As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Catch-all sex scandal thread

195969799101

Posts

  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist I swear! Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    I've been thinking lately about how so many new revelations have been coming out; so in the course of daydreaming the other day, I started a preliminary list of people that I'd hate to learn had groped someone, versus people that I wouldn't be surprised if they groped someone. I mean, the "hate to learn" category would reeeallllly shake my faith in humanity, while the "not surprised" category is for people who have a PR persona of being a nice guy or a hero, but really we know they're not.

    Hate to learn:
    • Lenny Kravitz
    • Lin Manuel Miranda
    • Daveed Diggs
    • Jon Bois
    • Mr. Rogers
    • David Bowie
    • Alan Rickman


    Not surprised:
    • Sting
    • Prince Charles
    • Walt Disney
    • Tom Cruise
    • William Shatner

    DisruptedCapitalist on
    "Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
  • OmnipotentBagelOmnipotentBagel floof Registered User regular
    "Pay to pray" is really cracking me up. Thank you for that.

    cdci44qazyo3.gif

  • BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    I'm not sure making a speculative list of men you've never met who might seem like sex abusers is particularly productive.

  • DJ EebsDJ Eebs Moderator, Administrator admin
    There's already been a fair bit of sketchy stuff on Bowie that's come out

  • IlpalaIlpala Just this guy, y'know TexasRegistered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Janson wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    It's people like Evangelicals that give religion a bad name

    And I say that as someone who is very non-religious. It sucks that what is mostly just a thing in people's lives that helps them through day to day matters, great and small, is then held up on a stick that also says a bunch of stupid, hateful, bigoted stuff by these sort of fuckwits

    "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." - G.K.C.

    Also unsurprisingly there is a difference between being culturally religious and an active (and sincerely trying) adherent of said religion.

    As much as I love GKC, as a former Christian who tried very, very hard, and runs in online communities with other former Christians who tried so hard that some of them were preachers or theologians for years, I disagree strongly with that quote!

    That quote is like saying, "real communism has never been tried"

    Christianity cannot fail, it can only be failed.

    Also, why be pissed at the money changers?
    Why not be pissed at god for demanding sacrifices that require people to get their money changed to local currency?

    The temple had its -own- fake temple currency.
    The money changers were foisting microtransactions on the people worshipping.
    Pay to pray at its worst.

    No they weren't.
    Priests were, or god was.
    Blame yourselves or god.

    FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
    Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
    Fuck Joe Manchin
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    There's already been a fair bit of sketchy stuff on Bowie that's come out

    I only heard that once he had sex with a 14 year old. Was there more?

    Magic Pink on
  • PoorochondriacPoorochondriac Ah, man Ah, jeezRegistered User regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    There's already been a fair bit of sketchy stuff on Bowie that's come out

    I only heard that once he had sex with a 14 year old. Was there more?

    Pretty big "only" my dude!

  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    There's already been a fair bit of sketchy stuff on Bowie that's come out

    I only heard that once he had sex with a 14 year old. Was there more?

    Pretty big "only" my dude!

    Yeah that was poor phrasing.

    I've heard that report (and the victim's odd response to it) and was wondering if there was more I missed.

    Magic Pink on
  • Garlic BreadGarlic Bread i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a Registered User, Disagreeable regular
    http://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2017-11-28/angela-lansbury-women-must-sometimes-take-blame-for-harassment/
    "There are two sides to this coin," Lansbury told the Radio Times. "We have to own up to the fact that women, since time immemorial, have gone out of their way to make themselves attractive. And unfortunately it has backfired on us — and this is where we are today."

    Lansbury continued, "We must sometimes take blame, women. I really do think that. Although it’s awful to say we can’t make ourselves look as attractive as possible without being knocked down and raped."

    This is disappointing!

  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Keith wrote: »
    http://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2017-11-28/angela-lansbury-women-must-sometimes-take-blame-for-harassment/
    "There are two sides to this coin," Lansbury told the Radio Times. "We have to own up to the fact that women, since time immemorial, have gone out of their way to make themselves attractive. And unfortunately it has backfired on us — and this is where we are today."

