Who, What, When, Where?!: Miscellaneous Celebrity News 2.0

[letter8358]

Melissa Joan Hart disappointed with herself after contracting Covid

Hearing her talk makes me remember all the 90s shows I loved watching. Get well, Sabrina! And don't hit yourself over the head! We are hoping you are pulling through!

Edited August 21, 2021 by letter8358

[bobalina]

4 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

This is what is considered newsworthy?  No wonder celebrities like Britney Spears end up with mental health issues.  And I seriously wonder what that housekeeper was thinking.  Clearly not at all interested in keeping her job that's for sure.

Because Britney went public for the sympathy, committed battery (you don't have  to actually touch someone to commit battery) and neglected her pet's health issues to the point the vet confiscated the animal. Even if someone else was the day to day caretaker it was her pet and her responsibility.

[merylinkid]

7 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

This is what is considered newsworthy?  No wonder celebrities like Britney Spears end up with mental health issues.  And I seriously wonder what that housekeeper was thinking.  Clearly not at all interested in keeping her job that's for sure.

the dogs were sick enough the vet was worried.   So the housekeeper was supposed to go "Oh Miss Britney wouldn't like it, I better let the dogs die?"

Jamie Spears need to step down because regardless of the severity of his daughter's mental illness, it is clear that his involvement in her conservatorship is leading to some serious paranoia on Britney's part.    Which is not healthy for her, nor is it safe for others because of how she may react thinking they are "betraying" her.

[SunnyBeBe]

15 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

the dogs were sick enough the vet was worried.   So the housekeeper was supposed to go "Oh Miss Britney wouldn't like it, I better let the dogs die?"

Jamie Spears need to step down because regardless of the severity of his daughter's mental illness, it is clear that his involvement in her conservatorship is leading to some serious paranoia on Britney's part.    Which is not healthy for her, nor is it safe for others because of how she may react thinking they are "betraying" her.

Regardless of who’s in control over finances, it might not meet Britney’s approval.  I’m not privy to her specific condition, but often people who struggle with mental health issues and stability have difficulty with those who have say so over certain aspects of their life.  It reminds me of the saying, No matter where you go, there you are.  Jamie has indicated he’s stepping down, so I would expect a smooth transition to a new conservator of the finances, which is reasonable.  Maybe, they need to take a look at the conservator who’s managing Britney’s day to day care.   I think Britney likes this person.  Perhaps, she needs to address Britney’s household needs instead focusing on Jamies’s  purview.  

[Vermicious Knid]

Mayim isn't a such a great pick either. Mayim Bialik’s Ugly History of Shaming Weinstein’s Victims and Being an Anti-Vaxxer.

Quote

From promoting anti-vaccine literature in her own writing, where in one breath she wrote that she doesn’t want to “dismiss” the families who’ve endured horrible tragedies due to being unvaccinated, but in the next defended her anti-vax stance by sharing that a “friend’s brother had an adverse reaction to a vaccination and he is never going to develop mentally past the age of 6 because of it,” seems really tacky and insensitive and wrong (even if true). She conveniently pivoted to admitting that she and her sons are vaccinated more recently, just in time for her Jeopardy! audition.

Then there was her victim-blaming New York Times op-ed about Harvey Weinstein, concluding that she was never a “perfect ten” and therefore wouldn’t be subject to his kind of predation. While self-identifying as a feminist, in a piece written just days after the Times broke the news of Weinstein’s violent and predatory behavior, she wrote, “I still make choices every day as a 41-year-old actress that I think of as self-protecting and wise. I have decided that my sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with. I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.” She would pivot, once again (sensing a pattern here?), to dismissing the claims of her victim-blaming on “vicious people,” saying that readers took her “words out of the context of the Hollywood machine and twisted them to imply that God forbid [she] would blame a woman for her assault based on clothing and behavior.”

 

[badhaggis]

6 minutes ago, Vermicious Knid said:

Mayim isn't a such a great pick either. Mayim Bialik’s Ugly History of Shaming Weinstein’s Victims and Being an Anti-Vaxxer.

 

God comments like "I dress modestly" drive me crazy. I was sexually assaulted years ago by someone that wormed himself into my family. It didn't matter one whit what the hell I was wearing.

I expected better from you Mayim.

