Last year I wrote a piece pointing out that our arts & culture media has a very, shall we say, selective set of standards when it comes to the consequences of accusations of sexual misconduct.
And it provoked me to ask, like… what are the rules, here?
Freddy, there are no rules! Decorum and decency have reached their nadir after decades of backsliding. Manners are for pussies. We’re all just ping ponging off each other across the country until someone stronger (the state?) tells us what the limits are. Our president is a clown and a crook, our idols are the villains of very straightforward media. We have become Homer Simpson, who was the most obviously idiotic slob imaginable in the 90s. Jameis is memeable and a dope. That’s enough for so many people.
Really agree with this, Freddie. The inconsistency you point out feels less like people applying a moral standard and more like them reacting based on branding and audience vibes. I think part of the issue is what Mark Fisher called capitalist realism—how we’re all so deep in this system that we can’t imagine alternatives, and it shapes our thinking without us even realizing it. A lot of media figures genuinely believe they’re operating from a consistent moral framework, but in reality, their instincts are being shaped by the incentives of the media economy—what draws engagement, what fits the narrative, what keeps their audience nodding along.
That’s also why people get so angry when you point out contradictions. It’s not just defensiveness—it’s that you’re exposing a gap they don’t even realize exists. They think they’re standing on moral ground, but it’s really just a structure built by capitalism. And when that’s threatened, it feels personal, because it means rethinking not just a stance, but the entire framework they assume is theirs.
Consumption is not a moral act. But with no cultural touchstones left, it becomes the only one left. We don't join clubs, go to church, or have any loyalty to our jobs; what's on TV/viral is literally our only shared culture anymore. And so it becomes the arena for our culture war.
Tv/movies are barely shared culture anymore. It’s heavily splintered. Mr. Beast is probably the most famous person for a large segment of the population, but how many people over 40 can identify him or even know who he is. All our movie stars are old because It’s not easy to break through into mainstream culture when culture is splintered all over the place. We aren’t all going home at night watching the same tv shows and news channels like we used to.
The honest answer is it’s just hard not to get swept onto the memeification of certain figures. Tyson is, in many was, a repugnant man, or at least he was for years but he’s a fascinating, odd, strangely deep, intense figure and — seeing how I’m not actually inviting him over to have dinner with my family —, I can just sort of enjoy it. Similar with Mark Wahlberg who committed genuine hate crimes in his youth, but has a sort of intensity that’s fun to watch.
So why is Woody Allen canceled? Well, he’s old and no longer of much use + I think some people always found his personality grating.
Another one is Thomas Middleditch, who hasn’t worked at all since some rather mild accusations in 2021. But he was a rather replaceable comic actor, and I get the sense not particularly well-liked either. So it’s just so easy not to hire him.
Add in a lot of awkward racial considerations, and you have the “formula”, which is to say: how bad was the crime? How valuable is the accused? How much are they enjoyed in some vague internet way?How much flack will I personally take for hating him?
I don’t think it’s random, but it’s far from fair.
It might be because there's *no* controversy about Tyson that people don't feel the need to point out he hits women. Whereas with Allen it's an argument I have to make, one that he denies
Dead on I think. If you look at Project Yewtree here in the UK it was deeply uncool '70s DJs like Dave Lee Travis who were held accountable, not far cooler musicians from the period (like Bowie). Even in the wake of his death, bloody John Peel is still revered, basically because he had good music taste.
I think it’s because of the left’s particular cringey worship of boxing and boxers, especially if they come from mean streets. And don’t lots of fighters?
George Foreman was pretty beloved, and he candidly admitted that it was a miracle he never killed anybody and he wasn’t talking about his boxing career.
But he was maybe a little too articulate and self-aware to gain Mike Tyson‘s status.
Woody Allen had already made himself That Guy by dating/marrying his (not quite) stepdaughter. And since most of his work was in the past, it was easy to shove him to the side.
Yeah, a big part of it is that people, myself included, are wildly grossed out by his marriage. Also, he’s made like two good movies in the last 30 years and no great ones.
