hollywood That'll get you fired!!

At what point in the future will having been Politically Correct in your past be what gets you fired.

Hopefully long after I'm dead.
Having spent years being sexually harassed in a public way with the bosses knowing all about it - back in the days when that was "normal" behavior - I'm glad to see major changes. Can things swing too far the other way? Sure. But I for one am glad to see much of what's changed over the past decade or so.
 
Last edited:
I remember very clearly things I did 30 and 35 years ago. The guy could easily have told his bosses at Boeing that there's an article out there that could come back to bite him (and them) in the ass. So let's get ahead of it and write something that addresses how "my" (his) views have evolved and how different the world is now. So I have no sympathy for him.

I don't think they ever would have hired him in the first place.
The way the world is now if you did anything wrong decades ago its a scarlet letter.
 
Mel Gibson....yea... that one surprised me. It must also depend on your status in the Hollywood Hierarchy. Wonder if he could get away these day's.
 
I disagree - people get 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chances all the time. Just look at Martha Stewart for a perfect example.
Charlie Sheen. Mickey Rourke. Mel Gibson. James Woods. And I can't even count how many chances Shia LeBoeuf has gotten.

Okay so youre the board of directors for boeing and you have a dozen highly qualified applicants
Its tough and youre not sure who to pick, but one of them could create public backlash if you hire them.

Youre really not gonna go with one of the 11 other applicants?
I for sure would not have hired this guy. He can get his second chance somewhere else.

Its not worth the risk to my investors because I know how society reacts to those kinds of things, its irresponsible to hire him imo.
In interviews people stretch the truth to make themselves sound better, they dont front load all the mistakes and regrets of their life.
 
Last edited:
You mean in the future from now? Or the Politically Correct past from people now?

The people who are/were so rabidly Politically Correct and "canceled" others from 2000 through 2040 become the ones who are shunned/"canceled" in 2050 society/culture and beyond, until the pendulum swings back in the other direction.

I won't go off on a diatribe about shifting cultural values, I'd be writing until tomorrow morning.



And to think it all started with Juan Williams.....

5bb5c8db260000300182c912.jpeg
 
Okay so youre the board of directors for boeing and you have a dozen highly qualified applicants
Its tough and youre not sure who to pick, but one of them could create public backlash if you hire them.

Youre really not gonna go with one of the 11 other applicants?
I for sure would not have hired this guy. He can get his second chance somewhere else.

Its not worth the risk to my investors because I know how society reacts to those kinds of things, its irresponsible to hire him imo.
In interviews people stretch the truth to make themselves sound better, they dont front load all the mistakes and regrets of their life.
I have to say I agree with mlesemann on this one. Technically speaking you may be right. But you have to agree that's a bleak kind of approach. Nobody wants to live in a world where one mistake defines the rest of their lives. I definitely have made some mistakes in the past that I'm not proud of because I was less mature or less aware or... So does everybody else. That is human nature, we make mistakes and some of them may be pretty low. Maturing up is a never ending process. There shouldn't be any age limit to it. This Hollywood way of putting actors and filmmakers on this kind of moral pedestal is kind of F**ed up to be honest. It creates false expectations that literally NO ONE in the world can live up to. Learning from your mistakes is the essential inescapable process in maturing up. If we want to be better we have to accept mistakes as part of our nature. You end talents' career based on their past mistakes well guess what you have to get rid of half of the masterpieces in cinema that have been created by those "faulty" individuals. The examples are so many but take Roman Polanski's Rosemary's baby for one. Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying the quality of their content justifies their evil deeds. I'm saying if a dude made a mistake in the past and has learned from it and doesn't stand by it anymore he deserves a second chance. So no, from those 12 people I choose the most promising one regardless of their past mistakes.
 
I have to say I agree with mlesemann on this one. Technically speaking you may be right. But you have to agree that's a bleak kind of approach. Nobody wants to live in a world where one mistake defines the rest of their lives. I definitely have made some mistakes in the past that I'm not proud of because I was less mature or less aware or... So does everybody else. That is human nature, we make mistakes and some of them may be pretty low. Maturing up is a never ending process. There shouldn't be any age limit to it. This Hollywood way of putting actors and filmmakers on this kind of moral pedestal is kind of F**ed up to be honest. It creates false expectations that literally NO ONE in the world can live up to. Learning from your mistakes is the essential inescapable process in maturing up. If we want to be better we have to accept mistakes as part of our nature. You end talents' career based on their past mistakes well guess what you have to get rid of half of the masterpieces in cinema that have been created by those "faulty" individuals. The examples are so many but take Roman Polanski's Rosemary's baby for one. Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying the quality of their content justifies their evil deeds. I'm saying if a dude made a mistake in the past and has learned from it and doesn't stand by it anymore he deserves a second chance. So no, from those 12 people I choose the most promising one regardless of their past mistakes.

