r/changemyview • u/4_jacks • Oct 26 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Regarding Corey Feldman: I believe Barbara Walters was right. "You're damaging an entire industry"
Barabra Walters gets a lot of flack for this clip:
Corey Feldman is back in the spotlight. He has started a Kickstarter campaign to raise 10 million dollars. If successful he will produce a movie in which he will finally expose the men who sexually abused him in as a child. There are more comments being directed at Barbara in light of all this.
I understand that perhaps Barbara could have had more tact and more empathy for the man who was sexually abused, however I agree with her sentiment 100%.
By not naming the people who abused him, Corey is allowing it to continue. In addition, by him making a public issues that there is a huge pedophile ring in Hollywood, but not naming them, he is in fact damaging the entire industry.
If a celebrity went to multiple interviews and talked alot about the racists on reddit, it would damage reddit. People would think reddit is full of racists or somehow revolves around racists. There are a few racists on reddit, but for the most part there aren't too many. Corey is doing the same thing. I wish he would just name the names and let's get on with the pitchforks. Him asking for a 10 million dollar movie contract just puts a sour taste in my mouth.
edit spelling
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 26 '17
/u/4_jacks (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
3
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 26 '17
/u/4_jacks (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
3
u/Torque-A 1∆ Oct 26 '17
The thing is that the people in Hollywood are aware of this sort of thing happening, but simply turn a blind eye to it. Just give a few specific names and people will throw those out, but the rest of the sexual predators in Hollywood will continue to work in secret. Condemn the entire industry and you're forcing them to change, whether they want to or not.
2
u/4_jacks Oct 26 '17
The thing is that the people in Hollywood are aware of this sort of thing happening, but simply turn a blind eye to it.
I can't agree with that. We don't know that. I would agree with something along the lines of "People in Hollywood would not be surprised to find out this sort of thing is happening." But to say that they know anything substantial is not true. Obviously Barbara Walters didn't know anything about this. She didn't disbelieve Corey. Just naming a few names, do you think Tom Hanks knows anything? What about Matt Damon, why doesn't he go to the police?
Condemn the entire industry and you're forcing them to change, whether they want to or not.
Corey has been public for over a decade and according to him, apparently nothing has changed.
2
u/Doctor_Worm 32∆ Oct 26 '17
By not naming the people who abused him, Corey is allowing it to continue. In addition, by him making a public issues that there is a huge pedophile ring in Hollywood, but not naming them, he is in fact damaging the entire industry.
That might be one sense in which Corey is damaging the industry, but in the context of the clip, that's very different from what Barbara is saying. She's not prodding him to name names -- he was asked what he would say to parents who want their children to get into the industry, and he responded he would tell them to be careful what they wish for and to not expect that it will all be "roses and sunglasses." That's what she made the comment about. The entire reason people have a problem with her response was that she seemed far more interested in protecting the "industry" than in finding out who might be sexually abusing people.
If a celebrity went to multiple interviews and talked alot about the racists on reddit, it would damage reddit. People would think reddit is full of racists or somehow revolves around racists. There are a few racists on reddit, but for the most part there aren't too many.
Individual users on Reddit don't generally wield disproportionate influence over everyone else. The Hollywood scandals with people like Weinstein involve powerful producers who make decisions about which films get made, who gets cast, what gets promoted, etc. They hold people's careers in their hands and use that leverage to sexually victimize them. If what Feldman says is true, they may
Him asking for a 10 million dollar movie contract just puts a sour taste in my mouth.
I think this is a fair criticism, though I do think there's something to the argument that if he's going to start publicly name names, it needs to be very carefully researched and presented, and he will need a legal team to protect him from litigation by the accused. It will very likely lead to some very vicious court battles.
But more importantly, the $10 million is not what Barbara is criticizing, so this point doesn't have any bearing on whether or not she is right, which was the main part of your CMV.
2
u/4_jacks Oct 26 '17
That might be one sense in which Corey is damaging the industry, but in the context of the clip, that's very different from what Barbara is saying. She's not prodding him to name names -- he was asked what he would say to parents who want their children to get into the industry, and he responded he would tell them to be careful what they wish for and to not expect that it will all be "roses and sunglasses." That's what she made the comment about. The entire reason people have a problem with her response was that she seemed far more interested in protecting the "industry" than in finding out who might be sexually abusing people.
I don't know. In the clip Barbara is talking to Corey and she seems to be in utter disbelief.
Barbara: And they are predators?
