Halfway through the article I was about to say what the heck is LOST doing in the title if you're not talking about LOST? 🤔
Anyway I started my recent rewatch because of your articles. Just have about 3 episodes left. Still waiting to read your season 2 finale thoughts. I've enjoyed the rewatch a lot more after your articles, and has put many parts in a new light.
The ironic thing here is that we have Qonservatives shrieking about "Groomers" and "pedophiles" (with a particular brand of Republican oozing onto that particular bandwagon in order to paint their Democratic opponents with the same foul brush) while ignoring *actual* groomers like Allen, Jeffrey Epstein and The Fascist Gasbag.
" they used their power to deliver punishment and bullying, and they knew they could get away with it, because the national current always flows to facilitate empowered abuse." I think that is a recent development with social media and Trump. And to avoid punishment and bullying for empowering abuse, they claim to be the victim. They flip the narrative on the head and say I'm the real victim here especially when they end up paying a price for what they have said are done.
I saw Maureen Ryan's article when it first came out, and up to that moment I had known of LOST only as 'that show A.R. Moxon talks about when he is not talking about more interesting things'. Thank you for addressing this with the integrity and thoughtfulness I've come to expect from you.
I am fascinated by the way you describe how you initially processed the information about Bill Cosby and Louis CK because my brain did something almost identical when I first heard about the accusations against Joss Whedon. Buffy came to me at a really important time in my life, and it made real, profound changed in how I understood being a woman in the world. I think that one of the the things we _lost_ when those accusations came to light were some of the really useful conversations which Buffy engendered. Over the decades, there's been a lot of conversations about what Buffy got right, what it got wrong, how it could do better. Now, those conversations are overshadowed by "how much of what we say was Joss being gross?" And, too, we've lost important voices who were overpowered by Joss, people who had really good things to say where were silence by him. And still, and still, my mind wants to turn to swim with the current.
Yes it's been tough. I was very active in the fandom in the early 00s while the show was on. Met some of the actors in LA during that last season of Angel. Used to think season 4 was awful with what they did to Cordelia. Then finding out all this stuff about how Charisma was treated. Ugh.
Had some great times and met some great friends through the fandom. But going to be hard to go back and watch again.
You made me look up “dialectic”. I like to work on my vocabulary, but sometimes I’m lazy and gloss over words I only peripherally understand.
So even though I’ve never watched LOST, i decided to relearn “dialectic” so I felt I could more accurately follow your narrative, rather than just assume/pretend I knew what you were talking about. Out of that, I realized that some of what I do is described by this word, and that following a narrative is much harder work than just being entertained by it.
You have a way of making your reader work for the payoff, which is not a bad thing, in the same way that grasping the “national current” is productive work.
Understanding that I have more work to do on a Sunday morning is not the most welcome news, and I imagine not appreciated by those of us who crave a break now and then. But if not now, when?
As not-a-hardcore fan of LOST (I've only watched it once, but I have a sharp memory), I'd been enjoying your analysis, but not worrying overly much if I missed one of your posts here or there. Still, when the ugly news about the showrunners' dropped, I winced, mostly for your sake. I understand your feelings, but like you said, truth is always, always better. ALWAYS.
I wonder if it makes sense for you to add lengthy footnotes/commentary to the Lost posts you've already made. That would be interesting to me. But possibly unbearable for you. So maybe not.
As a very jaded woman of a half dozen decades, I've been swimming upstream for years, and I've long been aware of just how quickly and avidly many seemingly progressive, seemingly sensitive men lunge into what I think of as the "grab 'em by the pussy" frame--that as soon as they have power and money, they can (and should!!! ???? !!!!) get away with ANYTHING. That Now The Rules Change and they can (and should??? !!!) unleash their inner asshole. Even (and maybe especially) men I'd naively once expected better from, who made careers on their alleged support of women. Joss Whedon. I still feel sucker-punched by that one. But in hindsight, I'm really not too surprised, and maybe that's the saddest part of all.