Yeah dude it does create false expectations - welcome to job interviews
In my field in computer sceince its a running gag when people ask for "5 years of experiencei n a programming language that has only existed for 3 years lol. Job interviews are rridiculously and they are set up so that they are in the position of power and you literally cannot meet their qualifications because its unrealistic. And then they offer you less than the posted rate because you dont have the five years of experience. its a thing that happens regularly in software development.

Anyway it sounds like you want to run a social charity not a business, I dont think you have ever been responsible for the wellbeing of other peoples life savings before. I most certainly would never invest money with you if your priority is social justice instead of profit.youre gonna lose all my money because some random dude deserves a second chance?? No you can go give him a second chance with your own money not mine.

Maybe things are different in your country.
Over here the most important thing to 95% of people is money and they will betray you the moment in benefits them.
They behave like sociopaths and then hide behind the guise of capitalism.

Businesses are run by sociopathic money worshippers. and their decisions are all about the bottom line.
 
Last edited:
Anyway it sounds like you want to run a social charity not a business, I dont think you have ever been responsible for the wellbeing of other peoples life savings before. I most certainly would never invest money with you if your priority is social justice instead of profit.youre gonna lose all my money because some random dude deserves a second chance?? No you can go give him a second chance with your own money not mine.

Here's another point of view question. Lets say the person who is going to get you the best return on your investment is the one that is a political hot potato. Who do you go with? There's a decent chance this person will give you better returns, but there's also a risk of ruin as they may become radioactive in the current political environment.

from those 12 people I choose the most promising one regardless of their past mistakes.

On to the other side... what if you cannot mitigate those mistakes that may rear their head again? What if you can? Is it worth the risk and effort or does that all come part and parcel of how promising the person is?
 
Yeah dude it does create false expectations - welcome to job interviews
I wasn't talking about job interviews. I was talking about the false belief system that Hollywood has implanted in society and in itself as a standard norm by over-saturating the business with the black and white duality ( Absolute good vs absolute evil ).

To clarify it a bit more : why should actors and filmmakers be nitpicked and background checked for whatever unethical action they had in the past that doesn't define who they are right now? but the scrutiny is not as severe in other jobs like construction business for example. One reason is that movies affect the culture of society a lot more than a building does. but again an actor has no saying in how the movie turns out it's all the works of the writer and director ( by work here I mean the message that is intended to get across to the audience). So that doesn't answer the "why so harsh" question. The only reasonable answer that's left is how media(specially Hollywood) has advertised "the perfect human being" and created these delusional sense of perfection in everyone so when people responsible for these movies ( Filmmakers, actors,..) fall short of the same unrealistic expectation THEY introduced to people in the first place, people will get more furious. We know Kevin Spacey's story. Can you say there aren't anyone in say construction business who hasn't done the same mistake? If they have, why hasn't it leaked? If it leaks will they fire the guy the same way they fired Kevin Spacey? you see where I'm getting at?
Anyway it sounds like you want to run a social charity not a business, I dont think you have ever been responsible for the wellbeing of other peoples life savings before. I most certainly would never invest money with you if your priority is social justice instead of profit.youre gonna lose all my money because some random dude deserves a second chance?? No you can go give him a second chance with your own money not mine.
In this scenario I would choose the safe route which is the guy who is driven by reason rather than greed and emotion. But what happens if the most reasonable guy, the steadiest one among the 12 is the guy who made a mistake 20 years ago? Should I deprive of him of a second chance?
Maybe things are different in your country.
Over here the most important thing to 95% of people is money and they will betray you the moment in benefits them.
They behave like sociopaths and then hide behind the guise of capitalism.