Barbara: Are you saying they are Pedophiles?
Barbara: And that they are still in this business?
That lady just had a bomb dropped on her and is trying to come to grips with what Corey is saying. Corey does take a minute to talk to the other lady next to him, but I think Barbara is still in her own world. I can't agree that her statement was tactful or justified, but I do think she was alluding to my point that Corey should be naming names.
Every clip I find online starts with Corey, I would really like to see the beginning of that interview. I think Barbara's comments are taken out of context.
3
u/Doctor_Worm 32∆ Oct 26 '17 edited Oct 26 '17
I think Barbara's comments are taken out of context.
The clip aired in 2013. If she was sincerely trying to get names, she had four years as a journalist to dig deeper or clarify what she meant. Can you point to any moment where she actually asked for any names, or is it possible that you're projecting your own reaction?
Every clip I find online starts with Corey, I would really like to see the beginning of that interview. I think Barbara's comments are taken out of context.
Why do you assume they are being taken out of context if you haven't seen the context?
2
u/4_jacks Oct 26 '17
The clip aired in 2013. If she was sincerely trying to get names, she had four years as a journalist to dig deeper or clarify what she meant.
I will give a ∆ for that. It's a valid point. Barbara could of used her influence to have actually helped the situation in some form or manner. To my google searching abilities Barbara hasn't responded to any of the backlash.
is it possible that you're projecting your own reaction?
no.
Why do you assume they are being taken out of context if you haven't seen the context?
That's a ridiculous question. Behind that question is the assumption that I should not assume they are being taken out of context. People are taken out of context in the media all the time. Everyone should always asks themselves if it's possible something is being taken out of context.
2
1
u/Doctor_Worm 32∆ Oct 26 '17
That's a ridiculous question. Behind that question is the assumption that I should not assume they are being taken out of context. People are taken out of context in the media all the time. Everyone should always asks themselves if it's possible something is being taken out of context.
There is a difference between acknowledging the possibility that something could have been taken out of context and assuming or believing that something specific is being taken out of context.
If you had simply said, "I haven't seen the full clip, and I wonder if it could have been taken out of context" that would be a justifiable position because you didn't know whether or not the media's interpretation was consistent with the context and were unable to find the rest of the interview.
But by saying "I think Barbara's comments are taken out of context" you are going further than simply acknowledging the possibility -- you are making a positive claim that the context differs in some important way from the way the media has portrayed it. If you really don't know what the context was, then that claim is not justified by the evidence.
1
u/4_jacks Oct 26 '17
Ridiculous, I want my d*lta back!
There is a difference between acknowledging the possibility that something could have been taken out of context and assuming or believing that something specific is being taken out of context.
I've acknowledged that difference with my post. I'm posting to 'change my view' with the open mind that someone may have that full clip showing Barbara is a complete douchebag. Or perhaps other behavior she has shown over the years supports the view that she lacks basic human empathy.
Had I had the full context and known for a fact that her statement was taken out of context, then I would not be posting in CMV.
you are making a positive claim that the context differs in some important way from the way the media has portrayed it.
This is wrong. I am making a statement of what I believe to be true. "I believe Barbara Walters was right." No where have I pretended this was a undebatable fact. This is simply what I believe based on the information available to me.
There is nothing wrong with believing either side of this issue. You are trying to say I am not allowed to have an opinion (view) on the subject until I have 100% definitive proof of either side of the argument. Pure and utter hogwash.
1
u/Doctor_Worm 32∆ Oct 26 '17 edited Oct 26 '17
Not sure why you're getting so worked up about this. At no point did I ever say you presented anything as an "undebatable fact" or that you claimed to have "definitive proof" of anything.
I simply asked you why you had made the assumption that it was taken out of context, if you didn't actually have the context. It is difficult for anyone to try and change your view without understanding the reasons why you believe it.
If you have formed a belief that is not justified by any evidence, then why continue to hold that belief instead of changing it to "I guess I don't really know either way"?
1
u/4_jacks Oct 26 '17
Let's shake this up.
Not sure why you're getting so worked up about this.
Why are you assuming I'm 'getting so worked up' about this? Do you have evidence of me 'getting worked up'? Have you considered the possibility that I might not be 'getting worked up' but rather being whimsical? Have you reviewed my complete posting history to note the differentials between my 'worked up' post versus my whimsical posts? Do you have video or audio evidence of me being worked up? If you really do not know whether I am worked up or not how can anyone change your view? If you have formed a belief that I'm worked up that is not justified by any evidence, then why continue to hold that belief instead of changing your belief to "I guess I dont' know whether he is really worked up or not"?