Yes a thousand times. This is part of the problem that I think we must solve if we are all going to get better and achieve success with the kind of society we want & need: “The truth is that everyone who engages in these kinds of moral theatrics eventually is proven to be a hypocrite; human beings simply don’t have the capacity for total ethical consistency, but that’s what’s required when you spend all your time judging other people.”
I agree with the entire piece but if I had to try to articulate some fuzzy line it's probably some approximation of 'bankability.' It's no coincidence that by the time most of these people end up on the wrong end they are on the downslope of their careers or perceived value. Sometimes its so soon after the zenith of whatever person's stardom that people haven't caught up by the time it starts happening, sometimes (like with Allen) it's so far after the fact that its almost farcical, given how far past peak cachet the person is. The common denominator in all cases seems to be lack of further upside, hence freedom to (metaphorically) crucify as a way of squeezing out a last bit of content or commentary before consignment to the dustbin.
Even more directly, I read tons of comments from people cheering for a Deshaun Watson injury last fall because of Watson's numerous sexual assault allegations, people openly rooting for him to get benched because they didn't want that rapist leading the team, when his backup was.... Jameis Winston.
I think there is a tiny bit of subconscious Winston-excusing that may occur because back in his college days a lot of people made RW-coded jokes at Winston's expense over the crab leg theft incident. And at that point in history, we hadn't really had the modern coming out party for black QBs just yet, so there was reflexive defensiveness of any prominent black QB who looked NFL-ready. The twitter journo-circle being what it was back then, many of them likely internalized a model of "RW people hate Jameis" and vaguely feel that attacking him is sending the wrong signal, even though that's just a vestigial reaction at this point.
I think it's been pointed out over and over that while the justice system has its failures and lapses but it is still preferable to mob justice which is almost entirely failures and lapses.
But I now wonder if the general public understands the lunacy and utter capriciousness of #metoo and if that perception has led to the general downfall of the whole enterprise.
Yes, she obviously is. But she holed up in an impregnable corner, where a society that makes much of its permissiveness around sex, maintains certain redoubts of pure hysteria. Around children of course - hypocritically so, since there is a relentless determination to erase childhood innocence in this culture, as outmoded and backward - but also around women, a subcategory of children in this scheme.
And people are no more generous or less vindictive than any other time; that stuff is constant. They might not believe Farrow’s accusation, as they’ve known similar women - but such is their contempt for Woody Allen perhaps they too find it useful, even if the culture is worse for the pretense.
I'm not sure what the general Hollywood consensus is now, but for a while Roman Polanski was celebrated even though he was accused of raping a minor. How they could then turn on. Woody Allen makes no sense to me and is an example of the thing that Freddie is talking about.
Times change. All sorts of stuff used to get covered up, now it's not. Which leads to some people essentially getting "double standard"; their predecessors managed to avoid getting called out, but they are?
Those who espouse that "the personal is political" probably intended for all their personal tastes and opinions reflect their highest moral values. Instead, the arrows tend to go in the other direction: your moral positions become squishy, subjective, and matters of fashion and taste.
Tucker: I didn’t understand any of those screenshots but he’s out of Texas, is that right? I’m not sure how you misbehave at a massage parlor if it exists for sexual services. That is confusing.
But if this is his particular addiction, blame Texas. There is a massage parlor at every freeway exit, staffed by women brought here to work off their transport under compulsion. No one uses these places for an actual massage - women never go in them - there are ubiquitous chains with uncovered windows for that sort of thing. Despite Americans’ supposed Puritanism, this sordid situation is tolerated and to the extent immigration is implicated, celebrated obviously - though once in awhile some unrelated breach or failure to pay rent must occur, because there will be a “raid” at one of them.
We can have this or that, but not everything all the time.
Editing to make clear: Tucker is as far as know accused of inappropriate contact with "legitimate" massage therapists.
My understanding from conversations that even in the "legitimate" massage world, there are clientele who expect sexual favors from their massagers, and massagers who offer to make sure there's a happy ending for their clients (interestingly, this is not a gendered phenomenon for the massagers; both masseuses and masseurs can expect this to happen. It decidedly IS a gendered experience on the clientele, in that it's almost always guys asking). How do you know if the massager you are using is one who will provide the best service? You don't until you very subtly and euphemistically ask!
