Hacker News Reader

Comment by beedeebeedee | Hacker News Reader

This is one of those times when I don't like how the internet has increased our connectivity. I'm sure this is a substantive article, but I would prefer to let my childhood memories of "Ren and Stimpy" fade away without knowing about this (I didn't read the article).

I trust that this is being handled by the appropriate authorities and the people who are involved. If it isn't being handled appropriately, then I think that would be the newsworthy article (not this one).

Correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't read the article and only commented on it because these types of articles make me uncomfortable. I don't mean to be a snowflake but it's a bummer seeing this stuff in my favorite newsfeed.

View on HN

> I trust that this is being handled by the appropriate authorities

It isn't. That's why the article exists in the first place.

Ok, read it. That sucks. I understand it's important to have a public shaming, not just to punish the perpetrator, but to make sure nobody else thinks it's a good idea to do what he did. It's just a big bummer all around.

Hopefully this doesn't happen to any other kids, and hopefully the kids growing up now won't need to revisit their own cartoon memories like this.

Public shaming is now not only appropriate but important? Should we reintroduce tar and feathers in order to make sure nobody else thinks its a good idea?

If we think that the statue of limitation is to short then say that and request a change. If we think that the criteria for finding someone guilty is too high, then change that. Extra judicial punishment is a terrible method to punish perpetrator and scaring others to not commit crime, and has a long history to prove it.

How do you propose we change these things without significant societal support and activism? It's like arguing we shouldn't abolish slavery because of the many writings that expose the extent and cruelty of it, but instead sit down and think about it 'rationally'.

If you mean how we change statue of limitation laws and the requirements for a guilty verdict, then I would propose that someone make a suggestion on what those changes should be.

Like say we remove statue of limitation laws. Why have it if we demand punishment anyway and going to use extra judicial punishment to get it?

If the issue is evidence, then the extreme end would be to say that any accusation is true until proven false. If that is too extreme, argue for some line between that and something which would include the person in the article.

Slavery was abolished in law. Enforcement of those laws are done by police, investigators and courts. It is very clear that the abolish slavery movement had a clear idea on what the law aught to be.

So if you feel like you are just like the abolish slavery movement, what aught the law be today?

The only way to prevent the shaming is to prevent the victims from talking about their experiences and to prevent Buzzfeed from publishing things it believes to be true.

Enjoining that sort of speech would be vastly more problematic than the general public finding out about actions that took place however many years ago.

Free speech is indeed very important and I am definitely not suggesting something to prevent it. The concept I object to is the intention of extra judicial punishment in order to punish criminals and and using it as an example to discourage others. When we celebrate that then what we really are doing is rejecting the legal system for its intended role and using a trial by media as a substitute.

A big part of what make the legal system better than extra judicial punishment is the concept of fairness. Every victim and criminal get the same treatment. If we want accusations like the one in the article published then why not change the law so that the legal system must publish all accusation and the details online and have it available publicly for anyone to read? Have the legal system scale up what this article represent so that every similar victim get treated equally by society?

If buzzfeed action here is intended to be part of the legal system then bake it into the legal system. Some nations actually do this with sentenced criminal and the details of the crime being read out on national broadcasts. The main difference to this case is that the national broadcast should then focus on crime in which the accused is not sentenced, or the crime is past the statue of limitation.

It's trial by the public, and its modus operandi in principle no different than witch hunts. Guilty until proven otherwise. Such medieval reasoning was abandoned for good reason but now it seems to be back in western societies with what seems massive public support. I find it revolting and very frightening.

I think you really have to appreciate art separate from the artist. Many great figures in history were shits in real life. Paul Johnson's book Intellectuals is pretty much a gawker-style hit piece of Marx, Sartre, Tolstoy, Rousseau, Shelly, Brecht, Russell, and others - but it's not wrong. Hell, John Lennon was a dick to his pre-Yoko family.

Don't romanticize people and I think you can pretty comfortably enjoy both Netflix and the daily news. Ren & Stimpy is funny in its own right.

Continuing to appreciate a person's art after you came know that this person behaves really badly means normalizing, legitimizing and promoting such behavior. Which is harmful in every sense.

No it doesn't.

Maybe but in some cases I find it extremely difficult to separate the art from the artists.

An example is the lostprophets. I use to like a couple of their songs but after finding out what the lead singer did I'll likely never listen to a lostprophets song again.

One of the women coming forward in the article talks about this and points to Roman Polanski as an example.

The trouble with separating the artist and the art means that people can ignore or enable the artist's bad behavior in order to get more art. I really think the Harvey Weinstein allegations gained a critical mass partially because professionally he hadn't been doing as well over the past few years.

It's hard to draw the line at enjoy, but don't romanticize. I think it's a bit easier to appreciate previous works or a dead artist. But, if you're going to dwell on the negative side of everything it'll be hard to appreciate anything.

It doesn't have to be that way. We can raise the bar on artists as well as art. Independently.

Can we, though? Honest question. I'm inclined to think we as a species are not really capable of maintaining that kind of distinction, especially when significant imbalances in power are part of the equation.

Apologies for not just responding. I want to say this is wrong, but I confess I am not equipped to really tackle the question.

> In an interview with Howard Stern in the mid-’90s, the radio host asked him about a character in the comic book anthology the cartoonist was then promoting. Stern called Sody Pop “a hot chick with big cans and nice legs.” Kricfalusi responded with a smile: “She’s underage, too.”

You can try to separate the art from the artist, but I feel like you've gotta get real deep into death of the author before that quote becomes something you can ignore.

I get the folks who are upset because this kills a piece of their childhood. But imagine being one of those girls who grew up with stars in their eyes about animation, or some other art form. And then imagine having had this experience. It would be so hard for the entire art form not to feel tainted afterwards.

Yes, nowadays none of us can watch and enjoy The Cosby Show like, ever again, but maybe that's ok if it means a predator is no longer able to be a predator.

John Lennon was a dick to his Yoko family, too. Or, John Lennon was a dick, period. As you like.

Of course it's a bummer. Reading about sexual abusers getting away with same is always a bummer. But remember that this heads-in-the-sand attitude of I'd-rather-not-find-out is how these people get away with it in the first place. It's how Catholic priests continue to prey upon their own communities.

In short, don't shoot the messenger.

Me too, this feels like another case of better off not knowing. Being a childhood fan of Ren and Stimpy cartoons, and having read the article realizing that Katie Rice worked for Spumco, now I get why I like the art style for Katie's webcomics Skadi and Camp Weedonwantcha. I really hope the content of the article isn't the reason for the current hiatus of the camp comic. I was really struck by her quote at the end about wishing she hadn't gone through it even if would have made her a less skilled artist.

A really staggering amount of the time, “Privilege” as it’s used in politics today is just a convenient bludgeon devoid of critical thought. In this case though, “better off not knowing” is pretty much the definition of privilege. Of course we can just not click, forget about this and move on, because we weren’t young girls this man groomed and abused. We were never in an office full of poeple aware of what was being done to us, but how didn’t see a point in helping us.

I’m not saying that you don’t have the right to not know, but at least appreciate how lucky you are to be in that position. I would also urge you to consider that it might not be the right thing to do, and in a very small way, be a continuation of what society did in failing those women when they were little girls.

Sorry, what might not be the right thing to do?

I think she’s pretty busy with a gig at Warner’s right now.

The abusers at Nickelodeon are only getting taken down now because of people connecting the dots and pressuring using the internet.

I highly recommend you read it. I found it better than most articles on the matter (even if it wasn't 'substantive' in a dry sort of scientific theories on the matter kind of way)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com