Businesses are run by sociopathic money worshippers. and their decisions are all about the bottom line.
No things are the same here, as I'm sure is the case for all the countries in the world . Wherever money resides corruption exists. But that doesn't mean we should accept it as a given. The strive to be better and not confusing what is with what oughts to be is the reason why the majority of the humans of this age are better than the majority of barbarians who lived 3000 years ago.
On to the other side... what if you cannot mitigate those mistakes that may rear their head again? What if you can? Is it worth the risk and effort or does that all come part and parcel of how promising the person is?
whether I can or can not mitigate those mistakes comes down to how psychologically well I know them. And we haven't scientifically reached that point yet that we can assess and predict a persons overall outcome that meticulously. but I'm pretty sure comparing people to these advertised saint of a human being and not giving them a second chance cause they aren't perfect ( which goes for everybody btw) isn't gonna solve much. people will just get better at lying and hiding their mistakes rather than facing them and be open about them. You wanna nitpick your candidates "morally" you won't find anyone to hire since everyone has made some mistakes in their lives.

This mentality of not giving a second chance only provokes the "it's too late" syndrome. A lost cause. So if a guy makes one mistake in their mind it becomes already too late for redemption. "what is the point?" " There's no going back? so let's just keep doing whatever we were doing". So the belief system of redemption promotes morality among wrong-doers and motivates them to become good-doers if they want to be accepted in society.
 
Last edited:
Here's another point of view question. Lets say the person who is going to get you the best return on your investment is the one that is a political hot potato. Who do you go with? There's a decent chance this person will give you better returns, but there's also a risk of ruin as they may become radioactive in the current political environment.

Previously we were addressing priorities and it seemed very clear to me.
If youre on a board of directors the priority is to go for a return on investment.

Now you're talking about a risk of ruin for someone that is the best return... this becomes a question of risk management and my answer would depend on the size of the company and the goals of the investors.

If its a huge company like boeing no way in HELL do you risk ruin. its too much wealth.
If its a small company worth half a million dollars with the potential to explode to billions then I would perhaps go with the risk of ruin.
 
This Hollywood way of putting actors and filmmakers on this kind of moral pedestal is kind of F**ed up to be honest

"Here lies a toppled god —
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,

A narrow and tall one."

From Frank Herbert's "Dune" series of novels.

The problem with any type of celebrity is that an entire life, past and present, is put under a microscope, and mega-watt klieg lights illuminate every miniscule hidden corner. By celebrity I mean anyone who achieves some level of success, whether it's an artist like an actor or a musician, a prominent business owner, or someone involved in politics - even if it's only a modicum of local notoriety. In this day and age they become ideological targets. Long gone is the "boys will be boys" mentality that past indiscretions can be excused by youthful ignorance and lack of experience/maturity. Another new issue is the fact that cultural morals and values are always evolving, and in our new technological era those cultural morals and values change over a few short years instead of generations.

What offends me most in the early 21st century is the concept of "Rules for me, but not for thee." Those who have power will completely cover up the most heinous crimes of those who support them and attempt to totally destroy anyone who opposes them in even a very minor way. The biggest issue most recently, at least for me, is that no one will even consider, much less try, bridging the gap with compromise. "My way or the highway!" Our new 21st century media saturated life-style has buried the facts and the voices of moderation under so much noise that even thoughtful, rational people don't know the reality in which they live anymore. So people polarize into "safe" groups where they at least have some sense of comfortability and an understanding of where they stand, exacerbating the divide even more. Unfortunately, quite a few will gravitate towards "radical" ideologies as a simple, understandable channel for their anger and disillusionment, ideologies that are abhorrent to most of us.

Racism and other bigotries are the refuge of the unimportant. - David Eddings

Everyone wants to play "The Blame Game" in an effort to ignore their own short-comings and gain ideological support. Someone else always has to be to blame, and the politicians and the pundits will play that emotional "It's not you; it's them!" blame card every chance that they can get, further widening the divide.

Ambitious people need followers, and the best way to get people to follow you is to promise them that you're going to correct everything that's wrong with their world. It's all very stirring, but only babies and the mentally deficient expect leaders to actually keep those promises. - David Eddings


Maybe things are different in your country.
Over here the most important thing to 95% of people is money and they will betray you the moment in benefits them.
They behave like sociopaths and then hide behind the guise of capitalism.

Those taking shortcuts in their pursuit of wealth/power are the ones that corrupt any system; ideologies, business, even the arts. Most of the belief systems are not the problem, it is the corruption of those systems that is the real issue.
 