If Tucker was caught using roadside massage parlors, I would have zero sympathy for him, because it's something so dumb that you deserve whatever punishments you get.
Then it’s all about as clear as mud, which is appropriate.
I’d be surprised though, if the men (generally women) walking into the “Massage Envy” across the parking lot from the HEB, where they can expect to see everyone they know, are expecting the same treatment as the guys who turn up at their lunch hour at the place where you have to knock, with its strictly Chinese immigrant staff, who presumably have not attended the Lauterstein-Conway School of Massage.
To try and clear it up a little more, this is part of the "home appointment massage therapy" world of massage therapy (which sport therapy usually falls into). I agree that the women walking into Massage Envy are not hoping to be jilled off as part of the service; a chunk of guys who hire* people to come to their residence and provide massages *do* expect a handy as part of the experience. Of course, *every guy* who walks into Number 1 Massage House right by the Flying J on Exit 234 expects a happy ending, as they frankly should, because that's why that place exists. The Home Appointment MT world in particular just has this weird thing where *some* of it is legitimate physical therapy and quasi-medical treatment and *some* of it is slightly obfuscated sex work, but it's hard to tell from the outside which is which.
Randomly, I am reminded of the 2021 Atlanta Spa shootings, where it was very convenient for everyone to focus on the demographics of the victims to emphasize it as a hate crime and definitely not ask why exactly this business had so many Asians, a question with much more awkward answers.
*bonus points if they're paying for it with insurance
It seems peculiar that he didn't grasp the distinction *over and over again*, or that he would not have had access to the same prostitutes his teammates did.
Maybe he had coupons or groupons he was trying to use or something :-).
As to your comment about the Atlanta incident, I am continually disappointed that a crime doesn't force attention onto certain things (in this case, other crimes).
For instance, when the little girl with the undocumented father was tragically raped and murdered by her countryman, at the apartment complex/ethnic enclave full of illegal immigrants - I thought: the media will surely be curious about why she was even brought along, what her role was, and why she did not go to the free daycare that is school but stayed alone in the apartment all day. But I guess the reporters were able to hide behind it being in bad taste to ask questions like that at such a moment even though the answers might have been illuminating as to whether other children are here, not going to school.
Also, I am much less often annoyed with Trump than this commentariat, but I was genuinely offended that he ridiculously chose to rename the local national wildlife refuge (formerly, long-held place name + NWR) after that little girl. Please don't make this all the hell worse, forever. A cure for wokeness is not a hair of the woke that bit you, and the utterly random politicization makes mock of the circumstances of the poor little girl's life, and of the place as well, as though it were a blank place on the map.
I'm sure I'll be flamed for this, but it is morally wrong to de-dignify anyone based solely on an accusation. That is the problem. And inconsistency compounds the problem. But the base problem is that our betters here in the USA seem to have decided that, because of patriarchy and power dynamics etc etc etc, an accusation of sexual assault is sufficient proof to merit bringing the whole of society's disapprobation down on the head of the accused. Unless the accused is Bill Clinton, of course.
"Why would the accusation against Allen render him a pariah while Tyson’s long history of domestic and sexual violence is so easily ignored?"
This one feels fairly simple, and apologies if somebody's already chimed in with this point: Tyson was tried and convicted and spent three years in prison--three prime earning years that also very likely injured his potential legacy in the sport, for what that's worth. Allen has denied for decades and only paid a price very recently, as described, long after that whip's lash has dulled.
And it provoked me to ask, like… what are the rules, here?
Freddy, there are no rules! Decorum and decency have reached their nadir after decades of backsliding. Manners are for pussies. We’re all just ping ponging off each other across the country until someone stronger (the state?) tells us what the limits are. Our president is a clown and a crook, our idols are the villains of very straightforward media. We have become Homer Simpson, who was the most obviously idiotic slob imaginable in the 90s. Jameis is memeable and a dope. That’s enough for so many people.
Does that make any "normies" still alive the Frank Grimes of modern American life?
Grimes as the competent technocrat who finally loses it at the criminal incompetence around him is absolutely the closest analogy there is.
Likeable people get away with stuff unlikable people can't get away with. That's always been true; it's just more obvious, now.
