this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024

300 points (93.6% liked)

Today I Learned

17733 readers

237 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**

Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.

Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

300

TIL that his museum says that "Roald Dahl’s racism is undeniable and indelible" (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

167 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is the first I've heard of it, but here's one of his infamous quotes:

"There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews.

I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”

His other quotes tend to be condemnation about specifically Israeli zionism and barbaric murder, but i don't have context as to whether he's referring to palestine or not. Some people might have more sympathy for these statements these days, but a lot of his other quotes have to do with Jews controlling money and media, less defensible prejudice.

(page 3) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (9 children)

Funny hearing a Brit complain about another race's lack of generosity towards others. Especially since he helped the colonialist Empire to win a war

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Ha, "these buggered imperialists, old boy!" exclaimed Nigel, pulling taut his waistcoat.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] [email protected] 41 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (10 children)

I was called into this thread to give my opinion as a bona fide and official Jew. I will say this about Roald Dahl- yes, he was an antisemite. But I still grew up with his books. Even my dad, who was incredibly sensitive to antisemitism and definitely knew about Dahl could not deny that he was an amazing writer both of children's books and macabre adult fiction. I remember specifically that he gave me The Twits when I was a kid, while at my also very sensitive to antisemitism grandparents' house. I don't remember others he gave me, but I really enjoyed that one, so I remember it.

I don't know, I guess we all have the occasional intentional blind spot for these things. Sometimes people are just so talented that you have to overlook their flaws. Of course, some flaws can't be overlooked. I won't watch a Woody Allen film anymore. I won't watch the work of a pedophile.

But Roald Dahl's racism was one where didn't actually do anything to hurt Jews. As the quote says, he wasn't even pro-Hitler. So I can get past it due to his talent. He was not the real danger to my ancestors in his lifetime and he was not responsible for a genocide. On top of that, he didn't extend his bigotry to any of his novels that I ever read.

You can't say as much for H. G. Wells, who had a virulently antisemitic moment in War of the Worlds. It's considered a classic these days. And what about beloved Charles Dickens' novel Oliver Twist? I would bet that the character of Fagin caused a lot more issues with British Jews than anything Roald Dahl said or did considering that novel was and is so popular that 19 films based on it have been made, including one based on a hit Broadway musical.

Piece of shit rapist Roman Polanski made a straight remake as recently as 2005 (and that's just weird because he's Jewish). It did really well at the box office and got a lot of positive reviews.

Imagine if a book with a character that was a disgusting caricature of a black person in it who is also one of the villains of the book and they were still making movies about it within our lifetime.

Edit: Also re Oliver Twist, I hear that in the version Alec Guinness is in, he's an especially antisemitic Fagin, but I'm going to choose to never watch it and pretend that isn't true because that man was amazing. Never mind Star Wars, ever see Kind Hearts and Coronets? He plays 8 members of the same family- believably- including a woman.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

Jonathan Pryce received a fair bit of criticism in the nineties for his "politically correct" (read, not explicitly antisemitic) portrayal of Fagin in the musical Oliver!. Listening back to the cast recording, it's actually a revelation — Reviewing the Situation, which had always been played for antisemitic laughs, is suddenly revealed as an incredibly powerful song, brimming with pathos.

[+] [email protected] -11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I won’t watch a Woody Allen film anymore. I won’t watch the work of a pedophile.

I already had one Lemming absolutely lose their shit when I challenged them on this assumption, I hope you won't be another one. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You mean apart from the word of the person he molested, right?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dylan-farrow-interview-today-gayle-king-full-transcript-woody-allen-me-too/

Yes, I know, "she was coached."

[+] [email protected] -13 points 3 months ago (4 children)

She was 7. I know I don't have many memories from that age I can be 100% confident about.

The simple fact is that neither of us know for sure what, if anything, happened. That's why I find it curious when people jump to the "he's 100% guilty" point of view.

"During the investigation the Connecticut State Police referred Dylan to the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale–New Haven Hospital, which concluded that Allen had not sexually abused Dylan and the allegation was probably coached or influenced by Mia Farrow. The New York Department of Social Services found "no credible evidence" to support the allegation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_sexual_abuse_allegation

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It happened to me when I was 8 (not by Woody Allen). I can still remember every detail. It sticks with you

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

She was 7. I know I don’t have many memories from that age I can be 100% confident about.

What sort of thing on that level of trauma happened to you when you were 7?

Maybe believe victims.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What sort of thing on that level of trauma happened to you when you were 7?

Like I said, I don't have many memories from that age and none I would be 100% confident about in their accuracy.