[Irlandesa]

The article forgets that she has said her kids were vaccinated back in 2015 so it's not a new "convenient" revelation.  It's consistent with what she tweeted back then.  And she got the COVID vaccine. 

[ouinason]

Also her "dress modestly" line was part of an article or whatever discussing how women feel like they have to act/dress a certain way out of fear.  Women, even me sometimes, can have this moment of "am i covered enough" as they walk out the door in the morning.  She wasn't saying that the way others dress is wrong, but that we shouldn't have to think about that kind of thing in a safety context, but sometimes we do.

 

it wasn't a pivot, it was part of her larger point that the social environment is so fucked up.

 

The actual piece

I'm in no way saying she said the perfect thing.  I just think that article is overly critical.

Edited August 22, 2021 by ouinason
added link

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

Mayim isn't a such a great pick either. Mayim Bialik’s Ugly History of Shaming Weinstein’s Victims and Being an Anti-Vaxxer.

 

I find it depressing that having a nuanced, multi-layered viewpoint is seen as pivoting. The need to pigeonhole people into one group is endlessly frustrating for me. It’s possible to believe in vaccines and still be cautious about which ones and when you chose to take them. 

3 hours ago, ouinason said:

Also her "dress modestly" line was part of an article or whatever discussing how women feel like they have to act/dress a certain way out of fear.  Women, even me sometimes, can have this moment of "am i covered enough" as they walk out the door in the morning.  She wasn't saying that the way others dress is wrong, but that we shouldn't have to think about that kind of thing in a safety context, but sometimes we do.

 

it wasn't a pivot, it was part of her larger point that the social environment is so fucked up.

 

The actual piece

I'm in no way saying she said the perfect thing.  I just think that article is overly critical.

I agree. Many have latched on to her comments about how she dresses but that completely ignores her point that she was safer because Hollywood deemed her ugly. It speaks to how unhealthy the environment is across the board. 

[RealHousewife]

 

Quote

Then there was her victim-blaming New York Times op-ed about Harvey Weinstein, concluding that she was never a “perfect ten” and therefore wouldn’t be subject to his kind of predation. While self-identifying as a feminist, in a piece written just days after the Times broke the news of Weinstein’s violent and predatory behavior, she wrote, “I still make choices every day as a 41-year-old actress that I think of as self-protecting and wise. I have decided that my sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with. I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.” She would pivot, once again (sensing a pattern here?), to dismissing the claims of her victim-blaming on “vicious people,” saying that readers took her “words out of the context of the Hollywood machine and twisted them to imply that God forbid [she] would blame a woman for her assault based on clothing and behavior.”

 

5 hours ago, ouinason said:

Also her "dress modestly" line was part of an article or whatever discussing how women feel like they have to act/dress a certain way out of fear.  Women, even me sometimes, can have this moment of "am i covered enough" as they walk out the door in the morning.  She wasn't saying that the way others dress is wrong, but that we shouldn't have to think about that kind of thing in a safety context, but sometimes we do.

 

it wasn't a pivot, it was part of her larger point that the social environment is so fucked up.

 

The actual piece

I'm in no way saying she said the perfect thing.  I just think that article is overly critical.

I give her benefit of the doubt. Quotes being taken out of context happens. 

“There is no way to avoid being the victim of assault by what you wear or the way you behave,” Bialik said. “I really do regret that this became what it became because literally I was trying to speak about a very specific experience I’ve had in a very specific industry. I was not looking to speak about assault and rape in general.”

Hopefully she just meant she wasn't seen as the pretty girl and never wanted to be seen in a sexy light either. There's a difference between not playing that game and suggesting if you do that it makes harassment okay. 

1 hour ago, Dani said:

I agree. Many have latched on to her comments about how she dresses but that completely ignores her point that she was safer because Hollywood deemed her ugly. It speaks to how unhealthy the environment is across the board. 

Hollywood is simply a dirty industry. I act as a hobby, and I'd never want to live in LA. I've met a lot of sketchy people. One of my favorite acting teachers even turned out to be a creep who harassed a ton of women. 

What Mayim said reminds me of what Pamela Anderson said. It's kind of the same, just in reverse. Pamela felt the way she looked and the type of career she had would make her more vulnerable. She never said don't flirt or dress sexy, but she did make comments about women needing to have common sense and not meet men in hotel rooms alone. She experienced a lot of sexual abuse in her life, including as a child, and she's always come across as a sweet person. I don't think she'd ever victim blame, but she was shocked that a lot of women weren't more careful. 

