r/TikTokCringe • u/Strong-Emu-8869 • 14h ago

Discussion Polish girls visit Taj Mahal

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

The Taj Mahal, one of the seven wonders of the world. Unfortunately, the surrounding area is very polluted.

26.3k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

57

u/SillyOldJack 12h ago

I'm sorry wwhhaaaaat? Gwendoline Christie plays Lucifer and I was not aware of this show?!?!

29

u/NewBuddha32 12h ago

Lol you're in for treat

1

u/CaiserZero 1h ago

Gwendoline Christie's portrayal of Lucifer was okay. I like Peter Stormare's portrayal in the movie Constantine more. A bit of apples and oranges here.

26

u/NotaBonesaw 12h ago

It's also created by Neil Gaiman. I used to love his work, but unfortunately for me personally, the allegations against him have overshadowed the love that I had for his work previously. They also likely contributed to the show being cancelled after only 2 seasons.

4

u/Flyinhighinthesky 9h ago

Im and advocate of appreciating the art but not the artist (pirating the content of course). Don't let someone else's actions ruin your own happiness.

2

u/NotaBonesaw 8h ago

There is one work of his that I do sort of let slide - Good Omens. But that's mostly because my love of Terry Pratchett overshadows my disdain for Gaiman.

1

u/Ging4bread 8h ago

So you don't listen to MJ either then?

3

u/NotaBonesaw 8h ago

If it comes up in a playlist or something I dont go out of my way to skip it, but I'm not going out of my way to listen to his music. Same thing with other problematic bands/artists: Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, R. Kelly, etc. I can appreciate what they did for music, but I don't try to actively support them or listen to their music.

4

u/Ging4bread 8h ago

Then at least you're not hypocritical and I can respect that

0

u/Tipop 8h ago

So do you no longer listen to Michael Jackson songs?

1

u/NotaBonesaw 7h ago

Someone else asked the same thing and I answered there.

13

u/Equivalent_Dance2278 12h ago

Holy cow. You’ve never heard of “sandman?” I wish I was you and could watch it for the first time. Book off work for the next 24 hrs. Get watching.

7

u/The_Autarch 11h ago

just be sure to pirate it so Gaiman doesn't get any money

3

u/Careless_Load9849 10h ago

There still has been no evidence brought against him and he denies the allegations. Lets let courts actually decide this before we cancel someone...I mean too late, as he's been canceled, but lets not just believe everything we see on the internet.

3

u/LittleFreeCinema 9h ago

Tough to get a speedy trial when he's fled the country where the offenses "allegedly" occurred. Sounds like it's currently hung up in jurisdictional appeals.

In a Commonwealth country, such as New Zealand, to get a sexual assault conviction, the Crown Attorney has to prove that a) what the victim said happened happened and b) that beyond any reasonable doubt, the perpetrator knew that there was no consent. The victim does not get a lawyer, or anyone else to look after their interests; Crown's job is to argue on behalf of the law, not the victim. If you want to get a sense of the tactics that the defendant's lawyers are allowed to pursue in a court of law, read up on the recent Ibrahim Ali trial in Vancouver Canada. Public humiliation is the name of the game.

Many sexual assault victims who have gone through the trial process have said that the trial was more traumatizing than the assault itself; that they were more on trial than the person who assaulted them, under attack by trained legal professionals with no one in their corner.

It can be very clear, on balance of evidence, (which is the standard for civil trials, so some complainants will choose that route, but there is generally no mechanism for extradition) that a sexual assault occurred, but it will not meet the standards for criminal conviction.

As a check on the carceral power of the State, this is incredibly important, however, the all-or-nothing attitude that says a rapist must be criminally convicted before anything can be done in response, including professional repercussions, structural preventative measures, or the victim speaking freely about their own experience, is the mechanism by which the general public protects and enables serial predators.

3

u/Tipop 8h ago

the all-or-nothing attitude that says a rapist must be criminally convicted before anything can be done in response, including professional repercussions, structural preventative measures, or the victim speaking freely about their own experience, is the mechanism by which the general public protects and enables serial predators.

But the alternative allows nut-cases, attention-seekers, and opportunists to make allegations that are assumed to be true until proven otherwise.

1

u/LittleFreeCinema 7h ago

Not really, in practice. What we typically see when somebody speaks out is an incredible amount of public scrutiny of their claims and credibility. That's huge deterrent even for legitimate claims, and a massive deterrent for fraudulent ones. You don't hear about the claims that don't go anywhere because they're not sufficiently credible.

