Donnie Yen/petition on removal from Oscars

Well, that makes a whole lot of sense…

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/o...mony-jmtp0g5zh

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/09/c...hnk/index.html

It's high time they reacted to it.

But I wonder what had happened that they woke up now.

Donnie Yen has been siding with the CCP for some time now and nobody seemed to care.

The same goes for Jackie Chan.

Further, Chan attacked LGBT and disinherited his own daughter for being a lesbian. And yet, I never heard about anybody important wanting to boycott him.

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

"... accusing him of “violating freedom of speech”.

I'm not taking his side but that comes off as really .... wobbly.

I agree; with a US passport he really should keep mum about Hong Kong either way, but that just makes no sense whatsoever! Fire the copywriter…

I mean, it’s his daughter and his business and his political affiliation, no? If it has been such a problem, as you say, ‘for some time’, then they should have thought of that before making films with these guys. *shrug*

It just seems random. I would agree that in theory politics of all sorts don’t belong at award shows, but that just sounds like a punchline these days, no?

All too often free speech = speech I like.

Did you even read the original petition or just respond based on the words in a second-hand article. Articles on news sites often erroneously paraphrase & introduce illogical summaries because they're often written by either people who don't know shit or people who don't have enough time. Also, they're probably SEO-optimized, not people-optimized.

Here's the part of the petition about the freedom of speech:

IMO, the logic here is as follows:
1. The CCP violates the freedom of speech in Hong Kong.
2. You agree with the CCP.
3. You, by extension, violate the freedom of speech in Hong Kong.

More on that later, but first...

If Tom Cruise beat up his daughter would you be saying the same thing? Oh yeah, it's just his life, his problem, his daughter...

The Oscars are not about movies. They never were. The Oscars are about flexing film ignorance and money. Just a cog in a giant money-making machine that the film industry has become, or maybe always was. So, politics always belonged to the Oscars. Because Oscars are inherently political, it'd be natural they'd be making political decisions, including making certain people personae non gratae. And it really isn't that hard to justify banning a person from becoming a presenter at the Oscars if that person openly sides with a totalitarian government, which violates human rights and suppresses the freedom of expression, including the freedom of speech. Your freedom of speech ends where mine begins.

I had skim-read it at the time (but have of course read it by now) and that is of course an entirely reasonable point; I work in the media so you don’t need to tell me how inaccurate media is. I probably should have quoted the petition itself which is also an entirely reasonable point.

The logic is peculiar (that’s being very polite), because it assumes you can violate freedom of speech without taking any specific action to impede it. I appreciate people feel that way but I strongly disagree. ‘Peculiar’ is the only word that comes to mind. It’s the contemporary fashion of arguing that if I verbally agree with JKR that ‘trans women aren’t biologically women’ I am ‘impeding their freedom’ or committing ‘violence’ against them. I find that insane, frankly.

That’s an excellent analogy because I’m sure that he would and probably has done with his Scientology gang. And yes, I would; it’s his life, his business, his daughter and it shouldn’t have any bearing on his ability to receive recognition for professional craft achievement, be that stunts or producing or acting. That’s exactly what I think.

I’m not sure what that means so I can’t really comment - are you accusing the Academy of film ignorance? Noted, I guess, but that’s rich.

The money-making really isn’t going well for them, but of course they should keep trying.

I just don’t think that makes sense, sorry. And the latter seems to only work in one direction when it comes to all sorts of social issues (I’m not pro trans rights and I’m not a feminist, but the latter affecting women’s ability to navigate life is evidence, so it looks like one side’s freedom of speech does end but the other side’s doesn’t, which, again… Peculiar?)

Again, I disagree that endorsing a totalitarian government even in public endangers/violates the freedom of speech. If anything, that act endorses the freedom of speech, so I find the claim nonsensical, frankly. A suggestion that he ‘doesn’t have a place at the Oscars’ implies that only the approved voices are welcome and that impedes freedom of speech by definition, because your presence is contingent on saying ‘the right things’.

No. I commented on the part I actually quoted. It (the quote) came off sounding particularly clueless but then turned out to be taken out of context. My contribution and interest begin and end there.

Well, supporting a totalitarian government as a celebrity is that very action.

If you support a totalitarian government, you not only say nothing against it but also (and predominantly) side with those who violate freedom. By its very nature, a totalitarian government seeks to control its citizens’ speech and expression, limiting the spread of opposing viewpoints and ideas, whether through oppressive censorship, surveillance, or violence and imprisonment. This denies citizens the right to free speech, which is a fundamental part of a free and open society.

By expressing support for the CCP, Donnie Yen is tacitly promoting the regime's oppressive tactics, including the censorship of dissidents and the shuttering of media outlets that don't toe the CCP line. By doing so, Yen is contributing to the further erosion of free speech in China and other countries where the CCP holds sway.