I really wish women could also speak openly without everyone jumping to believe the worst. This is what Pamela said after the controversy: 

Quote

 

So this is not victim blaming but looking at the issue from the angle of women being aware of certain problems and how to spot them and fight them. It is totally hypocritical to ignore this. And it is not helping anyone to ignore the realities in the society we live in. The causes of the problem and solutions are complex and women who do not live in the utopian bubble must be aware of what is going on. And that is what I have highlighted.

I do NOT wish apologise for what I said.

And will not get coerced into apology.

This exactly what I am saying is a problem with the contemporary “victimhoood feminism”! The people who subscribe to that notion tolerate and actually expect women to talk about the stories of abuse and experiences with creeps.

But they would NOT tolerate a woman with her own opinion. So pathetic.

 

I identify as a feminist, but I do see that "victimhood feminism" she referred to. I know feminists who complain about not having equality because they can't go topless. They argue there's no difference between a man and a woman doing it and breasts aren't sexual, and they're the same women who cry harassment if a man checks out their cleavage. There are a ton of things that frustrate me as a woman, but I'm not looking to find something to bitch about any which way I can. I also think if feminism is all about believing women and uplifting, jumping to believe women are victim blaming isn't the way to go. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by RealHousewife

[SuprSuprElevated]

Any think that isn't now think is cancel think.

Apparently.

[aradia22]

Quote

I give her benefit of the doubt. Quotes being taken out of context happens. 

I don't. This isn't a careless tweet. She wrote an entire book. She volunteered her opinion in a NYT article about a situation that did not involve her, making it all about her. 

Let's not infantilize this woman to the point she can't be held accountable for something she wrote on paper and presumably read more than once before sending it to an editor. It's not that people uncovered that she's a fake feminist... it's that regardless of her intentions, using language like that does perpetuate victim-blaming and rape culture. If you are sounding like people you don't agree with, maybe you take a step back and think through your words more carefully. You listen, you learn, you apologize, and you do better moving forward.  

[ouinason]

except that's not what she wrote at all, the article just cherry picked sentences in an article and cried HYPOCRIT at her.  

[Mabinogia]

9 hours ago, Dani said:

Many have latched on to her comments about how she dresses but that completely ignores her point that she was safer because Hollywood deemed her ugly. It speaks to how unhealthy the environment is across the board. 

Yes, that comment is kind of heartbreaking in the sense that it points to how women are viewed as worthy based on looks. It's incorrect in a Weinstein sense, because what he was doing wasn't about "ooh, pretty girl, I want her" but more about him wanting to abuse the power he had over others and going after women he thought were more vulnerable. 

I am fine with people who have had a bad experience not wanting to get the vaccine. There are people with medical conditions who should not get them, so I can't say I am anti-anti-vaxxers full stop. I am against the anti-vaxxers, who either think that the vaccine is the governments way of trying to kill some of us off (I actually heard this from a friend), or who go around trying to convince everyone else not to get vaccinated. 

If I were unable to vaccinate, I'd be telling everyone else on Earth to go get the vaccine to improve my chances. And hell, if it is the govt trying to pick us off, well, I got vaccinated, so I'd probably be dead by now. 

[bobalina]

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

Yes, that comment is kind of heartbreaking in the sense that it points to how women are viewed as worthy based on looks. It's incorrect in a Weinstein sense, because what he was doing wasn't about "ooh, pretty girl, I want her" but more about him wanting to abuse the power he had over others and going after women he thought were more vulnerable. 

I am fine with people who have had a bad experience not wanting to get the vaccine. There are people with medical conditions who should not get them, so I can't say I am anti-anti-vaxxers full stop. I am against the anti-vaxxers, who either think that the vaccine is the governments way of trying to kill some of us off (I actually heard this from a friend), or who go around trying to convince everyone else not to get vaccinated. 

If I were unable to vaccinate, I'd be telling everyone else on Earth to go get the vaccine to improve my chances. And hell, if it is the govt trying to pick us off, well, I got vaccinated, so I'd probably be dead by now. 

To me anti vaxxers are only those who ca n get the shots and just don't want to. Those who cannot are one of the reasons the rest of us must.

[Ms Blue Jay]

17 hours ago, badhaggis said:

I expected better from you Mayim.

She is disgusting.  That stupid opinion of hers did not require a goddamn thinkpiece.  

[Katy M]

17 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

Mayim isn't a such a great pick either. Mayim Bialik’s Ugly History of Shaming Weinstein’s Victims and Being an Anti-Vaxxer.

 

I don't think any of that affects someone's ability to ask questions and host a show.

[bobalina]

25 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I don't think any of that affects someone's ability to ask questions and host a show.

By .hat logic neither did Mike Richard's past comments. It's about not offending potential audience,

[Katy M]

16 minutes ago, bobalina said:

By .hat logic neither did Mike Richard's past comments. It's about not offending potential audience,

I was fine with Mike Richards also.  I'm not into cancel culture at all.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Yes, that comment is kind of heartbreaking in the sense that it points to how women are viewed as worthy based on looks. It's incorrect in a Weinstein sense, because what he was doing wasn't about "ooh, pretty girl, I want her" but more about him wanting to abuse the power he had over others and going after women he thought were more vulnerable. 

I think it’s more that Hollywood placed her in a category that made her less likely to be a target because she was never going to even be in Weinstein’s orbit. 

9 hours ago, aradia22 said:

Let's not infantilize this woman to the point she can't be held accountable for something she wrote on paper and presumably read more than once before sending it to an editor.

It’s not infantilizing to point out there was more nuance to what was being said than you get from picking and choosing quotes to incite outrage. 

Articles like the one posted discourages useful dialogue that might actually facilitate growth by immediately putting people on the defense. It doesn’t convince anyone of anything and drives people further apart. 

[PepSinger]

8 hours ago, Katy M said:

I was fine with Mike Richards also.  I'm not into cancel culture at all.

Cancel culture does not equal being held accountable for one’s actions.

[Cotypubby]

On 8/21/2021 at 2:09 PM, PepSinger said:

Thank you. Asking for representation and integrity is not the definition of a “mob.” The reason the “mob” is angry is because this kind of unfair shit is ubiquitous in employment, and people - like me - are *tired* of it and have suffered because of it, whether directly or indirectly. The Jeopardy debacle is a microcosm of an ongoing problem in employment.

 

Nope. LeVar was the worst of all the guest hosts. I really hope the producers don’t cave to the Twitter mob. Twitter seems to just want it to be a Black person, without caring if they are actually good at hosting. 

[Katy M]

5 hours ago, PepSinger said:

Cancel culture does not equal being held accountable for one’s actions.

It does when people think you need to be "held accountable" for your opinions on conservative dress in Mayim's case.  And also when the accountability is not equal in all cases.  Let's face it, there are certain celebrities and politicians who can get away with far more than others.

4 hours ago, Cotypubby said:

Nope. LeVar was the worst of all the guest hosts. I really hope the producers don’t cave to the Twitter mob. Twitter seems to just want it to be a Black person, without caring if they are actually good at hosting. 

He was too exuberant for my taste, but I might be able to get used to it after a while.  they may as well just hire him now, because I have a feeling that the twitter mob will just dig up dirt on anyone else they hire until they get their way.

[merylinkid]

Query:   How was Alex Trebek when he first started on Jeopardy?   I'll be he grew into the role.   He wasn't the great host we knew all those years right from the beginning.   Find someone decent and see if they grow in the role.   

I don't want LeVar Burton because I want him to continue all his other great literacy projects.   To be the full time host, they have said the host has to give up his other job(s).  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

It does when people think you need to be "held accountable" for your opinions on conservative dress in Mayim's case.  And also when the accountability is not equal in all cases.  Let's face it, there are certain celebrities and politicians who can get away with far more than others.

Mayim hasn’t been canceled. Decrying cancel culture anytime some receives the slightest amount of backlash on social media is also counterproductive. Even if she was being “canceled” it wouldn’t be because of her opinions on conservative dress. Each side distorts what the other is saying. 

[Katy M]

11 minutes ago, Dani said:

Each side distorts what the other is saying. 

But that's my point.  Why can't everybody just shut up.  People have opinions and not everybody agrees and that's fine.  No need to "decry" anything.  State your opinion, or don't, and get on with your life.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Cotypubby said:

Nope. LeVar was the worst of all the guest hosts. I really hope the producers don’t cave to the Twitter mob. Twitter seems to just want it to be a Black person, without caring if they are actually good at hosting. 

Just because Twitter wants a particular Black person doesn’t mean they just want a Black person. They want LeVar because they like LeVar. He has built up a lot of goodwill over 4 decades in the entertainment business without a single scandal. They want him because he is the modern equivalent to Mr. Rogers for a lot of people. It is so insulting to suggest that they only want him because he is Black. 

Beyond all of that, there were many other people they could have chosen that would not have brought such a negative reaction. There would have been some grumbling that LeVar wasn’t chosen but most would have been okay with it.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Guest

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Katy M said:

But that's my point.  Why can't everybody just shut up.  People have opinions and not everybody agrees and that's fine.  No need to "decry" anything.  State your opinion, or don't, and get on with your life.

Because we live in a society where people are not held accountable based on what is right or even what is legal. People shutting up allows people like Weinstein to continue with impunity. For many people it’s not as simple as getting on with your life when the issues being brought up are a part of their daily life in some way. We see plenty of real world example where different opinions do have very harmful consequences. 

[Katy M]

17 minutes ago, Dani said:

We see plenty of real world example where different opinions do have very harmful consequences. 

But, who gets to decide which opinion is right and which is wrong.  Opinions are not harmful.  Freedom of speech is necessary.  Cultural appropriation (as in how you do you hair, or what clothes you wear, or what food you serve/eat) is not bad.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Katy M said:

But, who gets to decide which opinion is right and which is wrong.  Opinions are not harmful.  Freedom of speech is necessary. 

Opinions can be harmful and so-called cancel culture does not impact freedom of speech. A person has zero right to say whatever they want free from consequences. 

Cancel culture also isn’t new. The only thing new is that the majority opinion on what is right has changed. The very people who used to praise actions having consequences are now pissed that actions have consequences. 

18 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Cultural appropriation (as in how you do you hair, or what clothes you wear, or what food you serve/eat) is not bad.

This conversation has nothing to do with cultural appropriation but I disagree with you that it’s not bad. The literal definition is the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society. 

[DearEvette]

44 minutes ago, Katy M said:

But, who gets to decide which opinion is right and which is wrong.  Opinions are not harmful.  Freedom of speech is necessary.  Cultural appropriation (as in how you do you hair, or what clothes you wear, or what food you serve/eat) is not bad.

I feel like there is a conflation of too many issues in this argument.  This is what in my business we' call 'scope-creep'

But WRT to Mike Richards at least, most of what people object to is not just opinion based.  it is fact based and grounded in acceptable business practice.  There are specific issues with the way in with the process played out that have been laid out in various articles.  There is also the objective issue of a person in power treating subordinates inappropriately.  In what business is ok to come to the workplace and refer to a female co-worker as a 'slut' to all and sundry? 

The reality is he works in an industry that values perception and money above all things.  An industry that knows that good receptivity translates into millions of dollars.   This isn't new and he isn't new and it is a byproduct of the industry he has chosen to work in. 

But damningly, the other reality is that he has been allowed to be the sexist , racist person he has been because he has never been under any real scrutiny and has been protected by the industry because he was largely a figure behind the scenes and made them money.  And guess what?    He has not been cancelled.  He simply had to step away from the on air position that he used his own power to manipulate to get.  The one that keeps him in the public eye and open to public scrutiny. However he retains what is arguably a more powerful position that of EP of Jeopardy as well as other very lucrative properties at Sony TV. 

Edited August 23, 2021 by DearEvette

[Katy M]

What scares me more than anything is McCarthyism 2.0 with whatever the base of it will be.  Not communism this time, but something else.  Also 1984-likeness.  But, I've had my say on the evils of enforcing groupthink and will now shut up about it.

And my comments weren't so much about Mike Richards, but Mayim Bialik who as far as I can tell is only reviled because of some comments she made.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Katy M

[Rootbeer]

On 8/21/2021 at 3:02 AM, Zella said:

Another thing with Levar Burton being placed later is that, if I remember correctly, he wasn't even initially picked to guest host. That was only a concession after the internet got loud about it. I think Richards was aware from the beginning that Burton was a potential audience favorite--I've seen people talk about Burton as a Jeopardy host even before Trebek died--and initially wasn't even going to have him be a guest host. 