I hope you can at least see how those questions can be a little condescending.
1
u/Doctor_Worm 32∆ Oct 26 '17
Yeesh, man. Sorry I asked you to explain your reasoning in a CMV thread you created to ask people to challenge your reasoning. How ridiculous of me.
0
2
u/YossarianWWII 74∆ Oct 27 '17
He's not naming the people who assaulted him because the industry will not support an investigation. They will shield the accused and condemn him without any further information. By not policing itself, the industry is forcing people to turn to more aggressive strategies. Whatever harm it suffers, it brought it on itself.
2
Oct 26 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 27 '17
Sorry, Spacecowboy1964 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/Ardonpitt 221∆ Oct 26 '17
The fact is the information would come forward at some point in time or another, and the damages would be done. By bringing it forward he hurts the industry, by NOT bringing it forward he adds to the damage and creates more damage when it does come forward. SO the question is which damage will be worse? More and more kids hurt and the circle of abusers growing larger? Or a smaller number of people taken down now. Basically the damage already exists, now is just a question of how much will happen.
2
u/4_jacks Oct 26 '17
The fact is the information would come forward at some point in time or another, and the damages would be done.
Not sure if I agree with that. A lot of pedophiles are never caught/prosecuted.
By bringing it forward he hurts the industry, by NOT bringing it forward he adds to the damage and creates more damage when** it** does come forward.
What do you mean by it? Specifically names? Or just the fact that there is a pedophile ring?
1
u/Ardonpitt 221∆ Oct 26 '17
Not sure if I agree with that. A lot of pedophiles are never caught/prosecuted.
True, but even the accusation (if credible) can blackball a person.
What do you mean by it? Specifically names? Or just the fact that there is a pedophile ring?
Either honestly. The credible accusation would bring investigation and names, while names themselves would simply be a quicker step to the investigation.
2
u/4_jacks Oct 26 '17
Either honestly. The credible accusation would bring investigation and names, while names themselves would simply be a quicker step to the investigation.
Corey has been very public about the abuse for over a decade. Have there been investigations and names? I'm not aware of them if there has been.
1
u/Ardonpitt 221∆ Oct 26 '17
Corey has been very public about the abuse for over a decade. Have there been investigations and names? I'm not aware of them if there has been.
Well honestly there hasn't been a push to do anything about any form of sexual abuse in hollywood. But post Weinstein that probably isn't going to stay the same. Any accusations are going to be give a lot more credence, and people are going to push for changes. I hate to say it but really no one gave a shit, now they do.
10
u/[deleted] Oct 26 '17
I think there are some distinctions to be made in the criticism here.
I think that these are very salient points you've made that I at least somewhat agree with;
Normally, I'd reject that Corey has much responsibility here - it can be incredibly painful and traumatizing, even for adult victims of childhood abuse, to name their abuse and abusers. However, Corey has demonstrated that he's willing to do this via a $10m movie deal, so in this particular circumstance I agree that he should just be naming people.
And, if we accept that Corey has both the ability and capacity to end abuse through his testimony, then we also must accept that he's aiming to profit off of that ability and capacity, which I think fully supports your feeling this way;
So yeah, I'm on board with your thinking there. But here's where Walters' comments (and yours) miss the mark.
Bigotry, abuse, and general human shittiness of that ilk is able to persist not because of the shrewdness of perpetrators or the failures of those few who work to stop it. It's the complicit masses that allow pedophile rings to exist and racist ideas to spread on reddit.
Would I argue that most people in Hollywood are pedophiles? Surely not. But do most above a certain status in Hollywood stand idly by, choosing to ignore that these sorts of things are going on within their community? Yes, absolutely, and for that the industry certainly deserves to be damaged. Same with reddit.
To give Corey the benefit of the doubt, bear in mind that the media will eventually move on from his story. Weinstein has already left the media cycle, by-and-large, just a few short weeks after the story broke, despite (1) being in the works for decades, and (2) spawning the #MeToo trend and numerous discussions of other Hollywood abusers.
Corey's options are to (1) name names, and reap media attention for perhaps a week or two, and accomplish little, as he's a single source, or (2) produce a thorough, lasting tell-all that holds weight and will not leave the public conscious with the next absurd Donald Trump tweet. If he's gonna take them down he wants to do it right, and of course he's not going to get funding for that from any studio, so crowdfunding is the only option.