Thank you again for addressing this instead of not.
I've been belaboring a point of late, a term, a concept- impunity.
Impunity is the ultimate expression of dominance. To wit, the person cloaked in impunity can say (in various ways) 'I get to do what I want, when I want, wherever I want, to whom I choose, and there is simply nothing you schlubs can do about it.'
Impunity is the true aspiration of every wannabe dictator, but also violent predators like Andrew Tate (current residence, prison in Romania, because he and his brother held women captive to repeatedly rape them; he's a role model of real men who are disciples of Jordan Peterson).
Money helps, of course, and celebrity (ask Johnny Depp and Amber Heard). Mostly, being male is most important. The cis gender hetero type.
Money and celebrity are mechanisms and perks; the riff raff wait in line, or can't get in the front door, to that club or restaurant, but someone with a recognizable name and reputation for bulging pockets of coin get right in. Ask Prince Andrew, who also embodies a key element of impunity, immunity from prosecution.
Impunity, ultimately, when done right, means freedom from constraint, including freedom from the prospect criminal laws will be applied to you.
Few reach that vaunted level of impunity. Franco and Pinochet had it. Putin is there. Trump and DeSantis (and Gaetz, of course) so badly want to be there.
The lesser iterations attempt to acquire impunity in their limited sphere of influence, but are compelled to camouflage their conduct, and speak in code (Peterson, and types like him, are especially useful for constructing word-salad defenses of dominance and impunity, with a wink and a nod, plausible deniability and some such.)
But these lesser iterations are champing at the bit, beside themselves that they are constrained in another way- they want to proclaim their impunity, their dominance to do what they want, when they want, wherever they want, to whom they choose, and there is simply nothing the schlubs can do about it.
But if they 'spoke their truth', the woke mob will cancel them.
The impunity crowd, it seems, is oppressed by the very riff-raff that are supposed to simply submit to their natural rulers. It's an inversion of the natural order!
Impunity types are big on the natural order, who's supposed to be able to act without constraint , and who not. Just ask Nietzsche. You know, impunity types are born with massive genetic endowments, and really want the rest of us to admire those massive genetic endowments.
This is a great comment! I have studied HOW people, " get away with" saying things like death threats toward others, violent rhetoric toward individuals & inciting violence. They I figured out what would stop them from getting away with it. Specifically I focused on their ability to profit from what they were saying. . One of the way they "get away with it" is if it makes them, or someone else, money.
When I convinced the advertisers of the radio hosts on KSFO to stop funding the host's violent rhetoric, the radio station stopped making money on those ads. One host did not have her contract renewed because she was no longer generating big Revenue in line with her salary. She wasn't let go for what she said, but because it became unacceptable to the advertisers. The listeners of the right wing radio station found the violent rhetoric acceptable. And they kept tuning in. But a big audience without advertising Revenue was not desirable. Another one of the hosts was a sexist, bigot who called for the genocide of an entire group of people. The listeners, and the local management, did not have a problem with his comments but after I alerted them, the advertisers did. His contact wasn't up yet, so they kept him on. Management hoped they could get new advertisers who were fine with his bigotry, sexism & violent rhetoric. But I stayed on the case, alerting the ad buyers that his show was toxic. Finally the station fired him 6 months before his contract was up so they could get revenue in the time slot. If the 2 hosts had billionaire backers who were willing to lose money to keep they audience and to keep their message out there, they might still be there today. I used the disgust of the advertisers to what rh hosts said to get them to pull ads. The pressure of lack of ad revenue to the radio station got them to fire the hosts (the hosts COULD have stopped calling for the Death of people on the air, but they didn't. They doubled down. They lost their livelihood doing radio. The advertisers were the ones who said this kind of talk will not generate revenue from us. The hosts could still say it. It could still be popular. But not as profitable as before.
The big question I have is whether all 12 jurors will swim with the national current, i.e., Trump is guilty of the Espionage Act.