    Lansbury continued, "We must sometimes take blame, women. I really do think that. Although it’s awful to say we can’t make ourselves look as attractive as possible without being knocked down and raped."

    This is disappointing!

    Holy cow. That is some really intense bull shit. My stars.

    "It's the women's fault." seriously angela.

    Magic Pink on
  • BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    Keith wrote: »
    http://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2017-11-28/angela-lansbury-women-must-sometimes-take-blame-for-harassment/
    "There are two sides to this coin," Lansbury told the Radio Times. "We have to own up to the fact that women, since time immemorial, have gone out of their way to make themselves attractive. And unfortunately it has backfired on us — and this is where we are today."

    Lansbury continued, "We must sometimes take blame, women. I really do think that. Although it’s awful to say we can’t make ourselves look as attractive as possible without being knocked down and raped."

    This is disappointing!

    it is

    although I guess angela lansbury is 92 years old and that probably plays into some very different experiences / expectations

  • MorivethMoriveth BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWNRegistered User regular
    I was gonna say, she's old as hell, isn't she?

  • Garlic BreadGarlic Bread i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a Registered User, Disagreeable regular
    Doesn't excuse it!

  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    Brolo wrote: »
    Keith wrote: »
    http://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2017-11-28/angela-lansbury-women-must-sometimes-take-blame-for-harassment/
    "There are two sides to this coin," Lansbury told the Radio Times. "We have to own up to the fact that women, since time immemorial, have gone out of their way to make themselves attractive. And unfortunately it has backfired on us — and this is where we are today."

    Lansbury continued, "We must sometimes take blame, women. I really do think that. Although it’s awful to say we can’t make ourselves look as attractive as possible without being knocked down and raped."

    This is disappointing!

    it is

    although I guess angela lansbury is 92 years old and that probably plays into some very different experiences / expectations

    it also indicates that maybe she should be wise by that point and should actually have listened to what people have said in some of those 92 years.

    age is not an excuse for being awful.

  • MorivethMoriveth BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWNRegistered User regular
    Oh sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it excuses it, it's still a shitty view. I just meant that it explains why she'd have that view.

    Also lol at oldass people listening to what people have to say

  • IlpalaIlpala Just this guy, y'know TexasRegistered User regular
    Lansbury is not, however, suggesting that fault lies with individual victims: “Should women be prepared for this? No, they shouldn’t have to be! There’s no excuse for that. And I think it will stop now – it will have to. I think a lot of men must be very worried at this point.”

    While that helps some, I'm left not..really knowing what she's trying to say?

    FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
    Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
    Fuck Joe Manchin
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    Moriveth wrote: »
    Oh sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it excuses it, it's still a shitty view. I just meant that it explains why she'd have that view.

    Also lol at oldass people listening to what people have to say

    It doesn't explain anything of the sort. There's plenty of 92 year old women and men that firmly grasp why blaming the victim is a shitty stance no matter what. AND we're capable of listening, hearing and learning all through our lives including when we're old so lets drop the ageism stuff.

  • MorivethMoriveth BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWN BREAKDOWNRegistered User regular
    Alright, I'll quit it.

  • BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Brolo wrote: »
    Keith wrote: »
    http://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2017-11-28/angela-lansbury-women-must-sometimes-take-blame-for-harassment/
    "There are two sides to this coin," Lansbury told the Radio Times. "We have to own up to the fact that women, since time immemorial, have gone out of their way to make themselves attractive. And unfortunately it has backfired on us — and this is where we are today."

    Lansbury continued, "We must sometimes take blame, women. I really do think that. Although it’s awful to say we can’t make ourselves look as attractive as possible without being knocked down and raped."

    This is disappointing!

    it is

    although I guess angela lansbury is 92 years old and that probably plays into some very different experiences / expectations

    it also indicates that maybe she should be wise by that point and should actually have listened to what people have said in some of those 92 years.

    age is not an excuse for being awful.

