Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

AndyPacheco-Fores

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    341

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AndyPacheco-Fores

  5. Posted

    "1. I didn't know that at the time, 2. Even if I did, I still would have done it. It's basic journalism - and if someone says not to, that rings alarm bells."

    [...]

    So question, how would you feel? I'm not saying Kozalek is right at all, or justified, or that it really matters. Just that she was clearly willing to step over some boundaries and did,and that her behavior was apparently not so hot either.

    Hmm that's an interesting wrinkle. I think then her worst crime is taking her job a little too seriously. Getting background on a person you're writing about is standard practice, and if they don't want you to that makes you question what they have to hide. But if you're doing a profile on an indie rock musician, it's probably better to have some chill and back off. You're not Woodward and Bernstein here.

     

    That said, nothing she did even remotely justifies calling her a bitch and singing a song about how she wants to fuck him in front of a crowd of strangers who have no idea who she is. I'd definitely be mad if a journalist went around interviewing my friends about me but not mad enough to go where Kozelek went. And like I've said before, I wouldn't have had a problem with him if he hadn't used gendered insults. The private emails he sent also bother me, but the public shaming part is where he really crossed the line for me. I don't have a problem with him being an asshole/grouch who hates journalists poking at him, just don't strike back with misogyny.

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    I guess I feel the discussion comes on the forum before the Case Closed. Isn't everyone here just repeating the same argument they made two weeks ago but being nastier about it? Criticizing fellow forum members seems especially unfair.

    There's definitely a lot of repeating variations on the same themes, but it's only natural to respond to what was said on the podcast just like we do every week, even if we're saying basically the same thing. Since the Case Closed episode itself is sort of the official word on the subject, it makes sense to want to have our positions in the case file. And sometimes new people chime in, or we respond to different points that came up on the podcast, or the discussion gave us ideas we didn't have in the previous week's forum. It can expand the discussion and take it in different, interesting directions. Worth the risk of rehashing imo.

     

    I do agree that we seem to get meaner in these forums and that's unfortunate. I'm guilty of it for sure and still need to work on holding back.

     

    I know I probably post too much for everyone's liking on these Case Closed threads, sorry if I'm drowning people out or discouraging anyone from contributing.

    • Like 2

  7. Posted

    I think that going to your interviewee's friends for information after you were asked not to isn't quite covered under " journalistic due diligence." If someone did the same thing to you how would you feel about that?

    The only thing she did that one can reasonably object to was interviewing people close to him. But even with that, she's said she didn't know he'd previously requested that journalists not do that. It was an honest mistake, and an easy one to make for an artist like SKM, who even yall admit is relatively quite obscure. And if you read her article you'll notice she didn't use anything she might have gotten from Kozelek's associates. She quotes only him, no one else. If anyone was out of line, it's SKM.

    Literally the next paragraph.

  8. Posted

    I also kind of wish the spirit of the forum after a Case Closed would be that since everybody is invited into the Thunderdome, then once the Case is Closed then the Case is Closed. It's like a gentlemen's (or gentlewoman's!) agreement. Otherwise it seems things always get nasty.

    Long live Del!

    First of all thanks for sticking with Case Closed. I've strongly disagreed with your positions on the last couple but I agree that it's great to have these kinds of discussions on a comedy podcast. And thanks to everyone who called in, even souprman.

     

    I think you're asking the impossible if you want us to stop debating the Cased Closed issues in the forum, though. Because they're these complicated, thorny issues, there's just no way to cover every angle in a single episode. And a lot of us do wish we could call in but aren't able to for scheduling reasons (happened to me twice) or stage fright or whatever reason. It seems like the more realistic (and more or less already followed) rule is that the debate doesn't carry over into subsequent episode threads. That way those of us who can't call in or feel like something wasn't covered that should have been get to say our piece and feel like we've contributed to the discussion.

     

    Long live Del! Can't wait to hear the DCM episode.

    • Like 4

  10. Posted

    a journalist who is behaving like a disrespectful and uninformed bully and provocateur

    [...]

    the journalist behaved as a bully.

    This line of argument really bothers me. What makes her a bully? She tried to conduct an interview with someone she's assigned to write about. When her interview didn't get much good material, she went to other sources to try and get a better picture. It's standard journalistic due diligence.