Halfway through the article I was about to say what the heck is LOST doing in the title if you're not talking about LOST? 🤔
Anyway I started my recent rewatch because of your articles. Just have about 3 episodes left. Still waiting to read your season 2 finale thoughts. I've enjoyed the rewatch a lot more after your articles, and has put many parts in a new light.
Re: Woody Allen:
The ironic thing here is that we have Qonservatives shrieking about "Groomers" and "pedophiles" (with a particular brand of Republican oozing onto that particular bandwagon in order to paint their Democratic opponents with the same foul brush) while ignoring *actual* groomers like Allen, Jeffrey Epstein and The Fascist Gasbag.
" they used their power to deliver punishment and bullying, and they knew they could get away with it, because the national current always flows to facilitate empowered abuse." I think that is a recent development with social media and Trump. And to avoid punishment and bullying for empowering abuse, they claim to be the victim. They flip the narrative on the head and say I'm the real victim here especially when they end up paying a price for what they have said are done.
I saw Maureen Ryan's article when it first came out, and up to that moment I had known of LOST only as 'that show A.R. Moxon talks about when he is not talking about more interesting things'. Thank you for addressing this with the integrity and thoughtfulness I've come to expect from you.
I am fascinated by the way you describe how you initially processed the information about Bill Cosby and Louis CK because my brain did something almost identical when I first heard about the accusations against Joss Whedon. Buffy came to me at a really important time in my life, and it made real, profound changed in how I understood being a woman in the world. I think that one of the the things we _lost_ when those accusations came to light were some of the really useful conversations which Buffy engendered. Over the decades, there's been a lot of conversations about what Buffy got right, what it got wrong, how it could do better. Now, those conversations are overshadowed by "how much of what we say was Joss being gross?" And, too, we've lost important voices who were overpowered by Joss, people who had really good things to say where were silence by him. And still, and still, my mind wants to turn to swim with the current.
Yes it's been tough. I was very active in the fandom in the early 00s while the show was on. Met some of the actors in LA during that last season of Angel. Used to think season 4 was awful with what they did to Cordelia. Then finding out all this stuff about how Charisma was treated. Ugh.
Had some great times and met some great friends through the fandom. But going to be hard to go back and watch again.
You made me look up “dialectic”. I like to work on my vocabulary, but sometimes I’m lazy and gloss over words I only peripherally understand.
So even though I’ve never watched LOST, i decided to relearn “dialectic” so I felt I could more accurately follow your narrative, rather than just assume/pretend I knew what you were talking about. Out of that, I realized that some of what I do is described by this word, and that following a narrative is much harder work than just being entertained by it.
You have a way of making your reader work for the payoff, which is not a bad thing, in the same way that grasping the “national current” is productive work.
Understanding that I have more work to do on a Sunday morning is not the most welcome news, and I imagine not appreciated by those of us who crave a break now and then. But if not now, when?
Thank you for writing that.
As not-a-hardcore fan of LOST (I've only watched it once, but I have a sharp memory), I'd been enjoying your analysis, but not worrying overly much if I missed one of your posts here or there. Still, when the ugly news about the showrunners' dropped, I winced, mostly for your sake. I understand your feelings, but like you said, truth is always, always better. ALWAYS.
I wonder if it makes sense for you to add lengthy footnotes/commentary to the Lost posts you've already made. That would be interesting to me. But possibly unbearable for you. So maybe not.
As a very jaded woman of a half dozen decades, I've been swimming upstream for years, and I've long been aware of just how quickly and avidly many seemingly progressive, seemingly sensitive men lunge into what I think of as the "grab 'em by the pussy" frame--that as soon as they have power and money, they can (and should!!! ???? !!!!) get away with ANYTHING. That Now The Rules Change and they can (and should??? !!!) unleash their inner asshole. Even (and maybe especially) men I'd naively once expected better from, who made careers on their alleged support of women. Joss Whedon. I still feel sucker-punched by that one. But in hindsight, I'm really not too surprised, and maybe that's the saddest part of all.