Our new 21st century media saturated life-style has buried the facts and the voices of moderation under so much noise that even thoughtful, rational people don't know the reality in which they live anymore. So people polarize into "safe" groups where they at least have some sense of comfortability and an understanding of where they stand, exacerbating the divide even more. Unfortunately, quite a few will gravitate towards "radical" ideologies as a simple, understandable channel for their anger and disillusionment, ideologies that are abhorrent to most of us.
There is some Daniel Schmachtenberger in your Story. I think your observation is a good one. Besides of film making.....indietalk.com is the best place to have a discussion about difficult topics. I love this place.
 
whether I can or can not mitigate those mistakes comes down to how psychologically well I know them. And we haven't scientifically reached that point yet that we can assess and predict a persons overall outcome that meticulously. but I'm pretty sure comparing people to these advertised saint of a human being and not giving them a second chance cause they aren't perfect ( which goes for everybody btw) isn't gonna solve much. people will just get better at lying and hiding their mistakes rather than facing them and be open about them. You wanna nitpick your candidates "morally" you won't find anyone to hire since everyone has made some mistakes in their lives.

You don't know what you don't know. You can't predict the future, but can you realistically feign ignorance when history was staring you in the face? Perhaps this kind of thinking causes the exact issue we were trying to avoid in the first place. Who knows?

Do you feel you (and others) have a responsibility to ensure people have second chances?

This mentality of not giving a second chance only provokes the "it's too late" syndrome. A lost cause. So if a guy makes one mistake in their mind it becomes already too late for redemption. "what is the point?" " There's no going back? so let's just keep doing whatever we were doing". So the belief system of redemption promotes morality among wrong-doers and motivates them to become good-doers if they want to be accepted in society.

The redemption story makes for good cinema but you should also consider the fable of the scorpion and the frog. People are who they are. People can change, but they are exactly who they are. They will do what they will do. While circumstances can change the outcome, I feel it's important to see the world for how it is rather than for how we would like it to be... or how we feel is fair.

The current politically correct culture is an odd thing. Right or wrong, it is what's happening right now. I can't help but draw parallels to The Lord of the Flies. Is it just another bully culture?

Previously we were addressing priorities and it seemed very clear to me.
If youre on a board of directors the priority is to go for a return on investment.

Now you're talking about a risk of ruin for someone that is the best return... this becomes a question of risk management and my answer would depend on the size of the company and the goals of the investors.

If its a huge company like boeing no way in HELL do you risk ruin. its too much wealth.
If its a small company worth half a million dollars with the potential to explode to billions then I would perhaps go with the risk of ruin.

I get what you mean. Just a little nit pick, the risk of ruin for large companies for these kinds of incidents are very remote. Going radioactive would hurt a company, but the large companies are so well diversified that the chances of ruin are negligable. It's more likely to be due to a strategic lapse than a moral choice/decision.

Around WW2, companies like Boeing did make large risks by bringing in german engineers and scientists. The culture was different back then, but there was potential for fallout as they were essentially the enemies engineers at the time.
 
Do you feel you (and others) have a responsibility to ensure people have second chances?

Yes, I believe everyone is responsible for that specially the ones in the position of power.

The redemption story makes for good cinema but you should also consider the fable of the scorpion and the frog. People are who they are. People can change, but they are exactly who they are. They will do what they will do. While circumstances can change the outcome, I feel it's important to see the world for how it is rather than for how we would like it to be... or how we feel is fair.

Like it or not cinema has roots in reality, it's not entirely fictional.
people are who they are, but it doesn't mean we can't channel the ways their needs get satisfied. Even the most evil desires originate from roots that can be satisfied in a way that won't hurt the well being of others.

Seeing the world as how it is is different from accepting it as how it SHOULD be. With this mentality of yours there would be no change for better in the entire human history. So because Jews were being killed left and right during WW2 indicates that people should have accepted it as a fact of life and continue to slaughter millions of people? Because slavery was a thing in america it meant everyone should have accepted it as the way of the world and continue to stay psychopathic racists? Being realistic and seeing the world as how it is is not the same thing as accepting it as the only way of life.
 
Last edited:
Around WW2, companies like Boeing did make large risks by bringing in German engineers and scientists. The culture was different back then, but there was potential for fallout as they were essentially the enemies engineers at the time.

Spoils of war. Boeing was a prime contractor of the US Air Force, so the German scientists ran the Boeing (and other) engineers through everything that they knew at the behest of the military. For being helpful they stayed out of prison, got jobs and were scrutinized for the rest of their lives. We got our missiles this way, courtesy of Werner Von Braun. The Soviets did the same thing with their captured German scientists, who also helped them in their nuclear research. This is just another early puzzle piece of the Cold War, as it's all weapons related and are the beginnings of the arms race.
 
Back
Top