Burton wasn't originally on the list, even though there was a groundswell of internet support for him to be given the opportunity.  Then, when Richards did put him in the rotation, Levar was put into a slot during the Summer Olympics when the show was pre-empted in many places and when viewership was going to be automatically lower for the show.  I presume this was, at least in part, so Richards could point out the lower ratings and say, 'See?  He isn't that popular, my ratings were higher' without addressing the context which guaranteed that result.

As to whether Burton is the ideal new host for Jeopardy, that's a matter of opinion.  That he wasn't accorded the same opportunity as a guest host that Richards himself got; that's a fact.

[aradia22]

Quote

Just because Twitter wants a particular Black person doesn’t mean they just want a Black person. They want LeVar because they like LeVar. He has built up a lot of goodwill over 4 decades in the entertainment business without a single scandal.

I recently learned that he directed the movie Smart House. Good enough for me. Wow. King. Legend. 😄

It's not that difficult to understand why people would champion him, especially since the other hosts are not nostalgic millennial icons. 

[ifionlyknew]

5 hours ago, Katy M said:

It does when people think you need to be "held accountable" for your opinions on conservative dress in Mayim's case.  And also when the accountability is not equal in all cases.  Let's face it, there are certain celebrities and politicians who can get away with far more than others.

He was too exuberant for my taste, but I might be able to get used to it after a while.  they may as well just hire him now, because I have a feeling that the twitter mob will just dig up dirt on anyone else they hire until they get their way.

If there is "dirt" on prospective hosts then maybe it should be dug up.   I'm sure Sony doesn't want to hire someone and have something problematic come up after they start filming. Which is what happened with Richards.   I don't agree with much of what Mayim has said over the years but I don't think she has said anything that will cause her to lose the primetime Jeopardy hosting job.  

In this day and age with all the technology and with people posting on social media and speaking on podcasts if someone says something that is going to be controversial it's going to become part of the public record and it may in fact come back to bite them at some point down the road. That is the reality we live in. 

[DrSpaceman73]

Levar Burton was not good as host. Objectively not good on just reading the questions and figuring out right/ wrong in a timely fashion.  

That part nothing to do with him going again at the Olympics. Many hosts did an objectively better job than him. 

Mayim I didn't care for much myself as host but that was more subjective.  She was overeager and trying to be funny. 

Also I think they want a younger host than levar who will be able to do the job another 20 plus years. But even beyond that he simply was not near the top of the guest host list in terms of just doing the hosting job. 

Edited August 23, 2021 by DrSpaceman73

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rootbeer said:

Burton wasn't originally on the list, even though there was a groundswell of internet support for him to be given the opportunity.  Then, when Richards did put him in the rotation, Levar was put into a slot during the Summer Olympics when the show was pre-empted in many places and when viewership was going to be automatically lower for the show.  I presume this was, at least in part, so Richards could point out the lower ratings and say, 'See?  He isn't that popular, my ratings were higher' without addressing the context which guaranteed that result.

As to whether Burton is the ideal new host for Jeopardy, that's a matter of opinion.  That he wasn't accorded the same opportunity as a guest host that Richards himself got; that's a fact.

Exactly this. Plus the Variety story that Richards was going to be the new host was published 5 days after LeVar’s last guest host episode aired. Mayim has said that she knew well before the leak. With that timeline LeVar had zero shot so how he did was completely irrelevant. 

Mayim also said that Richard’s is that one who coached her for her episodes. That is such a massive conflict of interest and has the potential to impact how good a host any of them were. Not to mention whatever control he had over the editing. One person up for a job should never have that much control over another person up for the same job. 

Edited August 23, 2021 by Guest

[Irlandesa]

21 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Levar Burton was not good as host. Objectively not good on just reading the questions and figuring out right/ wrong in a timely fashion.  

That part nothing to do with him going again at the Olympics. Many hosts did an objectively better job than him. 

But Richards likely didn't know, when he scheduled Lavar, that Lavar wouldn't be that good.  Both things can be true.  Burton wasn't all that good and Mike Richards made sure he had significant disadvantages.  As it turns out, scheduling Burton earlier might have been better for Richards in terms of nullifying the campaign.  The social media frenzy only grew over the months before Burton was finally announced as a guest host. 