Maybe believe victims.

Good grief, no. Take victims seriously, give them support, get their story, investigate, absolutely. Believe everything everybody says who identifies as a victim? That's asinine.

Scroll up, you didn't answer my question. You're choosing to believe something based on what evidence? Please explain why you're certain when the people who actually investigated these allegations are not.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You would make a great witness to the a crime....I would love you if I was defending.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don’t follow?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Because you testifying would be great for the defense.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Like I said, I don’t have many memories from that age and none I would be 100% confident about in their accuracy.

That is not an answer. What sort of thing on that level of trauma happened to you when you were 7? Because, believe it or not, people remember traumatic things that happen to them at that age quite well. They spend years in therapy because of it.

There's a difference between remembering something traumatic and remembering what happened at your birthday party.

Also, let's say she isn't "100% confident." Let's say she's "70% confident." Maybe still believe her.

The man literally made a movie, at age 44, where he's fucking a high schooler.

Again, maybe believe her.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"On August 17, 1992, the Connecticut State Police announced that they were investigating the molestation allegation. In September the police referred Dylan to the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale New Haven Hospital. The main questions were whether Dylan was telling the truth and whether she was sexually abused. Frank Maco, State's Attorney for the Litchfield district, declared in 1997 that he asked the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic to evaluate whether Dylan would make a viable witness. The clinic's professionals met with the police and Maco for preliminary information. Between September 18 and November 13 they conducted nine separate interviews with Dylan and her mother. On October 14 they interviewed Groteke, and between November 17 and January 7 they had three interviews with Allen. Finally, they met with Farrow to review the recording she had made of Dylan between August 5 and 6. Berge, the other nanny present on August 4, was also interviewed, as were the two psychotherapists treating the children, Coates and Nancy Schultz. The Child Sexual Abuse Clinic medical director, Dr. John M. Leventhal, signed the team's report while Dylan was interviewed by the social workers. Completed in March 1993, the report concluded: "It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_sexual_abuse_allegation

You're still refusing to answer a simple question. More to the point, what on earth gives you the confidence to pass judgement from a distance when your judgement is 100% at odds with experts who were directly involved in the case?

Again, maybe believe her.

You piss off the wrong person, they go to the police with a story that you committed a violent sexual assault against them. You didn't.

By your logic, you're a rapist.

See how stupid that is?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The only question I can see that I haven't answered is the one you asked after I asked you what sort of thing on that level of trauma happened when you were seven.

I'm not sure why you expect me to answer any of your questions when you have refused to answer the one I asked you twice.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I answered as best as I could. What do you want me to say?

Notice I've supplied you with plenty of information from people who are far, far more familiar with this matter than you or I.

It speaks volumes that you're completely unwilling to engage with it.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You could have given three possible answers:

Named the sort of trauma you went through.
Said you never went through anything that traumatic at her age.
Said you have no idea if you went through anything that traumatic.

And if it was 2 or 3, good for you. Plenty of people who suffered sexual abuse at that age remember it very, very well. I know more than one of them.

But you haven't answered with any of those. All you said was, "like I said, I don’t have many memories from that age and none I would be 100% confident about in their accuracy." That is not an answer. Because that could mean anything.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, it's an honest answer, you just don't like it.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It isn't an honest answer. It could mean "I have 99% confidence something traumatic did happen to me." It also could mean "I have 1% confidence something traumatic did happen to me."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It isn’t an honest answer.

This is the level you're stooping to? I think you need to reevaluate your approach to this.

It could mean “I have 99% confidence something traumatic did happen to me.” It also could mean “I have 1% confidence something traumatic did happen to me.”

It could mean that, as I originally said, "I don’t have many memories from that age and none I would be 100% confident about in their accuracy."

That's the truth. You may not like it but that's not my problem.

Anyway, I sense you're pulling on this thread for all it's worth to avoid discussing literally everything else I've brought up. Let's leave it there. It's like talking to a brick wall.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

You're just avoiding telling me whether or not you remember going through anything traumatic. Either you remember something or you don't. If you don't remember going through anything traumatic and no one told you you went through anything traumatic, then you can say you probably didn't. If you remember something or someone told you that it happened, maybe you did.

You won't tell me either way. You seem to think that there is some 'trauma happened/didn't happen' superposition where you can just say 'I'm not sure if my memories of childhood are true' and get out of that.

Would you say that if I asked you if you broke any bones as a child? How about if I asked you if you ever got hit by a car as a child? Would you say, "I can't say with confidence what happened to me as a child" as an answer to that question? Because, again, that's not an actual answer to the question.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments