[ SECRET POST #4046 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4046 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Laura Ingalls Wilder Little House series]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Johnny Depp as Gellert Grindelwald, "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them"]


__________________________________________________



04.
[The new TV remake of Heathers]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Travelers]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency]


__________________________________________________



07.
[The Gifted]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 15 secrets from Secret Submission Post #579.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I would say that there's a point where the available evidence would allow a reasonable person to conclude that there is a high probability that something is true.

[(Anonymous)]

And in this case the available evidence is...?

[thewakokid]

I agree, the problem is we have a legal system to evaluate evidence because you need to be as sure as possible that you are seeing ALL the evidence before you make that judgement. Outside of a controlled system dedicated to the gathering and assessing of evidence, you just don't know if what you're seeing is everything you need to see to make a reasonable judgement.

[(Anonymous)]

We have a legal system to evaluate evidence to determine what punishment, if any, the state is justified in pronouncing on a certain person.

There's no reason that my standards of belief, as a private person, have to be identical with those of a court, any more than my moral standards have to be identical with the law.

[(Anonymous)]

SA: to put it another way - I'm not sentencing anyone to any punishment

[(Anonymous)]

No? people are advocating that he should not be allowed to continue his career based on the public perception of his guilt. That perception is, as I not necessarily based on all the evidence.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Let's actually lay out the stakes being discussed here:

~ $10.50 ticket price
~ three hours of personal time.

Why are Rowling or Depp entitled to that money out of my pocket, or time out of my weekend? If they want my money and time, they have to sell me the idea that they're artists worth supporting. Failing that, the default is no money and no time.

EDIT: And, a movie ticket is about 1/3rd the price of a pair of pants these days. If I can reject that purchase on the grounds that the color isn't right, why can't I drop Fantastic Beasts?

[(Anonymous)]

Just here to ask where the heck do you live that movie tickets are that cheap? One Adult ticket full price is about $25-28, Kids tix are about $20
Tightarse Tuesday is $12-15 but that's not counting for Big Screen or Recliner chairs or whateves. Basically, movie watching if a bloody rip off hence why the whole country pirates stuff. (Australia)

[(Anonymous)]

But they don't have any actual punitive power to enforce that belief, the way that the state does. The only actual power that they have is (1) not to buy tickets to things that he's in and (2) making moral arguments that others should not hire him or should not buy tickets to things that he's in.

[thewakokid]

Except you have no means to ensure that ALL evidence is seen and evaluated. You do not have a judicial system ensure all evidence is found and presented. You have the media, who has - I think we can all agree - no obligation and not reasonable expectation that they would present all evidence. I would go so far as to say the media is very much a "Present only the most salacious evidence" type of standard.

Your ability to make a moral judgement is no less valid than the legal systems judgment, of course, but your moral judgment is not supported by any system that guarantees or even supports the necessity that you see everything you need to make that judgment.

I'm not saying you don't get an opinion on this because you're not the courts, I'm saying that the system that lead you to that judgment is not geared towards you knowing everything you need to know. The legal system has those standards because it is needed to make the best decision.

[(Anonymous)]

ALL evidence is seen and evaluated

There is no system on Earth that can ensure that all evidence is seen and evaluated. Only a divine being would be able to ensure that. Having to make judgments based on imperfect information is an intrinsic part of being a human being.

The legal system has a particular set of standards for evidence geared towards its particular needs - to be able to admit evidence in a way that is consistent and repeatable and as broad as possible for the purposes of allowing the state to mete out judgment in the violation of its laws. And it's pretty good - although not perfect - at doing that, and, yes, often it will provide evidence that we might not have access to otherwise. But that doesn't make it the be-all and end-all of evidence. Especially because many of the obligations of the legal system are not particularly relevant to what we as individual human beings need to do.

I'm not saying that you have to take everything that anyone says at absolute face value, by any means, or to particularly trust the news media. You have to weigh the evidence that's available to you and you should try to take into account the biases and flaws that come along with any piece of evidence. But, I think, trying to do that is a necessary and an inevitable part of being a human being. It's what allows us to make moral judgments, it's what allows us to do anything at all. Offloading that responsibility onto the courts is an evasion, and it's not even one that particularly makes sense.

No system ever can provide you with absolute certainty of the facts of a case. We're all muddling through trying to make our best judgment on the basis of imperfect and limited information - always and inevitably.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Applying legal standards here is rather like apples and oranges. Media producers are entitled to nothing from fans, not one penny or minute of time. It's on them to do the marketing in order to justify our purchasing choices. And we make market decisions all the time based on the flimsiest of aesthetic preferences. I buy a cortadito rather than a latte because I like a smaller coffee drink. I buy the corn chips in the yellow bag over Doritos because I prefer plainer and thinner chips. M&M peanut have a better mouth feel for me than M&M peanut butter. This shop serves better shrimp & grits than that shop. etc., etc.. I bought a season of Brooklyn Nine Nine, but I'm considering dropping CBS All Access. This grocery is a bit more expensive, but they have excellent customer service.

Standards of evidence really don't apply here. We weekly have secrets by people who bail on media because they don't like the way an actor looks, the way he sounds, or the way he's styled. That's not a deprivation because actors are entitled to nothing from fans, no money, no time, no positive word of mouth. Given this, I don't have to legally prove that Depp is a bit of an ass, or that he's a washed-up hack. I'm entitled to roll my eyes and say, "Gods no, not him again." Just as you're entitled to roll your eyes at a Tomb Raider reboot movie. In both cases, the creators are entitled to nothing from us, and we're depriving them of nothing if we fail to buy their work.

(That's not even touching the problem that I found Fantastic Beasts a dull, derivative, and unnecessary sequel. I was bored before Depp appeared.)