Really agree with this, Freddie. The inconsistency you point out feels less like people applying a moral standard and more like them reacting based on branding and audience vibes. I think part of the issue is what Mark Fisher called capitalist realism—how we’re all so deep in this system that we can’t imagine alternatives, and it shapes our thinking without us even realizing it. A lot of media figures genuinely believe they’re operating from a consistent moral framework, but in reality, their instincts are being shaped by the incentives of the media economy—what draws engagement, what fits the narrative, what keeps their audience nodding along.
That’s also why people get so angry when you point out contradictions. It’s not just defensiveness—it’s that you’re exposing a gap they don’t even realize exists. They think they’re standing on moral ground, but it’s really just a structure built by capitalism. And when that’s threatened, it feels personal, because it means rethinking not just a stance, but the entire framework they assume is theirs.
I upvote anytime I see someone reference Mark Fisher. RIP
Consumption is not a moral act. But with no cultural touchstones left, it becomes the only one left. We don't join clubs, go to church, or have any loyalty to our jobs; what's on TV/viral is literally our only shared culture anymore. And so it becomes the arena for our culture war.
Tv/movies are barely shared culture anymore. It’s heavily splintered. Mr. Beast is probably the most famous person for a large segment of the population, but how many people over 40 can identify him or even know who he is. All our movie stars are old because It’s not easy to break through into mainstream culture when culture is splintered all over the place. We aren’t all going home at night watching the same tv shows and news channels like we used to.
Even the fragments are fragmenting. A grey goo of culture, turned into "content."
Awesome nanotech reference.
The honest answer is it’s just hard not to get swept onto the memeification of certain figures. Tyson is, in many was, a repugnant man, or at least he was for years but he’s a fascinating, odd, strangely deep, intense figure and — seeing how I’m not actually inviting him over to have dinner with my family —, I can just sort of enjoy it. Similar with Mark Wahlberg who committed genuine hate crimes in his youth, but has a sort of intensity that’s fun to watch.
So why is Woody Allen canceled? Well, he’s old and no longer of much use + I think some people always found his personality grating.
Another one is Thomas Middleditch, who hasn’t worked at all since some rather mild accusations in 2021. But he was a rather replaceable comic actor, and I get the sense not particularly well-liked either. So it’s just so easy not to hire him.
Add in a lot of awkward racial considerations, and you have the “formula”, which is to say: how bad was the crime? How valuable is the accused? How much are they enjoyed in some vague internet way?How much flack will I personally take for hating him?
I don’t think it’s random, but it’s far from fair.
It might be because there's *no* controversy about Tyson that people don't feel the need to point out he hits women. Whereas with Allen it's an argument I have to make, one that he denies
True! Part of the formula is, “how much content is generated?” What do you even say about Tyson? It’s not an interesting thing to write about.
Also, with Allen the Soon-Yi stuff is just so icky…big part of it
A little off topic but Middleditch recently starred in a Broadway show called "Eureka Day".
I was going to make a reply based on a minor point you covered, but you expanded, and said more than I intended to, quite gracefully!
Dead on I think. If you look at Project Yewtree here in the UK it was deeply uncool '70s DJs like Dave Lee Travis who were held accountable, not far cooler musicians from the period (like Bowie). Even in the wake of his death, bloody John Peel is still revered, basically because he had good music taste.
I think it’s because of the left’s particular cringey worship of boxing and boxers, especially if they come from mean streets. And don’t lots of fighters?
George Foreman was pretty beloved, and he candidly admitted that it was a miracle he never killed anybody and he wasn’t talking about his boxing career.
But he was maybe a little too articulate and self-aware to gain Mike Tyson‘s status.
Woody Allen had already made himself That Guy by dating/marrying his (not quite) stepdaughter. And since most of his work was in the past, it was easy to shove him to the side.
Yeah, a big part of it is that people, myself included, are wildly grossed out by his marriage. Also, he’s made like two good movies in the last 30 years and no great ones.
Yes a thousand times. This is part of the problem that I think we must solve if we are all going to get better and achieve success with the kind of society we want & need: “The truth is that everyone who engages in these kinds of moral theatrics eventually is proven to be a hypocrite; human beings simply don’t have the capacity for total ethical consistency, but that’s what’s required when you spend all your time judging other people.”
