I was watching a video on Willem Dafoe on his iconic roles, and his passion to craft and life, and positivity, exudes from him immensely. In that video, I am surprised he remembers from which of his movies the lines came from. It made me love him more as an actor because he loves life and his job.
But then during the interview, I remembered too when I watched Kevin Spacey’s interview before, admiring him and it turned out he is a creep. I was telling to myself about Willem Dafoe “please don’t be a creep, please don’t be a creep.”
Willem seems like a genuinely nice guy though but I hope I don’t get proven wrong!
Edit: clarified the title
I’m gonna have to go with Adam Savage. I loved Mythbusters and continue to watch his Tested one day build videos today and view him as something of a role model from a creative standpoint.
Also to chime in about your mentioning of Kevin Spacey, the guy is definitely a weirdo and has done some really tone deaf things (coming out as gay in the midst of being involved in sexual abuse accusations, posting videos of himself as Frank Underwood denying charges levied against him on YouTube, etc.), but wasn’t he acquitted of or found not guilty in literally every sexual abuse charge that was brought against him? And in both the US and the UK?
I have bad news. Adam Savage cohorted with a sealife impersonator and mafia hitman who goes by Jamie Hyneman
Goo goo g’joob!
“Sealife impersonator” hahahah
I don’t know about the other cases, but one of Kevin Spacey’s case ended up in a settlement.
However, the fact that so many came out accusing him of sexual misconduct and how Kevin Spacey reacted after being questioned is itself a charge of guilt. Once or twicely accused is questionable. But I am a firm believer that “where there is smoke, there is fire”. A genuinely nice person would not be defamed by so many just like that, especially with serious allegations. Neil DeGrasse Tyson was accused once, but the charges were dropped when the accuser proved to have made false allegations. We haven’t heard anything egregious about Neil before and after that scandal.
I can tell you that Neil is at the very least insufferable to be around.
I love listening to Neil’s podcast but I can see why some might find him insufferable as you say. Some scientists chided him for getting some things wrong but I don’t mind him as long as he doesn’t say or do anything egregious.
I used to like Neil but then I saw him give a talk in person at a local college. There was some girl that asked a silly question during the q and a part of the visit and in front of an audience of hundreds of people Neil laid into her about how her question was stupid and she was wasting everyone’s time. He did that until she started crying and left. After the next person asked a question as Neil was wrapping up his answer he decided to get another jab at the girl he already chased off by saying “and that’s a real question”. It’s hard to convey how clearly the cruelty and contempt hung in that room.
Thank you for sharing. This corroborates with what I have heard that he can be arrogant.
I have less respect for Neil then.
K&P weren’t exaggerating probably:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TyZSBqQ813c
Yeah as a podcaster he’s entertaining, but the problem is the absolute disdain he has for non-scientists, and even graduate student scientists. He’s a smart man, but he absolutely thinks he’s one of the smartest people alive and makes it known. Never once has a scientist sent an employee to a room full of other scientists to make sure they all turned their cellphones off when he walks in a room, but he does that. Kip Thorne isn’t even that up his own butt lmao
“A charge of guilt” wtf does that mean?
Removed by mod
A jury being unable to be sure of guilt beyond reasonable doubt does not mean he is innocent beyond all reasonable doubt.
How many people do you need to come forward before you believe them? Is the number of men required more or less than the number of women required? Do teenagers count double or not at all? Or does the number depend entirely on the quality of their legal defence and the amount of physical evidence they left behind?
It’s not a numbers thing, it’s a facts thing. That’s just how criminal justice works (or is supposed to). So to address your second paragraph―the number of people and whether they are men, women, or otherwise is entirely irrelevant. If someone can be proven to have done wrong, they did wrong, period. I’m not stating I agree or disagree with his acquittal, I was just making sure I hadn’t missed some news that he had, in fact, been found guilty. I’m well aware that wealthy people and, in particular, powerful men get unfair advantages in the criminal justice system.
That is not how criminal justice is supposed to work. Scottish law has attempted to make it work a little bit like that but it’s not a good solution.
There is no mirror image. A guilty verdict is (supposed to be) beyond reasonable doubt. A not guilty verdict is everything else. You’re ignoring the missing middle and deciding that it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that 16 young men have all told the same lie about a powerful person for <reasons>.
You’re entitled to whatever opinion you want to have about Spacey. But if your opinion is based on the idea that a not guilty verdict means innocent beyond reasonable doubt, then your opinion is based on a total misunderstanding of the way the legal system works.