    I mean she probably did

    but if you were born in 1925 then the messaging you got in the first 40 years of your life was very much "yes this is always women's fault"

    that doesn't make it any more true or any less abhorrent, but I guess I can understand it more from a 92 year old than a 32 year old?

  • PlatyPlaty Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Instead of making speculative lists about who might be a good and who might be a bad person, it's probably better to just stop idolizing elites that much

    Because it helps abusers, especially if you assign only good qualities and a certain moral purity to everyone you happen to like

    Platy on
  • Erin The RedErin The Red The Name's Erin! Woman, Podcaster, Dungeon Master, IT nerd, Parent, Trans. AMA Baton Rouge, LARegistered User regular
    I hope the people whose output I enjoy are also good people because if not I will enjoy their output much less, to the point where I will not experience the things they put out.

    It is really sad when people you were fans of turn out to be raging shitheads tho

  • N1tSt4lkerN1tSt4lker Registered User regular
    Brolo wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Brolo wrote: »
    Keith wrote: »
    http://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2017-11-28/angela-lansbury-women-must-sometimes-take-blame-for-harassment/
    "There are two sides to this coin," Lansbury told the Radio Times. "We have to own up to the fact that women, since time immemorial, have gone out of their way to make themselves attractive. And unfortunately it has backfired on us — and this is where we are today."

    Lansbury continued, "We must sometimes take blame, women. I really do think that. Although it’s awful to say we can’t make ourselves look as attractive as possible without being knocked down and raped."

    This is disappointing!

    it is

    although I guess angela lansbury is 92 years old and that probably plays into some very different experiences / expectations

    it also indicates that maybe she should be wise by that point and should actually have listened to what people have said in some of those 92 years.

    age is not an excuse for being awful.

    I mean she probably did

    but if you were born in 1925 then the messaging you got in the first 40 years of your life was very much "yes this is always women's fault"

    that doesn't make it any more true or any less abhorrent, but I guess I can understand it more from a 92 year old than a 32 year old?

    This is what I've been thinking about. Even for me, spending my high school and college years in fundamentalism meant it took me a while before I got past the ideology I'd been constantly fed that dressing "immodestly" (including just wearing pants--an arrow to the crotch!) was at least contributing and possibly even inviting harassment and assault. It is not difficult for me to imagine that a woman at her age would have internalized the ideas she was constantly fed that women must be demure and modest and whatever or else they're drawing the wrong kind of attention. It makes me far more sad than angry because it makes me think of the effect that years of wearing down women and blaming them has had.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    I was under the impression that Angela Lansbury had died some time ago.

  • JansonJanson Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Opty wrote: »
    Does anyone have the stats around the genders of teachers who have been caught sleeping with their students? In my head women are the majority, but I'm worried that's a false narrative driven by the media sensationalizing women who do it while they ignore men who do the same.

    Women make up about 3/4 of all teachers, so, it'd make sense they'd be overrepresented there.

    I would still say they have a higher frequency of sexual misconduct and rape with students, the male teachers (at least at my high school) were under a microscope constantly.

    Women are not some paragon of virtue. Some people would probably say "yes but it's less frequent!" and maybe that's true. Or maybe it's just underreported because of how we treat masculinity. I know for fucking sure that's how it worked in my case when I tried to report it.

    Anyone who's been privy to some of my stories in the job thread know they can be just as gross and disgusting as men in all things sex.

    e: though my own experience with sexual assault and harassment has sort of jaded me I guess

    I agree with you.

    I think the issue lies in that we have literally no idea what a non-patriarchal society would be like (at least on a grand scale). The power structure is so tied up in masculinity and that affects the traits people have to exhibit in order to rise to positions of authority.

    I'm really sorry it worked against you and I hope that society can grow to a place where all accounts of accusation can be believed and properly investigated.

  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Linking a random Twitter to give credit where credit is due. :^:
    Murder She Wrote would have been quite a different show if in each episode Angela Lansbury blamed the victim.

  • SassoriSassori Registered User regular
    Was she just speaking out loud without thinking anything out before saying it? Because her last sentence seems to say “But yeah I guess blaming women even a little would be awful, huh?”