I agree with the entire piece but if I had to try to articulate some fuzzy line it's probably some approximation of 'bankability.' It's no coincidence that by the time most of these people end up on the wrong end they are on the downslope of their careers or perceived value. Sometimes its so soon after the zenith of whatever person's stardom that people haven't caught up by the time it starts happening, sometimes (like with Allen) it's so far after the fact that its almost farcical, given how far past peak cachet the person is. The common denominator in all cases seems to be lack of further upside, hence freedom to (metaphorically) crucify as a way of squeezing out a last bit of content or commentary before consignment to the dustbin.
Even more directly, I read tons of comments from people cheering for a Deshaun Watson injury last fall because of Watson's numerous sexual assault allegations, people openly rooting for him to get benched because they didn't want that rapist leading the team, when his backup was.... Jameis Winston.
I think there is a tiny bit of subconscious Winston-excusing that may occur because back in his college days a lot of people made RW-coded jokes at Winston's expense over the crab leg theft incident. And at that point in history, we hadn't really had the modern coming out party for black QBs just yet, so there was reflexive defensiveness of any prominent black QB who looked NFL-ready. The twitter journo-circle being what it was back then, many of them likely internalized a model of "RW people hate Jameis" and vaguely feel that attacking him is sending the wrong signal, even though that's just a vestigial reaction at this point.
Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota is not running for reelection. How would the hive respond to Al Franken seeking his old seat? Why?
i want to support this question by saying that i always felt franken should have made his amends, and then run again.
I think it's been pointed out over and over that while the justice system has its failures and lapses but it is still preferable to mob justice which is almost entirely failures and lapses.
But I now wonder if the general public understands the lunacy and utter capriciousness of #metoo and if that perception has led to the general downfall of the whole enterprise.
I do not like Woody Allen movies, but I thought and think it clear than Mia Farrow is a psychotically insane liar.
Yes, she obviously is. But she holed up in an impregnable corner, where a society that makes much of its permissiveness around sex, maintains certain redoubts of pure hysteria. Around children of course - hypocritically so, since there is a relentless determination to erase childhood innocence in this culture, as outmoded and backward - but also around women, a subcategory of children in this scheme.
And people are no more generous or less vindictive than any other time; that stuff is constant. They might not believe Farrow’s accusation, as they’ve known similar women - but such is their contempt for Woody Allen perhaps they too find it useful, even if the culture is worse for the pretense.
Yes, true. And Woody Allen was cleared by 2 official investigations of the charges against him, which doesn't seem to matter to the cancellers.
I'm not sure what the general Hollywood consensus is now, but for a while Roman Polanski was celebrated even though he was accused of raping a minor. How they could then turn on. Woody Allen makes no sense to me and is an example of the thing that Freddie is talking about.
Times change. All sorts of stuff used to get covered up, now it's not. Which leads to some people essentially getting "double standard"; their predecessors managed to avoid getting called out, but they are?
Those who espouse that "the personal is political" probably intended for all their personal tastes and opinions reflect their highest moral values. Instead, the arrows tend to go in the other direction: your moral positions become squishy, subjective, and matters of fashion and taste.
"I don’t turn to his music for moral instruction, and so I don’t need to come up with some convoluted logic to exonerate him."
This.
This undermining of principles is what comes of a celebrity culture. Every fan is willing to dismiss their own idol and demonize yours.
Fortunately, this doesn't happen in national politics. I'm kidding.
Tucker: I didn’t understand any of those screenshots but he’s out of Texas, is that right? I’m not sure how you misbehave at a massage parlor if it exists for sexual services. That is confusing.
But if this is his particular addiction, blame Texas. There is a massage parlor at every freeway exit, staffed by women brought here to work off their transport under compulsion. No one uses these places for an actual massage - women never go in them - there are ubiquitous chains with uncovered windows for that sort of thing. Despite Americans’ supposed Puritanism, this sordid situation is tolerated and to the extent immigration is implicated, celebrated obviously - though once in awhile some unrelated breach or failure to pay rent must occur, because there will be a “raid” at one of them.
We can have this or that, but not everything all the time.
Editing to make clear: Tucker is as far as know accused of inappropriate contact with "legitimate" massage therapists.