Thank you again for addressing this instead of not.
I respect you so damn much.
I've been belaboring a point of late, a term, a concept- impunity.
Impunity is the ultimate expression of dominance. To wit, the person cloaked in impunity can say (in various ways) 'I get to do what I want, when I want, wherever I want, to whom I choose, and there is simply nothing you schlubs can do about it.'
Impunity is the true aspiration of every wannabe dictator, but also violent predators like Andrew Tate (current residence, prison in Romania, because he and his brother held women captive to repeatedly rape them; he's a role model of real men who are disciples of Jordan Peterson).
Money helps, of course, and celebrity (ask Johnny Depp and Amber Heard). Mostly, being male is most important. The cis gender hetero type.
Money and celebrity are mechanisms and perks; the riff raff wait in line, or can't get in the front door, to that club or restaurant, but someone with a recognizable name and reputation for bulging pockets of coin get right in. Ask Prince Andrew, who also embodies a key element of impunity, immunity from prosecution.
Impunity, ultimately, when done right, means freedom from constraint, including freedom from the prospect criminal laws will be applied to you.
Few reach that vaunted level of impunity. Franco and Pinochet had it. Putin is there. Trump and DeSantis (and Gaetz, of course) so badly want to be there.
The lesser iterations attempt to acquire impunity in their limited sphere of influence, but are compelled to camouflage their conduct, and speak in code (Peterson, and types like him, are especially useful for constructing word-salad defenses of dominance and impunity, with a wink and a nod, plausible deniability and some such.)
But these lesser iterations are champing at the bit, beside themselves that they are constrained in another way- they want to proclaim their impunity, their dominance to do what they want, when they want, wherever they want, to whom they choose, and there is simply nothing the schlubs can do about it.
But if they 'spoke their truth', the woke mob will cancel them.
The impunity crowd, it seems, is oppressed by the very riff-raff that are supposed to simply submit to their natural rulers. It's an inversion of the natural order!
Impunity types are big on the natural order, who's supposed to be able to act without constraint , and who not. Just ask Nietzsche. You know, impunity types are born with massive genetic endowments, and really want the rest of us to admire those massive genetic endowments.
Or fear them.
Both, of course.
This is a great comment! I have studied HOW people, " get away with" saying things like death threats toward others, violent rhetoric toward individuals & inciting violence. They I figured out what would stop them from getting away with it. Specifically I focused on their ability to profit from what they were saying. . One of the way they "get away with it" is if it makes them, or someone else, money.
When I convinced the advertisers of the radio hosts on KSFO to stop funding the host's violent rhetoric, the radio station stopped making money on those ads. One host did not have her contract renewed because she was no longer generating big Revenue in line with her salary. She wasn't let go for what she said, but because it became unacceptable to the advertisers. The listeners of the right wing radio station found the violent rhetoric acceptable. And they kept tuning in. But a big audience without advertising Revenue was not desirable. Another one of the hosts was a sexist, bigot who called for the genocide of an entire group of people. The listeners, and the local management, did not have a problem with his comments but after I alerted them, the advertisers did. His contact wasn't up yet, so they kept him on. Management hoped they could get new advertisers who were fine with his bigotry, sexism & violent rhetoric. But I stayed on the case, alerting the ad buyers that his show was toxic. Finally the station fired him 6 months before his contract was up so they could get revenue in the time slot. If the 2 hosts had billionaire backers who were willing to lose money to keep they audience and to keep their message out there, they might still be there today. I used the disgust of the advertisers to what rh hosts said to get them to pull ads. The pressure of lack of ad revenue to the radio station got them to fire the hosts (the hosts COULD have stopped calling for the Death of people on the air, but they didn't. They doubled down. They lost their livelihood doing radio. The advertisers were the ones who said this kind of talk will not generate revenue from us. The hosts could still say it. It could still be popular. But not as profitable as before.