Not doubting this or anything. But do you have a link to anything good on this offhand. Admittedly I’m not super informed. I know kind of the basics but nothing of what’s happened since the original incident. I will say that this probably sounds like it the most logical and rational explanation for all of this.
Sure. Here’s one for example. Geimer’s take is 100% going to ruffle feathers; when she speaks about her angle on feminism, I mean. But the thing that makes this one philosophically very interesting to chew on, in a “what would Jesus do” kind of way, is that, again, she is the victim, and she was even ‘over it’ at the time it happened.
I think people are very quick to extrapolate out that understanding a position like Geimer’s is tantamount to a tacit endorsement of the kind of abuse she suffered, or of letting people off the hook willy-nilly. I find it the sort of idea-challenging wrinkle that makes existing as a human being so fascinating.
When we think about crime and punishment, morals and ethics, abuse and victimhood, we really, very often, just do not know how to handle something like a person saying, “no, this is my problem, not yours, and I’m saying this has been overblown”, or whatever the case may be. Or like, to put it another way, when a family of a murder victim don’t believe, for religious or whatever other reasons, in the death penalty, and they advocate against the death penalty for the person who murdered their loved one.
I think it’s really important that we sit with those challenging thoughts rather than gloss over them. Glossing things over is really easy, and it’s a kind of intellectual shortcutting that often gets us into more and more difficult positions where we find it impossible to see eye to eye…in cases like this, even with the people who we’re trying to stick up for. Somebody can can definitely think Geimer is wrong, but they can’t deny that it’s at least her right to feel how she feels, because she’s the one we’re all arguing about.
That said, there were a few other accusations about Polanski at that time, and I don’t know much about them because Geimer’s was, as I understand it, the one for which he was going to court. Unsure if there was ever litigation on those others.
I can’t remember where I saw it, but there’s some interesting video footage of her talking about this stuff as well. More on those notes about how she feels to watch other people get riled up in her defense even while she’s sitting here telling them they don’t have a right to. It’s certainly all a lot of food for thought.
Now, again, if those ideas were coming out of a white person’s mouth–a Rand Paul, let’s say–someone like me might find them problematic and disagreeable
Not gonna lie dude that’s a weird take. Don’t understand that mindset at all.
Sure. At that point I was so deep in a long internet comment I was bound to express myself poorly. I guess I just mean that context is important. A dominant group person telling a person from a non-dominant group they just need to get their act together has all sorts of baggage that is different from a person within that non-dominant group expressing a similar idea. Of course McWhorter and, say, Rand Paul, are different people with different ideas…I was just swinging wild for my shoddy example, I guess. All I mean, is, I’m more inclined to listen to a black man’s take on black culture than a white man’s take. And to loop all the way back to the point, I’m inclined to listen to Geimer’s take over, say, random internet commenters with no actual stake in the matter. But my hearing out how Geimer feels doesn’t just mean that she speaks for all sexual assault victims, or that I can’t value just as much another sexual assault victim’s opposing attitude on the subject of sexual assault, or even on Geimer’s own situation. I just mean bias and prejudice are inescapable, complicated components of discussions like these.
I don’t think I’m doing any better right now so I’m just going to knock it off, but I appreciate you giving my sloppy comments some consideration. It’s very gracious of you. And since this is the internet I must clarify I’m not being sarcastic.
Not doubting this or anything. But do you have a link to anything good on this offhand. Admittedly I’m not super informed. I know kind of the basics but nothing of what’s happened since the original incident. I will say that this probably sounds like it the most logical and rational explanation for all of this.
Sure. Here’s one for example. Geimer’s take is 100% going to ruffle feathers; when she speaks about her angle on feminism, I mean. But the thing that makes this one philosophically very interesting to chew on, in a “what would Jesus do” kind of way, is that, again, she is the victim, and she was even ‘over it’ at the time it happened.
I think people are very quick to extrapolate out that understanding a position like Geimer’s is tantamount to a tacit endorsement of the kind of abuse she suffered, or of letting people off the hook willy-nilly. I find it the sort of idea-challenging wrinkle that makes existing as a human being so fascinating.
When we think about crime and punishment, morals and ethics, abuse and victimhood, we really, very often, just do not know how to handle something like a person saying, “no, this is my problem, not yours, and I’m saying this has been overblown”, or whatever the case may be. Or like, to put it another way, when a family of a murder victim don’t believe, for religious or whatever other reasons, in the death penalty, and they advocate against the death penalty for the person who murdered their loved one.
I think it’s really important that we sit with those challenging thoughts rather than gloss over them. Glossing things over is really easy, and it’s a kind of intellectual shortcutting that often gets us into more and more difficult positions where we find it impossible to see eye to eye…in cases like this, even with the people who we’re trying to stick up for. Somebody can can definitely think Geimer is wrong, but they can’t deny that it’s at least her right to feel how she feels, because she’s the one we’re all arguing about.
That said, there were a few other accusations about Polanski at that time, and I don’t know much about them because Geimer’s was, as I understand it, the one for which he was going to court. Unsure if there was ever litigation on those others.
I can’t remember where I saw it, but there’s some interesting video footage of her talking about this stuff as well. More on those notes about how she feels to watch other people get riled up in her defense even while she’s sitting here telling them they don’t have a right to. It’s certainly all a lot of food for thought.
Not gonna lie dude that’s a weird take. Don’t understand that mindset at all.
Enjoyed the rest though. Great post.
Sure. At that point I was so deep in a long internet comment I was bound to express myself poorly. I guess I just mean that context is important. A dominant group person telling a person from a non-dominant group they just need to get their act together has all sorts of baggage that is different from a person within that non-dominant group expressing a similar idea. Of course McWhorter and, say, Rand Paul, are different people with different ideas…I was just swinging wild for my shoddy example, I guess. All I mean, is, I’m more inclined to listen to a black man’s take on black culture than a white man’s take. And to loop all the way back to the point, I’m inclined to listen to Geimer’s take over, say, random internet commenters with no actual stake in the matter. But my hearing out how Geimer feels doesn’t just mean that she speaks for all sexual assault victims, or that I can’t value just as much another sexual assault victim’s opposing attitude on the subject of sexual assault, or even on Geimer’s own situation. I just mean bias and prejudice are inescapable, complicated components of discussions like these.
I don’t think I’m doing any better right now so I’m just going to knock it off, but I appreciate you giving my sloppy comments some consideration. It’s very gracious of you. And since this is the internet I must clarify I’m not being sarcastic.
You are doing much better now in terms of my understanding
I dig your take.