    It’s like her next sentence would have been “And I guess we were always coerced by Society (men) that we wouldn’t be taken seriously unless we were attractive...Wait a second!”

  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    She probably has some cognitive dissonance going on between internalized societal views and what is actually good and right for women.

  • ceresceres When the last moon is cast over the last star of morning And the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderator mod
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    She probably has some cognitive dissonance going on between internalized societal views and what is actually good and right for women.

    Honestly that's what it sounds like to me.

    And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    I'm not going to rock her too hard for having internalised the propaganda that's been fed to her for literally 95 years.

    Someone I know got accused of sexual harassment recently, in a very, very credible case. Other mutual acquaintances who were deeply appalled by other claims have gone "I guess this is a bandwagon one" and one the one hand no, no it fucking isn't, and on the other hand I get it because you don't want to believe that your friend would do this and it's much easier to believe that bitch is a liar.

  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    Tube wrote: »
    Someone I know got accused of sexual harassment recently, in a very, very credible case. Other mutual acquaintances who were deeply appalled by other claims have gone "I guess this is a bandwagon one" and one the one hand no, no it fucking isn't, and on the other hand I get it because you don't want to believe that your friend would do this and it's much easier to believe that bitch is a liar.

    It's very easy for people to look at a celebrity committing something like this and responding with a, "Well fuck them, I'll no longer support their work." And that's the expected response, I think - you cut that celebrity out of your life.

    Because of that expected response, it's a lot harder to do that with someone that you actually know. Both in the sense of how we interact with and think about people who are actually in our lives, and there is (typically, at least) a sort of physical presence that people you know maintain, a presence you are bound to run into when trying to continue your daily life. Most of us aren't going to run into Kevin Spacey at a party, essentially. So people do the exact thing that they say is bullshit when they see someone else doing it.

    I'm really interested to see how this progresses moving forward, and how our perception of this sort of things changes.

  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Janson wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    It's people like Evangelicals that give religion a bad name

    And I say that as someone who is very non-religious. It sucks that what is mostly just a thing in people's lives that helps them through day to day matters, great and small, is then held up on a stick that also says a bunch of stupid, hateful, bigoted stuff by these sort of fuckwits

    "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." - G.K.C.

    Also unsurprisingly there is a difference between being culturally religious and an active (and sincerely trying) adherent of said religion.

    As much as I love GKC, as a former Christian who tried very, very hard, and runs in online communities with other former Christians who tried so hard that some of them were preachers or theologians for years, I disagree strongly with that quote!

    That quote is like saying, "real communism has never been tried"

    Christianity cannot fail, it can only be failed.

    Also, why be pissed at the money changers?
    Why not be pissed at god for demanding sacrifices that require people to get their money changed to local currency?

    The temple had its -own- fake temple currency.
    The money changers were foisting microtransactions on the people worshipping.
    Pay to pray at its worst.

    No they weren't.
    Priests were, or god was.
    Go fight priests, or god.

    So, it was the priests then.
    But more specifically the money changers who set the exchange rate.

    Basically the temple was demanding people change their money from the Roman standard into Jewish coinage, before the worshippers could then purchase animals to be sacrificed.
    People could still bring their own animals, but Jerasulem was the central place of worship, and so many people had traveled too far to bring their animals with them.
    Hence the necessity of a local animal market (although not necessarily inside the temple), but not the money conversion.

    I'm not sure why the Jewish people kept their own coin going alongside the Roman coin, but I expect it's because they either wanted to keep themselves separate or simply because the temple demanded tithes be paid in it.

  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    Straightzi wrote: »
    Tube wrote: »
    Someone I know got accused of sexual harassment recently, in a very, very credible case. Other mutual acquaintances who were deeply appalled by other claims have gone "I guess this is a bandwagon one" and one the one hand no, no it fucking isn't, and on the other hand I get it because you don't want to believe that your friend would do this and it's much easier to believe that bitch is a liar.