     

    The only thing she did that one can reasonably object to was interviewing people close to him. But even with that, she's said she didn't know he'd previously requested that journalists not do that. It was an honest mistake, and an easy one to make for an artist like SKM, who even yall admit is relatively quite obscure. And if you read her article you'll notice she didn't use anything she might have gotten from Kozelek's associates. She quotes only him, no one else. If anyone was out of line, it's SKM.

     

    I understand the urge to rush to the defense of a great artist whose work we love and who we feel close to personally because of that. But even great artists are human beings who have flaws and make mistakes and it's wrong to protect them from rightful criticism when they fuck up. It's also messed up to get mad at people who are turned off of his music by his behavior. Yall have been saying his personality shouldn't affect your opinion of his music but his music should affect your opinion of his personality, but you can't have it both ways. The relationship between art and artist is a two-way street.

    • Like 5

  11. Posted

    So aren't you really just looking for someone to rage against?

    And what, you're not? Isn't that why you stepped in to say your piece? Isn't that what people have always done? That's another tangent I wish we'd had the time/inclination to go down--the idea that people enjoy being aggressively self-righteous is not a new thing that only exists because of the internet. People have always been like that.

    • Like 2

  12. Posted

    You're clearly not arguing about this episode any more.

    Pretty sure "what's up with misogyny" is not a topic that you can really limit to a single episode of a comedy podcast, try as we might to close the case. (Sorry Brett.)

     

    The equal opportunity offender concept is something I very much agree with: That if you are an asshole to everyone, you can't be picked on for being an asshole to one person in particular.

    Being an asshole is the not the same as being offensive. Kozelek didn't just call Snapes an annoying nosy asshole, he called her a bitch. The former would have been fine and I'd be on Kozelek's side if that's what he'd said.

     

    Let's be realistic though. Those who are arguing that SKM is a misogynist aren't actually interested in HELPING him understand why his words may be inexcusably offensive.

    I don't really care whether he understands why it was offensive. I just want him (and everyone else) to stop being offensive. It's not my job to save his soul.

    • Like 2

  14. Posted

    2)SKM expresses this dislike or hatred at a HIGHER RATE toward women, than to men.

    This premise also lends itself to the bullshit "equal opportunity offender" defense--misandry and misogyny are not even remotely the same, which should be obvious to everyone since yall all claim to care so much about context. How's this for context: misogyny is one of the oldest, deepest values in human civilization. The Greek philosophers were incredibly misogynist. The Old Testament is rank with misogyny. It permeates basically every aspect of our society, history/law/commerce/politics/art/all of it. Misogyny is human civilization's original sin. Misandry is some minor bullshit that insecure chumps have since time immemorial blown way out of proportion or more often straight up invented to scare other insecure chumps into supporting their fucked up feelings toward women.

    • Like 2

  17. Posted

    There's nothing wrong with liking the work of problematic people. I like Kozelek's music. I also love Miles Davis (wife beater), Michael Jackson (child molester), Caravaggio (murderer), Phil Spector (murderer), Gesualdo (murderered his wife and infant child), and so on, all of them immeasurably worse people than Kozelek. But no one gets a pass just because I like their stuff. If they do or say something fucked up, I'm going to say it was fucked up and they shouldn't do that.

    • Like 3

  21. Posted

    If you say or do misogynist stuff, you're a misogynist. If you're saying misogynist stuff just to be an asshole, being an asshole is more important to you than not being misogynist.

     

    Misogyny doesn't have to be an active agenda to be real. It's not just rapists. It's not even just guys like Kozelek who think it's ok to call women bitches and sexually insult them in front of a crowd of people. It's also people who see what Kozelek did and don't call him out for it. What you put up with is what you stand for.

    • Like 4

  24. Posted

    Good episode.

     

    Regarding the titular discussion, there seems to be this weird disconnect about the critical reception to Jurassic World. Kulap (or maybe Drew) is the 3rd or 4th person I've heard/read who seem to think that it was panned, which really isn't the case. I'd say the reaction has been middling at worst, and have read a few enthusiastically positive reviews and nothing outright negative.

    there's been internet hoopla over it being sexist, especially on twitter

×