asa Butterfield who was in his 20's when the still photo for "Then Came You" was taken; if you find it to be inciteful or a personal fetish....
|
|
avocadojoe
Sophomore
@avocadojoe
Posts: 367
Likes: 159
|
Post by avocadojoe on Sept 4, 2020 5:48:49 GMT
Too little, too late. At this point, who the hell cares? Polanski has been living in Paris since 1977. I hope he's happy. Too much suffering got doled out to this poor soul. Polanski attracted suffering in his life like flies on manure, suffering that I don't think many could possibly understand or fathom. Of all the crimes of humanity committed against his being, all the haters want to see him suffer even more for something that was consequentially victimless. Dressing it up, to mask their own insecurities and wanting to others to think they are so righteous and virtuous for their pathetic stance. This. And adding to your point, I wonder if these Polanski detractors are not only trying to convince others of their moral righteousness, but are also trying to convince themselves. Because these people do not give a damn about Samantha Geimer. I doubt if most of them even know her name. For whatever reason, they have this need to feel morally outraged. It makes them feel secure about themselves and they see fit to use Geimer as their pawn. The fact that Geimer herself has never viewed herself as a victim is for these silly people an annoying irrelevancy. It reminds of the time my cousin was walking down the street with her husband, and a car was not looking and hit her and knocked her to the ground. The car took off, and husband - instead of taking the time to see if his wife had been badly injured - just took off running after the person in the car. It's really the exact same thing. These people don't care about the victim. They just want to see somebody get punished. It's something they enjoy (Of course, they would never admit this.) A bunch of bloody-thirsty creeps. I think it's just too obvious. After reading these posts, I read an interview with Geimer called "Nobody's Victim". (Among other things, she does seem like a very intelligent person. Lots of self-awareness.) One thing Geimer said... "The use of a victim or the accused as fodder for profit or prurience by those who have the nerve to pretend they are doing a public service is hypocritical and immoral."I'm beginning to think that Samantha Geimer is not so much a victim of Roman Polanski as she is a victim of those who want to use her as a pawn in their morality games, e.g., "weenie17" And that scenario with the saucy 4 year old was idiotic to the point of embarrassment. Btw, my cousin was not badly hurt. And she divorced her jerk spouse a few months later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2020 22:24:31 GMT
This. And adding to your point, I wonder if these Polanski detractors are not only trying to convince others of their moral righteousness, but are also trying to convince themselves. Because these people do not give a damn about Samantha Geimer. I doubt if most of them even know her name. For whatever reason, they have this need to feel morally outraged. It makes them feel secure about themselves and they see fit to use Geimer as their pawn. The fact that Geimer herself has never viewed herself as a victim is for these silly people an annoying irrelevancy.
It reminds of the time my cousin was walking down the street with her husband, and a car was not looking and hit her and knocked her to the ground. The car took off, and husband - instead of taking the time to see if his wife had been badly injured - just took off running after the person in the car. It's really the exact same thing. These people don't care about the victim. They just want to see somebody get punished. Of course, they would never admit this. A bunch of bloody-thirsty creeps. I think it's just too obvious.After reading these posts, I read an interview with Geimer called "Nobody's Victim". (Among other things, she does seem like a very intelligent person. Lots of self-awareness.) One thing Geimer said... "The use of a victim or the accused as fodder for profit or prurience by those who have the nerve to pretend they are doing a public service is hypocritical and immoral."I'm beginning to think that Samantha Geimer is not so much a victim of Roman Polanski as she is a victim of those who want to use her as a pawn in their morality games, e.g., "weenie17" And that scenario with the saucy 4 year old was idiotic to the point of embarrassment. Btw, my cousin was not badly hurt. And she divorced her jerk spouse a few months later. Pleased your cousin was not badly hurt, but I guess for some males too, they may feel stigmatised by not going after a perp for harming their woman. It's like 17weiner had totally chosen to dismiss what I commented on by giving it more context, than an anaemic and half truth media zombie article, because once a mind is made up to how they feel about something, and how they want others to perceive them, ignorance takes root. Geimer's intelligence and the guile she appears to have been raised with, allowed her to come across as more mature than her years. She was young, but her mother used her to entrap Polanski too. I'd say most of these hater losers are operating from a victim stance themselves in their lives. This is what gets promoted, especially for the justice system to profit and for others to get the attention they want. Injustices occur, but I am hard pressed to find justice in Polanski's scenario here. Polanski lived a life of injustice and to my mind, is more a victim than Geimer could ever be perceived, and she DOESN'T even perceive herself as one. The Polanski detractors will do that for her, pretending to phony care for her feelings. She wouldn't give them the time of day and likely would be contemptuous of them, as any interviewer that goes down the victim route with her usually finds out. In love with kiddie fuckers, are we?