[Annber03]

33 minutes ago, ifionlyknew said:

In this day and age with all the technology and with people posting on social media and speaking on podcasts if someone says something that is going to be controversial it's going to become part of the public record and it may in fact come back to bite them at some point down the road. That is the reality we live in. 

Yep. Like I've said before, teenagers get lectured on this all the time. I've lost count of how many times I've heard adults tell them to be careful about what they share online because it could pose a risk to them in terms of college/work opportunities and other things of that sort. Guess what, adults, that same advice applies to you, too. 

[DrSpaceman73]

11 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

But Richards likely didn't know, when he scheduled Lavar, that Lavar wouldn't be that good.  Both things can be true.  Burton wasn't all that good and Mike Richards made sure he had significant disadvantages.  As it turns out, scheduling Burton earlier might have been better for Richards in terms of nullifying the campaign.  The social media frenzy only grew over the months before Burton was finally announced as a guest host. 

Maybe he did the whole process was screwed up in many ways. 

But my point is levar Burton in no way deserves the job, which is how he and his fans have been acting since the beginning.  He may not say it himself but he certainly doesn't push back again at any of the media blitz for him and I would bet his agent is probably behind a lot of it. 

And I like levar.  Has nothing to do with that. He just in no way deserves the job. 

Edited August 23, 2021 by DrSpaceman73

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Maybe he did the whole process was screwed up in many ways. 

But my point is levar Burton in no way deserves the job, which is how he and his fans have been acting since the beginning.  He may not say it himself but he certainly doesn't push back again at any of the media blitz for him and I would bet his agent is probably behind a lot of it. 

And I like levar.  Has nothing to do with that. He just in no way deserves the job. 

You may be right but the processes being screwed up means that it’s not that clear cut. I can’t say LeVar was objectively a bad host when nothing about the process was objective. How well would anyone do if they went in for an interview process and someone else up for the job was the one overseeing the process. When the person who got the job is literally has the say over what the final product looks like.

Maybe LeVar really was bad, maybe he was edited to look worse than he was, maybe it was the best he could perform, or maybe he was on edge because of the circumstances. The problem is that it is impossible to know what the truth is because the process was so completely muddied. You can’t stack the deck against somebody and then hold the result up as proof of anything. 

[Blergh]

Guess what? Today is the always charming Barbara Eden's 90th Birthday! Yep, she was born Barbara Jean Morehead in Tucson, Arizona on August 23,1931.  In any case,  HAPPY 90th , Miss Eden!  

[PepSinger]

10 hours ago, Cotypubby said:

Nope. LeVar was the worst of all the guest hosts. I really hope the producers don’t cave to the Twitter mob. Twitter seems to just want it to be a Black person, without caring if they are actually good at hosting. 

Why do you think people don’t care if the person is actually good at hosting? People wanted LeVar because they liked him, and it was a bonus that he’s Black. It’s insulting, IMO, to suggest that people want a Black person, regardless of whether they’re good for the job, as if there aren’t talented Black people fully capable of doing the job that we can advocate for. Black people are fully capable of deciding who we think did/does a good job in a certain role. A prime example is the fact that after learning about Alex suggesting Laura Coates, people want to see her as well. Of course, she wasn’t even given a shot.

 

4 hours ago, Katy M said:

But, who gets to decide which opinion is right and which is wrong.  Opinions are not harmful.  Freedom of speech is necessary.  Cultural appropriation (as in how you do you hair, or what clothes you wear, or what food you serve/eat) is not bad.

No one is talking about cultural appropriation, so I’m beyond confused at this part of the comment.

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom from consequences. If people don’t like you because of past sexist, racist, or any other bad behavior, then that’s their right.

3 hours ago, DearEvette said:

I feel like there is a conflation of too many issues in this argument.  This is what in my business we' call 'scope-creep

Exactly. Or bootstrapping.

 

ETA—

In my previous post, I directly quoted you speaking about Mike Richards and cancel culture, so I’m not sure why you’d think that I was talking about Mayim:

6 hours ago, Katy M said:

12 hours ago, PepSinger said:

Cancel culture does not equal being held accountable for one’s actions.

It does when people think you need to be "held accountable" for your opinions on conservative dress in Mayim's case.  And also when the accountability is not equal in all cases.  Let's face it, there are certain celebrities and politicians who can get away with far more than others.