My understanding from conversations that even in the "legitimate" massage world, there are clientele who expect sexual favors from their massagers, and massagers who offer to make sure there's a happy ending for their clients (interestingly, this is not a gendered phenomenon for the massagers; both masseuses and masseurs can expect this to happen. It decidedly IS a gendered experience on the clientele, in that it's almost always guys asking). How do you know if the massager you are using is one who will provide the best service? You don't until you very subtly and euphemistically ask!
If Tucker was caught using roadside massage parlors, I would have zero sympathy for him, because it's something so dumb that you deserve whatever punishments you get.
Then it’s all about as clear as mud, which is appropriate.
I’d be surprised though, if the men (generally women) walking into the “Massage Envy” across the parking lot from the HEB, where they can expect to see everyone they know, are expecting the same treatment as the guys who turn up at their lunch hour at the place where you have to knock, with its strictly Chinese immigrant staff, who presumably have not attended the Lauterstein-Conway School of Massage.
To try and clear it up a little more, this is part of the "home appointment massage therapy" world of massage therapy (which sport therapy usually falls into). I agree that the women walking into Massage Envy are not hoping to be jilled off as part of the service; a chunk of guys who hire* people to come to their residence and provide massages *do* expect a handy as part of the experience. Of course, *every guy* who walks into Number 1 Massage House right by the Flying J on Exit 234 expects a happy ending, as they frankly should, because that's why that place exists. The Home Appointment MT world in particular just has this weird thing where *some* of it is legitimate physical therapy and quasi-medical treatment and *some* of it is slightly obfuscated sex work, but it's hard to tell from the outside which is which.
Randomly, I am reminded of the 2021 Atlanta Spa shootings, where it was very convenient for everyone to focus on the demographics of the victims to emphasize it as a hate crime and definitely not ask why exactly this business had so many Asians, a question with much more awkward answers.
*bonus points if they're paying for it with insurance
It seems peculiar that he didn't grasp the distinction *over and over again*, or that he would not have had access to the same prostitutes his teammates did.
Maybe he had coupons or groupons he was trying to use or something :-).
As to your comment about the Atlanta incident, I am continually disappointed that a crime doesn't force attention onto certain things (in this case, other crimes).
For instance, when the little girl with the undocumented father was tragically raped and murdered by her countryman, at the apartment complex/ethnic enclave full of illegal immigrants - I thought: the media will surely be curious about why she was even brought along, what her role was, and why she did not go to the free daycare that is school but stayed alone in the apartment all day. But I guess the reporters were able to hide behind it being in bad taste to ask questions like that at such a moment even though the answers might have been illuminating as to whether other children are here, not going to school.
Also, I am much less often annoyed with Trump than this commentariat, but I was genuinely offended that he ridiculously chose to rename the local national wildlife refuge (formerly, long-held place name + NWR) after that little girl. Please don't make this all the hell worse, forever. A cure for wokeness is not a hair of the woke that bit you, and the utterly random politicization makes mock of the circumstances of the poor little girl's life, and of the place as well, as though it were a blank place on the map.
It is also a possibility we are incapable of consistent forgiveness in our society.
I'm sure I'll be flamed for this, but it is morally wrong to de-dignify anyone based solely on an accusation. That is the problem. And inconsistency compounds the problem. But the base problem is that our betters here in the USA seem to have decided that, because of patriarchy and power dynamics etc etc etc, an accusation of sexual assault is sufficient proof to merit bringing the whole of society's disapprobation down on the head of the accused. Unless the accused is Bill Clinton, of course.
Or Joe Biden.
"Why would the accusation against Allen render him a pariah while Tyson’s long history of domestic and sexual violence is so easily ignored?"
This one feels fairly simple, and apologies if somebody's already chimed in with this point: Tyson was tried and convicted and spent three years in prison--three prime earning years that also very likely injured his potential legacy in the sport, for what that's worth. Allen has denied for decades and only paid a price very recently, as described, long after that whip's lash has dulled.
So you're saying if Allen had been jailed for sexual abuse of a minor, instead of being exonerated, he would have been less disliked? Alright then.
Of course not. I was referring to why Tyson is not largely vilified.