?

Log in

Piers Morgan, Meryl Streep and Roman Polanski - clumsy misdirection - Tim Lieder [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tim Lieder

[ website | Dybbuk Press ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Piers Morgan, Meryl Streep and Roman Polanski - clumsy misdirection [Jan. 10th, 2017|03:45 pm]
Tim Lieder
Before I write this, I must say that if you are reading this in the week of Jan 10 and Jan 11 when the Republicans are trying to push Trump's shitty nominations through (including David Duke's favorite attorney general Jeff Sessions, Putin's lesser bitch Rex Tillerson and that crazy woman who wants to fuck over the school system) CALL YOUR SENATORS!!!! If you live in the United States you have two. Do NOT make this stupid twitter war into the beginning and end of fighting Trump. STOP THESE STUPID FUCKING NOMINEES FROM GETTING CONFIRMED. Also if you think that "Turn off your television on Jan 20" is an effective protest and you don't call your senators then FUCK YOU!

Ok. That's out of my system, I saw my friend who got me banned from Facebook for the week (because she has shitty racist friends) post an article by Piers Morgan about how Meryl Streep was really stupid for making that speech. My friend said that Meryl Streep had no right to criticize Trump when she gave a child rapist a standing ovation (that would be Roman Polanski - and seriously Hollywood, what the fuck? The 70s are over. Drooling over a 15-year old Brooke Shields selling designer jeans by implying that she doesn't wear underwear is NOT COOL). My friend who is a little naive and easily brainwashed didn't seem to respect the rest of that gaslighting motherfucker's article (no Trump never mocked a disabled man. Who are you going to believe? Trump or your lying eyes?)

But let's examine that one thing that landed - Piers Morgan name checks Woody Allen and then accuses Meryl Streep of applauding Roman Polanski when he won for best director for The Pianist. The rest of the article was a word salad of broken logic and ad hominem attacks. I always wondered why Brits hated Piers Morgan so much because when he came to America his duty was to make Larry King seem exciting by comparison. Piers Morgan's only interview of note was with Alex Jones where he seemed like the rational one. Of course, Piers Morgan also GAVE A NATIONAL PLATFORM TO ALEX FUCKING JONES so even if he sounded like he was rational he was still normalizing that bullshit. So now back in England, Piers Morgan is a series of ticks and racism and defensiveness on behalf of a shitty little millionaire who doesn't even care that Morgan wants to have his back.

So the part that landed was the fact that Meryl Streep applauded Roman Polanski for a Holocaust movie. So in public discourse we have the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - especially if the sinner is someone that we like, because if you have any sin then we are going to ignore all the criticisms and attack you. Every sin by people we like is justified and exaggerated. Every sin by people criticizing people we like is a smoking gun and a reason why they are not allowed to talk.

It's the same old misdirection. But the part that I find fascinating is something that I found trying to research John Dillinger's alleged horse penis (it's convoluted) is that the Nazis basically used the same misdirection after John Dillinger was shot on the street by the FBI. After being criticized by the United States for - you know - being Nazis and putting their dissidents into concentration camps, Germany was looking for an excuse to go "you are JUST AS BAD" and John Dillinger was the perfect example. How can you say Germany is so bad if you go and shoot your suspected criminals on the street and don't even give them the benefit of the trial.

More recently, RT and Sputnik have been a gold mine of this discourse. Oh sure, Russia murdered thousands of civilians but it's really AMERICA that's wrong. In fact, that's why I finally just de-friended my cousin Brian on FB. I was too tempted to look at his timeline even after I knocked it off of my feed. He posted a meme that said "The U.S. does these things and you think I'm the bad guy?" with a picture of Assad. I really can't abide someone using the "he's not so bad and you're worse" argument when it comes to a mass murderer like Assad or Putin.

So Piers Morgan is using the "he's not so bad and you're worse" against Meryl Streep. It's an easy argument to make and it has to be as ridiculous as the Nazis claiming that they are better than America for John Dillinger or Piers Morgan using it in this context. The main thing is that the person being defended under this argument has to be truly shitty in order to render it ridiculous but the person that is in the "you're worse" part of the argument has to have sins that are at least tangentially related to the crime at hand. Meryl Streep was criticizing Trump for mocking a reporter with special needs. Piers Morgan pulled that "you clapped for Roman Polanski" line out of his ass because none of his arguments were making any fucking sense. Apparently Meryl Streep is never allowed to judge anyone ever again because she once made a poor judgment when it came to Roman Polanski. That's Piers Morgan's argument.

I marvel at the fact that Daily Mail even printed this word salad and orgy of half-baked arguments and bad logic. I would think that at least the editor could have edited the fucking thing. This particular blog post has more logical coherence than that Piers Morgan article.

Yet I am poor and Piers Morgan is rich because there is no justice in the world. At least not fast justice (but I will change my mind if God kills Roman Polanski's lawyer Alan Dershowitz - a particularly shitty rape lawyer that Morgan decided not to mention).
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: sabotabby
2017-01-10 09:44 pm (UTC)
The awesome thing is that they can all be bad guys. Except Meryl Streep. She seems essentially good but showed shitty judgment with Polanski. Admittedly I'm biased because I <3 her.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: marlowe1
2017-01-10 11:25 pm (UTC)
I had similarly shitty judgment with Polanski. I didn't know the facts of the case. I thought it was statutory rape in that she was 15 or 16 and didn't tell him. He directed a Holocaust movie. I liked his movies.

Someone actually had to show me the transcript of the woman's testimony to turn against Polanski as a person. I want to think that Streep was judging based on a similar ignorance. She probably even met the guy and we tend to be reluctant to believe that people we like in other contexts are capable of monstrous acts.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)