Can celebrities stop being bad people (allegedly) so we can enjoy their work???
3 Likes
We can enjoy their work regardless. We just don’t need to worship them over it. We shouldn’t do that anyway.
5 Likes
We should all just be hipsters, drop artists when they reach 10k followers.
10 Likes
At that rate just make another millennial burger joint
1 Like
15 posts were merged into an existing topic: Derailing from JCVD accusation thread
I haven’t seen any updates on this. Anyone got any news?
1 Like
Regarding “discussing cancel culture” and that someone made a comment on what they would do if they were the administrator of the forum, and as the administrator I feel the need to point a few things out.
- You have PMs and the Feedback community to suggest changes to the forum.
- You are free to leave the forum at any time, you can even PM me to ask for you account to be deleted
Topics such as this are sensitive and require care because you never know who reading the thread may have experience with being assaulted, etc. They are absolutely not the place to just drop in and announce you hate the concept of “cancel culture” (a truly absurd notion give the current state of global affairs) and victims should be silent for your own benefit.
The forum is for civilized conversation, no for screaming how offended by a conspiracy theory that you invented about how people are both:
- Incapable of affecting any change, just of being outraged.
- Apparently so powerful they can force companies to make immediate decisions without doing the above
These are not civilized actions, they are in fact the uncivilized action of people trying to shut down important conversations about consent, credibliity, parasocial relationships, etc.
The golden rule is - think about if you can actually show/explain/demonstrate the premise of your claims - if you can’t and it’s just going to be a rant about your feelings and how yours matter and other people’s don’t, don’t post that. Consider, instead, reflecting on why you might assume those things and how it could be a problem.
There are plenty of interesting elements to discuss here - how European law deals with these, the general bar of evidence before police will make an accusation at a celebrity, the likelihood of the systems providing an accurate outcome, how much background checking a company can be expected to do, limits to what they can do in a situation, etc.
Also if you guys could try to think about whether the joke you’re going to make is tasteful, that’d also be good too.
14 Likes
6 posts were merged into an existing topic: Derailing from JCVD accusation thread
This discussion ends here. @wincenworks have already stepped in to inform why this isn’t welcome on HMF and what options you have, if you disagree. This was done after a forum staff member already stepped in and removed the offending posts.
This is just pissing into the wind. Don’t ignore forum staff rulings.
12 Likes
The Conor news made me uninstall Hitman for a while, glad IOI removed it. Unfortunate for those who bought it and I hope the content gets reworked somehow.
I bought the JCVD dlc hoping for a new chapter. Unfortunately I didn’t get a chance to play it around it’s release. Wanted to jump back in again recently but I will hold off for now. It’s a real pity.
My suggestion moving forward would be not to use celebrities, but use fictional characters instead. e.g. Le Chiffre is a great idea. E.g. the character could still exist without the actor in theory if anything negative was to happen.
For JCVD I’d honestly like it if they changed him to Johhny Cage
2 Likes
With the exception of the two Garys ET, they are all fictional characters portrayed by an actor.
Nonetheless, they would still have to model an alternative character and record voice lines. These assets dont manifest themselves into the game for free.
IOI certainly blundered with McGregor - a cursory amount of research would have revealed that he was on the precipice of becoming radioactive. However, the same can’t be said of JCVD.
8 Likes
Well it seems you’ve decided to demonstrate why my previous warning was necessary.
Nobody on this forum is a jurist in the trial, particularly since it hasn’t happened yet.
Also, you seem to be continuing to assume you are allowed to accuse victims, the police, etc of all being guilty of whatever you invent so this really doesn’t hold up.
Factually incorrect on multiple levels.
Kevin Spacey and Johnny Depp were not charged.
Kevin Spacy was outted as a predator by someone who sued unsuccessfully for an event that took place 21 years prior (so a tough case to prove anything) and lost. After that fifteen other people came forward to talk about how Spacey had preyed on them.
So by your estimation, you are falsely accussing 15 people to protect one guy who initially gave a real weak “Um… maybe I did it but I don’t remember and I’m sorry” response.
Johnny Depp sued Amber Heard twice - because he lost the first time in the UK, where defamation lawsuits are wider, and then strategically sued in a court in the US with the most favourable conditions to him and made the whole thing a media circus to punish his ex. This is textbook abuser behaviour.
Till Lindemann was investigated for sexual misconduct but the charges were eventually dropped due to lack of evidence - which is not to say that they don’t believe he did it but rather they are not confident they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Strange you don’t have this sympathy for the people who are abused. Also if you’re so concerned about abuse of process here why aren’t you pointing out that Bill Cosby abused dozens of women and got away on procedural issue (after he confessed to it), or that Harvey Weinstein’s victims waited 17 years to get justice? Why aren’t you concerned about Roman Polanski doing a runner and being a celebrated director for the entire rest of his life? Why aren’t you concerned about how Marilyn Manson tried to use the system to punish Evan Rachel Wood?
Don’t bother answering, we know why.
Factually incorrect. The legal system pretty much everywhere considers rape to be a serious criminal offence, and so much be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, this doesn’t really make sense since earlier you’re arguing that we can’t believe victims or the police until its proven in court, now you’re arguing that courts don’t actually prove anything.
According to who? There’s some pretty good discussion from 2019 that police accusations should never be private since there is a strong public interest in knowing about how law enforcement is operating etc. Particularly given that for sex crimes etc they can continue offending while under investigation or even during trial.
This is why your posts were removed and you were prohibited from continuing this - because you’re not actually engaging in conversation you’re just essentially shouting hate at women who come forward as victims of sexual assault, or (in this case) have police prosecute it potentially without their request.
You’ve just dropped in to spam misinformation and then declare your own opinions based on that misinformation to be fact. This is not civilized, and not welcome on the forum.
14 Likes
Substantially, I agree with almost everything you’ve said here, with the following exception:
I’m a little taken aback that you’ve opted to reply to a post that has also been deleted. Either it’s fit for discussion or it isn’t.
By the same token, This comment isn’t exactly a bastion of civility. If you stand by deletion, perhaps this response should be in DMs since it otherwise presents a one-sided rebuttal.
I will stress that I don’t have a horse in this race (beyond my personal stake as someone who frequents the forum) so I offer these words neutrally.
2 Likes
Generally speaking police make these statements when they have this thing called “evidence” to back it up and a working theory. In JCVD’s case he’s going to get 2 bites of the cherry since first the French court has to decide if they believe the Romanion police, then he has to be found guilty in a Romanian court.
Neither of these two were celebrities and they are known specifically because their situations were exceptional - not one of countless.
Only one close to what Shade was talking about, and he didn’t get mentioned by Shade (you can speculate why) but he did get an entire movie about exonerating him - so completely undoes the argument Shade was making that spurious accusations ruin famous men.
I am the admin and the owner of this forum. You are in my space and I set the rules.
Factually incorrect, as I pointed out - he openly villified victims and provided misinformation. He is a third thing.
Gonna take the third option and suspend people who demand that I run my forum to their ideas and let them use it as a podium for misinformation.
It very definitely is not, which is why Shade is suspended. He was advised twice that nobody was interested in his contributions and he should specifically not do that - he continued to do it. The pattern behind his posts is very obvious to everyone who saw all his posts.
So let me put this very clearly:
Posting rants of misinformation and spurious claims to try to shame victims and exonerate offenders is absolutely not allowed in any topic in this forum. When it happens, there will be a response correcting it and if it continues to happen suspensions will follow.
I am not interested in any way shape or form in playing the “I’m just presenting a side…” game.
7 Likes