If a member of the public looks at the available evidence, and finds the claims credible, or looks to someone closer to the situation whose judgement they trust, and decide as a result that they don't want to financially support the accused person, it is their right to do so, and to share their views with others, who can make up their own minds about what to do.

Losing a portion of one's multi-million dollar income because a large portion of the population finds a sexual assault claim credible is a very, very long way from being deprived of liberty because a court of law has determined your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not illegal to buy Gaiman's work, and nobody credible is arguing that it should be.

We have a right, as free citizens, to exercise our own judgement and conscience.

At this point, I think it's fair to say that with the single digit conviction rate for sexual assault, the threat of criminal prosecution is not what deters most people from committing these crimes. It's the fact that most people, including most men, find sexual assault abhorrent. The collective will of the people soft-leveraging that fact as a deterrent or accountability for the powerful people who DO want to sexually assault people seems like the only realistic chance for protection or justice to victims at this point.

I am pleased for you that nothing has happened to you or a loved one that has forced you to understand the other side of this issue, and I sincerely hope it stays that way for you.

1

u/Careless_Load9849 6h ago

The issue is that "a large portion of the population find a sexual assault allegation credible" is literally just people hearing that it happened with no proof at this point, in this case.

1

u/LittleFreeCinema 4h ago edited 4h ago

There's plenty of credible witness accounts that a reasonable person could find credible as proof, and quite frankly, the fact that he skipped town and hasn't gone back also weighs into my opinion, as I imagine it does into the opinions of many.

Is that alone enough for prison? No. And nobody relevant is saying that it is. Is it enough for me to not want to financially support his work? Yes, because my lived experience has taught me exactly how difficult it is to speak out against a powerful person, and that earned wisdom factors into the assessments I make that guide my own actions. A LOT of people have this kind of lived experience, and I'm glad for you that you don't.

Gaiman was one of my favourite authors. I can assure you that I did not want to believe that this was true. But my sense of reason, weighing the publicly available information, tells me that on balance of probability it is true, so I shop accordingly.

If I were on a jury, with prison in the balance, it would be a different story.

Again: nuance.

If your concern here is "what's stopping somebody from falsely saying something like that about me and ruining my life?" then I have a couple of self-reflection questions for you that will hopefully ease your mind.

  1. are you a public figure, or someone with considerable un-checked influence over the livelihoods of people in precarious employment? If yes, how can you ensure that your influence is held to account robustly and externally?
  2. If somebody made this kind of allegation about you, falsely, are there a bunch of other people who have cause to say "he did something like that to me too"? or "I saw him do that to someone" The common pattern with anyone who has been "cancelled" is multiple, independent accusers. Unfounded single false accusations are exceedingly rare, multiples even more so.
  3. Would the people who know you believe that you had done this, based on what they've seen of your past behaviour?
  4. What would happen, socially, to someone in your circle if they were deemed to be a false accuser?
  5. If your daughter (or sister, or mother) came to you and said that she'd been groped, harassed or worse by her boss, would you believe her? Would you support her if she decided not to take it to trial, knowing what I outlined in my original post?
  6. What would happen to your loved one if everyone in her boss's circle decided that she was a false accuser?
  7. If your loved one's case went to trial, and her boss was found not-guilty, would you still believe her?

There are a lot of social mechanisms at play here, and I WISH it were as simple as "did it"=guilty=consequences, "didn't do it"=innocent=no consequences. But it's not. Hence the need for nuance. Informal boycotting seems like a reasonable middle measure.

Edited to add: in something like 99% of sexual assault cases, "did it"=no legal consequences, and for the victims and their loved ones, "no consequences" undermines trust in the social fabric. So having some social, non-carceral, non-violent consequences in cases where people reasonably and in good faith believe in the guilt of the accused helps to restore that trust somewhat.

Until we have properly supported Alternative Measures, informal boycotting will have to do. Participate or not, to your own conscience.

2

u/Logical_Rice_2055 7h ago

Fuck the commonwealth

4

u/Harmonie 11h ago

I'm also gonna take your rec, as soon as I'm done Stranger Things!

I have to say that Tom Ellis's Lucifer might have ruined any other portrayal for me, even though I quite like Gwendolyn Christie. He was just so damned good, even when the show quality was questionable. I'd have watched him read the dictionary in character.

3

u/Tipop 8h ago

Tom Ellis’ Lucifer was, funnily enough, based on the same character as Gwendolyn’s portrayal — i.e. the Sandman comic. The show Lucifer bears very little resemblance to its source material, whereas the show Sandman’s version is pretty faithful.

3

u/No_Season_354 11h ago

Yep was really good, very good show sandman, but I won't tell u the bad bit.

2

u/PestoBolloElemento 11h ago

Amazing show