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 5, 2020 1:06:18 GMT
We actually need a tiebreaker for this? Seriously?
|
|
|
Post by femalefan on Sept 5, 2020 2:09:53 GMT
No and I can't believe it was tied before I broke it by clicking no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2020 15:25:16 GMT
In love with kiddie fuckers, are we? Your insecurity is oh so apparent and it appears you are either seeking approval from others for your moronic and distorted stance, or just trolling. Perhaps both, but whatever it is, I suggest you grow up! Projecting, are we?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2020 16:29:19 GMT
What exactly is it you are not comprehending? Things aren’t always the way want them to be, yet when wrong-headed phony virtue signallers are operating from a dense and ignorant space and refuse to budge out of their own stagnant mindset, it becomes about a desperate and narcissistic need for attention. Is that why you started this thread without putting any genuine and honest thought into it? All you have done is make an idiot out of yourself. Really?? All I was asking in my OP was "Given what Polanski was accused and convicted of, should he be allowed back in to the Academy given that the Academy waited 40 years to react to it?" Subway booted Jared Fogel as a corporate sponsor very soon after he was caught. If one is a lawyer, you would be disbarred automatically after a felony conviction in most jurisdictions. Many would get fired from their jobs right away for a felony. The Academy, however, waited 40 years to react. Judging by that alone (the 40 year delay), should he get reinstated?
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Sept 5, 2020 20:11:59 GMT
Absolutely not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 13:40:26 GMT
Really?? All I was asking in my OP was "Given what Polanski was accused and convicted of, should he be allowed back in to the Academy given that the Academy waited 40 years to react to it?" Subway booted Jared Fogel as a corporate sponsor very soon after he was caught. If one is a lawyer, you would be disbarred automatically after a felony conviction in most jurisdictions. Many would get fired from their jobs right away for a felony. The Academy, however, waited 40 years to react. Judging by that alone (the 40 year delay), should he get reinstated? Yes really!!! That was answered in my first post. You then took a fixed and biased POV in response because you didn’t want anyone to disagree with what you want to believe how monstrous you feel Polanski is and how much of a victim you want to make out his victim, who never even felt like she was much of of Polanski’s victim. She has outwardly expressed how the media and corrupt legal system made her life hell, NOT Polanski who she had kept in touch with. Her mother did similar to her what Maxwell is accused off. No, you didn't answer anything at all. You were the one who went off on a tangent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2020 0:59:45 GMT
No, you didn't answer anything at all. You were the one who went off on a tangent. Whatever! The first post I made has a few likes, so others have found connection with what I commented and why do you even care? That article you linked is warped truth and click bait. Why do you care. You seem the only one who got so up and excited. I'll give one thing to Polanski...He hired a damn good lawyer. His lawyer managed to hoodwink the DA in to getting Polanski a real slap on the wrist for what he did; kudos to the judge for rejecting this. In most jurisdictions, judges have to approve these plea deals - all part of not turning the justice system in to a joke. You mentioned that the mother was a bit of a slimeball. The girl was hardly an innocent teenager. It's still wrong to drug someone - let alone someone underage - and then have sex with them. In case you haven't heard, that's called rape. The victim says she has forgiven Polanski, but that doesn't make what he did ok. If you and a few others disagree, we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2020 4:51:24 GMT
Why do you care. You seem the only one who got so up and excited. I'll give one thing to Polanski...He hired a damn good lawyer. His lawyer managed to hoodwink the DA in to getting Polanski a real slap on the wrist for what he did; kudos to the judge for rejecting this. In most jurisdictions, judges have to approve these plea deals - all part of not turning the justice system in to a joke. You mentioned that the mother was a bit of a slimeball. The girl was hardly an innocent teenager. It's still wrong to drug someone - let alone someone underage - and then have sex with them. In case you haven't heard, that's called rape. The victim says she has forgiven Polanski, but that doesn't make what he did ok. If you and a few others disagree, we'll have to agree to disagree. Too much obsession with what Polanski did, means exactly what I commented earlier, that you are faux outraged and phony caring. There is no honesty in your intention, apart from wanting to serve your own distorted agenda. You are wanting and desperate for a victim.
Whose stinky sock are you by the way? Dude, you are definitely projecting!!! One could easily say the same about you. What is your obsession regarding me anyways?
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 12, 2020 15:50:03 GMT
Hey, what happened to the OP? They self-deleted?
|
|