    It's very easy for people to look at a celebrity committing something like this and responding with a, "Well fuck them, I'll no longer support their work." And that's the expected response, I think - you cut that celebrity out of your life.

    Because of that expected response, it's a lot harder to do that with someone that you actually know. Both in the sense of how we interact with and think about people who are actually in our lives, and there is (typically, at least) a sort of physical presence that people you know maintain, a presence you are bound to run into when trying to continue your daily life. Most of us aren't going to run into Kevin Spacey at a party, essentially. So people do the exact thing that they say is bullshit when they see someone else doing it.

    This is actually a celebrity (I'm going to try and give as little information as possible) and it's kind of reached Bill Cosby levels of undeniable but I know that the circle of people that knew and worked with him are still trying to convince themselves that he didn't do anything, because he's so nice to everyone and had a great reputation.

  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    I once knew a person who defended a celebrity that they'd worked with against sexual harassment/assault claims and later admitted that they had, in fact, been harassed and assaulted by that celebrity. The brain is a strange thing.

  • ceresceres When the last moon is cast over the last star of morning And the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderator mod
    discrider wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Janson wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    It's people like Evangelicals that give religion a bad name

    And I say that as someone who is very non-religious. It sucks that what is mostly just a thing in people's lives that helps them through day to day matters, great and small, is then held up on a stick that also says a bunch of stupid, hateful, bigoted stuff by these sort of fuckwits

    "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." - G.K.C.

    Also unsurprisingly there is a difference between being culturally religious and an active (and sincerely trying) adherent of said religion.

    As much as I love GKC, as a former Christian who tried very, very hard, and runs in online communities with other former Christians who tried so hard that some of them were preachers or theologians for years, I disagree strongly with that quote!

    That quote is like saying, "real communism has never been tried"

    Christianity cannot fail, it can only be failed.

    Also, why be pissed at the money changers?
    Why not be pissed at god for demanding sacrifices that require people to get their money changed to local currency?

    The temple had its -own- fake temple currency.
    The money changers were foisting microtransactions on the people worshipping.
    Pay to pray at its worst.

    No they weren't.
    Priests were, or god was.
    Go fight priests, or god.

    So, it was the priests then.
    But more specifically the money changers who set the exchange rate.

    Basically the temple was demanding people change their money from the Roman standard into Jewish coinage, before the worshippers could then purchase animals to be sacrificed.
    People could still bring their own animals, but Jerasulem was the central place of worship, and so many people had traveled too far to bring their animals with them.
    Hence the necessity of a local animal market (although not necessarily inside the temple), but not the money conversion.

    I'm not sure why the Jewish people kept their own coin going alongside the Roman coin, but I expect it's because they either wanted to keep themselves separate or simply because the temple demanded tithes be paid in it.

    The Romans were occupying the country at that point, and Jews were their own community and for the most part not very interested in being Roman. The Romans were not wanted, they took over. No one who has ever taken over that area was wanted by the Jews. The Jews had had their own currency before the Romans, and they were going to keep having it. I think that was one of the many points in the Jews' history in the Levant pretty much since the religion found its origins there where whoever had invaded and was trying to get them to go away at the moment decided it wasn't worth the fight as long as they kept paying taxes, which IIRC was part of the problem at the time. The book Kosher Jesus goes into it. He was really pissed that the people in the Temple weren't behaving as strictly as they should have been, especially since how we are meant to handle money is very carefully laid out in the Torah, and once again invaders were messing it all up.

    It's really ironic to me that Jesus was essentially mad that Jews weren't living close enough to the Torah. It's been a long time since I've read it. I don't remember it as well as I'd like and I should really pick it up again.

    And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
  • ShortyShorty touching the meat Intergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
    Tube wrote: »
    Straightzi wrote: »
    Tube wrote: »
    Someone I know got accused of sexual harassment recently, in a very, very credible case. Other mutual acquaintances who were deeply appalled by other claims have gone "I guess this is a bandwagon one" and one the one hand no, no it fucking isn't, and on the other hand I get it because you don't want to believe that your friend would do this and it's much easier to believe that bitch is a liar.

    It's very easy for people to look at a celebrity committing something like this and responding with a, "Well fuck them, I'll no longer support their work." And that's the expected response, I think - you cut that celebrity out of your life.

    Because of that expected response, it's a lot harder to do that with someone that you actually know. Both in the sense of how we interact with and think about people who are actually in our lives, and there is (typically, at least) a sort of physical presence that people you know maintain, a presence you are bound to run into when trying to continue your daily life. Most of us aren't going to run into Kevin Spacey at a party, essentially. So people do the exact thing that they say is bullshit when they see someone else doing it.

    This is actually a celebrity (I'm going to try and give as little information as possible) and it's kind of reached Bill Cosby levels of undeniable but I know that the circle of people that knew and worked with him are still trying to convince themselves that he didn't do anything, because he's so nice to everyone and had a great reputation.

    can I ask why you feel the need to protect their identity?

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    ceres wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Janson wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    It's people like Evangelicals that give religion a bad name

    And I say that as someone who is very non-religious. It sucks that what is mostly just a thing in people's lives that helps them through day to day matters, great and small, is then held up on a stick that also says a bunch of stupid, hateful, bigoted stuff by these sort of fuckwits

    "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." - G.K.C.

    Also unsurprisingly there is a difference between being culturally religious and an active (and sincerely trying) adherent of said religion.

    As much as I love GKC, as a former Christian who tried very, very hard, and runs in online communities with other former Christians who tried so hard that some of them were preachers or theologians for years, I disagree strongly with that quote!

    That quote is like saying, "real communism has never been tried"

    Christianity cannot fail, it can only be failed.

    Also, why be pissed at the money changers?
    Why not be pissed at god for demanding sacrifices that require people to get their money changed to local currency?

    The temple had its -own- fake temple currency.
    The money changers were foisting microtransactions on the people worshipping.
    Pay to pray at its worst.

    No they weren't.
    Priests were, or god was.
    Go fight priests, or god.

    So, it was the priests then.
    But more specifically the money changers who set the exchange rate.

    Basically the temple was demanding people change their money from the Roman standard into Jewish coinage, before the worshippers could then purchase animals to be sacrificed.
    People could still bring their own animals, but Jerasulem was the central place of worship, and so many people had traveled too far to bring their animals with them.
    Hence the necessity of a local animal market (although not necessarily inside the temple), but not the money conversion.

    I'm not sure why the Jewish people kept their own coin going alongside the Roman coin, but I expect it's because they either wanted to keep themselves separate or simply because the temple demanded tithes be paid in it.

    The Romans were occupying the country at that point, and Jews were their own community and for the most part not very interested in being Roman. The Romans were not wanted, they took over. No one who has ever taken over that area was wanted by the Jews. The Jews had had their own currency before the Romans, and they were going to keep having it. I think that was one of the many points in the Jews' history in the Levant pretty much since the religion found its origins there where whoever had invaded and was trying to get them to go away at the moment decided it wasn't worth the fight as long as they kept paying taxes, which IIRC was part of the problem at the time. The book Kosher Jesus goes into it. He was really pissed that the people in the Temple weren't behaving as strictly as they should have been, especially since how we are meant to handle money is very carefully laid out in the Torah, and once again invaders were messing it all up.

    It's really ironic to me that Jesus was essentially mad that Jews weren't living close enough to the Torah. It's been a long time since I've read it. I don't remember it as well as I'd like and I should really pick it up again.

    That sounds like an interesting read.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    Shorty wrote: »
    Tube wrote: »
    Straightzi wrote: »
    Tube wrote: »
    Someone I know got accused of sexual harassment recently, in a very, very credible case. Other mutual acquaintances who were deeply appalled by other claims have gone "I guess this is a bandwagon one" and one the one hand no, no it fucking isn't, and on the other hand I get it because you don't want to believe that your friend would do this and it's much easier to believe that bitch is a liar.

    It's very easy for people to look at a celebrity committing something like this and responding with a, "Well fuck them, I'll no longer support their work." And that's the expected response, I think - you cut that celebrity out of your life.

    Because of that expected response, it's a lot harder to do that with someone that you actually know. Both in the sense of how we interact with and think about people who are actually in our lives, and there is (typically, at least) a sort of physical presence that people you know maintain, a presence you are bound to run into when trying to continue your daily life. Most of us aren't going to run into Kevin Spacey at a party, essentially. So people do the exact thing that they say is bullshit when they see someone else doing it.

    This is actually a celebrity (I'm going to try and give as little information as possible) and it's kind of reached Bill Cosby levels of undeniable but I know that the circle of people that knew and worked with him are still trying to convince themselves that he didn't do anything, because he's so nice to everyone and had a great reputation.

    can I ask why you feel the need to protect their identity?

    They've been charged by the police and no one here would have heard of them anyway, there's nothing to gain by dropping the name. I try and keep my personal life, including where I've worked and who with under wraps to whatever extent I can.

  • JayKaosJayKaos Registered User regular
    ceres wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Janson wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    It's people like Evangelicals that give religion a bad name

    And I say that as someone who is very non-religious. It sucks that what is mostly just a thing in people's lives that helps them through day to day matters, great and small, is then held up on a stick that also says a bunch of stupid, hateful, bigoted stuff by these sort of fuckwits

    "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." - G.K.C.

    Also unsurprisingly there is a difference between being culturally religious and an active (and sincerely trying) adherent of said religion.

    As much as I love GKC, as a former Christian who tried very, very hard, and runs in online communities with other former Christians who tried so hard that some of them were preachers or theologians for years, I disagree strongly with that quote!

    That quote is like saying, "real communism has never been tried"

    Christianity cannot fail, it can only be failed.

    Also, why be pissed at the money changers?
    Why not be pissed at god for demanding sacrifices that require people to get their money changed to local currency?

    The temple had its -own- fake temple currency.
    The money changers were foisting microtransactions on the people worshipping.
    Pay to pray at its worst.

    No they weren't.
    Priests were, or god was.
    Go fight priests, or god.

    So, it was the priests then.
    But more specifically the money changers who set the exchange rate.

    Basically the temple was demanding people change their money from the Roman standard into Jewish coinage, before the worshippers could then purchase animals to be sacrificed.
    People could still bring their own animals, but Jerasulem was the central place of worship, and so many people had traveled too far to bring their animals with them.
    Hence the necessity of a local animal market (although not necessarily inside the temple), but not the money conversion.

    I'm not sure why the Jewish people kept their own coin going alongside the Roman coin, but I expect it's because they either wanted to keep themselves separate or simply because the temple demanded tithes be paid in it.

    The Romans were occupying the country at that point, and Jews were their own community and for the most part not very interested in being Roman. The Romans were not wanted, they took over. No one who has ever taken over that area was wanted by the Jews. The Jews had had their own currency before the Romans, and they were going to keep having it. I think that was one of the many points in the Jews' history in the Levant pretty much since the religion found its origins there where whoever had invaded and was trying to get them to go away at the moment decided it wasn't worth the fight as long as they kept paying taxes, which IIRC was part of the problem at the time. The book Kosher Jesus goes into it. He was really pissed that the people in the Temple weren't behaving as strictly as they should have been, especially since how we are meant to handle money is very carefully laid out in the Torah, and once again invaders were messing it all up.

    It's really ironic to me that Jesus was essentially mad that Jews weren't living close enough to the Torah. It's been a long time since I've read it. I don't remember it as well as I'd like and I should really pick it up again.

    Also I think the Roman coin having pictures of Ceasar (or other roman gods) was an issue for the temples on account of the whole 'no craven images' thing.

    Steam | SW-0844-0908-6004 and my Switch code
  • ShortyShorty touching the meat Intergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
    "graven" images, not "craven"

  • HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    I dunno who was emperor at the time, good chance they were a craven turd

    Broke as fuck in the style of the times. Gratitude is all that can return on your generosity.

    https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
This discussion has been closed.