Edited August 23, 2021 by PepSinger

[Spartan Girl]

9 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Guess what? Today is the always charming Barbara Eden's 90th Birthday! Yep, she was born Barbara Jean Morehead in Tucson, Arizona on August 23,1931.  In any case,  HAPPY 90th , Miss Eden!  

90?!?!

[Nicmar]

On 8/18/2021 at 3:49 PM, AimingforYoko said:

Scarlett Johansson and Colin Jost welcome son Cosmo.

 

That's my  Chihuahua's name!!  lol

[BlackberryJam]

I don't watch Jeopardy except when my mother makes me, but I am always against a white dude with power who stacks the deck to get a job who has a past of making racist and misogynist comments. Fuck Mike Richards. He's still making a bucket of money and has fuckton of power. He's just not beloved by the Jeopardy audience. Boofreakinghoo. It's not like he's actually unemployed or facing dire consequences from his shitty behavior. 

At the same time, it's reasonable to believe that Richards purposefully sabotaged Burton's appearance. Burton is already beloved for his fantastic work. Maybe he's not the right fit for Jeopardy, but he at least deserved a fair shot.

The thing about "cancel culture" is that it's just white dudes now facing the consequences of their actions, like women and people of color have for decades. I just can't muster up a fuck to give about a whiny white dude facing the consequences of his history of jackassery.

 

[ifionlyknew]

31 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

He's just not beloved by the Jeopardy audience. Boofreakinghoo. It's not like he's actually unemployed or facing dire consequences from his shitty behavior. 

Yes. He lost the on camera job. But he still has his behind the camera job which comes with a lot of power and money.  If you ask me he hasn't been cancelled or even really faced severe consequences for his past behavior.  He lost a job he didn't have a month ago.  I don't think too many people are feeling sorry for him.

[DrSpaceman73]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

You may be right but the processes being screwed up means that it’s not that clear cut. I can’t say LeVar was objectively a bad host when nothing about the process was objective. How well would anyone do if they went in for an interview process and someone else up for the job was the one overseeing the process. When the person who got the job is literally has the say over what the final product looks like.

Maybe LeVar really was bad, maybe he was edited to look worse than he was, maybe it was the best he could perform, or maybe he was on edge because of the circumstances. The problem is that it is impossible to know what the truth is because the process was so completely muddied. You can’t stack the deck against somebody and then hold the result up as proof of anything. 

Many other hosts did just fine despite the screwed up process. 

I just tire if hearing excuse after excuse like this for levar Burton.  Again I'm a fan of his.  If he did the best job I'd be fine with him as host.  But all I hear over and over is his he should just be given the job and the whole process was unfair to him alone, so we can just ignore his poor performance.  

  I watched every guest host since this all started. Some I know, some I didn't beforehand.  Some I liked, some I didn't. Aaron Rodgers was awful, again I'm a fan of him as a player. Awful host.  I wouldn't excuse his performance either based on the process I am not going to dismiss EVERYTHING I saw over what has happened.  

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Many other hosts did just fine despite the screwed up process. 

That argument only works if it was equally screwed up for everyone involved. How many of them were serious contenders? How many of them had a massive amount of public support? It doesn’t matter that some of the others did fine if they were not viewed as legitimate threats. 

1 hour ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

I just tire if hearing excuse after excuse like this for levar Burton.  Again I'm a fan of his.  If he did the best job I'd be fine with him as host.  But all I hear over and over is his he should just be given the job and the whole process was unfair to him alone, so we can just ignore his poor performance.  

My point is that every single aspect is tainted. It doesn’t matter if LeVar sucked as a host because it is impossible to know how much the behind the scenes crap impacted the final product. The guy who got the job is literally the same guy was responsible for the end product. 

The whole process wasn’t unfair to him alone but the majority of the people were never going to get the job for a whole variety of reasons. LeVar should have been one of the few legitimate contenders and everything about how it was handled says that he was never actually in contention. That’s a big problem. Yes, people are going to get pissed when a show wants them to watch but clearly doesn’t give a shit what they want to see. 

Edited August 23, 2021 by Guest

[Bewitched]

Did Levar even want the job?  To give up any other opportunities that may arise later to take a full time job as Jeopardy host?  

I'm not sure any of the guest hosts were truly candidates for the full time syndicated job other than the two producers.  For the prime time gig that Mayim Bialik got?  I think the celebrities were really auditioning for that.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Bewitched