Supporting the CCP and yet demanding freedom of speech for yourself implies that freedom of speech is inconsequential and can be disregarded, which is damaging to both the people and the international community.

You cannot pull an uno reverse card here. Donnie Yen cannot say "but.. but.. it's my freedom of speech!" because then, he'd be asking for the same rights he is denying others.

Not sure if that's exactly what JKR said. Either way, these situations are incomparable:

1. The American government is not actively persecuting people who agree (or disagree, for that matter) with that particular opinion (which, by the way, is heavily rooted in how much the brain actually matters versus other biological organs and processes).
2. Transgender people may be facing discrimination but hearing about them getting beat up, tortured, and thrown into prisons in a government-led systematic fashion would be a first.
3. Transgender people are people of any nationality. The Hongkongese people are a specific nationality fighting for the freedom of their country.
4. And so on, and so forth.

But I get your general point. The question is, how much is enough? Or, to stick to the topic, is it OK for a person who sides with, say, a neo-Nazi party to be a presenter at the Oscars, too? The Oscars is a private ceremony, but whatever happens there can be directly translated into their organizers. So, the organizers are reputationally responsible for who represents the gala. And a presenter is one who represents something.

Well, you wouldn't ban those who perpetrate psychological violence or those who perpetrate physical violence. Let's imagine you're an organizer of a musical festival. The festival needs a presenter. Would you agree to a presenter who supports a violent and aggressive political movement, like Fascists? Better yet, would you agree that a serial rapist was a presenter at your musical festival given he was a superb musical talent?

Hmm, let's see:

1. Omitting obvious masterpieces and favoring shit films on a regular basis.
2. Prioritizing commercial success over artistic merit.
3. Giving in to the public & popularity instead of the sincere quality of films
4. Favoring mainstream, middle-ground films, rather than more experimental or boundary-pushing films.
   And the worst one:
5. Most voters don't even watch all nominated films (and some don't watch any of them) before voting.

I think those are pretty good reasons to accuse the Academy of film ignorance.

Peculiar indeed. I'm sure you have a perfectly good reason for not being pro-trans rights and a feminist, but it seems like this isn't the right forum to talk about that. Either way, a lot of people seem to think that freedom of speech means it's OK to be an active oppressor, which really isn't the case.

Endorsing a totalitarian government does in fact restrict the freedom of speech. It implies that you must adhere to the government's strict laws and regulations for what you can and cannot say. It sends a clear message that any dissent from the government's views will not be tolerated. That is a direct violation of freedom of speech, and as such, it should never be endorsed.

We don't live in a vacuum. A celebrity has the opportunity to express his opinion and ideas in the public, while other voices might not be granted the same privilege. So, it's essential for celebrities to think twice before advocating for a totalitarian government (let alone actually having their place in the government like Yen) because of the influence it has on the world.

You either are pro-democratic or pro-totalitarian. There's freedom of speech in only one of them.

someone should get a life

Hmm. I do see where you’re coming from and I guess I see how it’s come to that. Personally that logic makes me uncomfortable. I don’t find it intellectually honest, I guess. Emotionally - maybe, but it doesn’t seem to quite add up rationally imo. The example about trans rights etc. was hypothetical; but I just think it‘s strange to argue that someone Catholic who, say, says she supports the efforts of DeSantis & Co to ban abortion is in any way restricting the reproductive rights of the residents of Florida.

I never really understood the argument that when I say something I’m meant to consider the implications of what I say on all sorts of people who may end up at a disadvantage. I think it’s absurd. I was born disabled and I heard from plenty of people that children like me should be aborted. Would I claim my freedom of anything, let alone freedom of speech, was affected by that? Not really.

And I do understand your original point: that celebrities have that so-called duty of saying, well, ‘responsible’ things, because they have ‘a platform’. This isn’t a new idea, but I’m firmly on the side of the argument that celebrities’ opinions on things beyond their core area of expertise are irrelevant both for their so-called ‘fan base’ and for their professional image/standing.

If XYZ IT-girl said on Instagram that she’s thrilled to be back to her pre-baby body 2 weeks after giving birth, I just don’t think it’s her problem that this would trigger anorexics, or that she has any sort of responsibility not to say it. I don’t think it’s that different from the Hong Kong example, frankly.

And again, I do sort of see what you mean. But I think that’s a very extreme stance.

But is he ‘demanding’ it? It is by virtue of all sorts of circumstance and action taken by all parties involved that the man has an American passport. I’m sure he sacrificed a lot to get it, if only emotionally. As such, he operates in a context where he doesn’t need to demand freedom of speech, he already has that (yes, I guess that’s unfair. But again, I’m sure he’s paid for it in one way or another).

How is he demanding it? Even if he were to be banned from the Oscars, then following your own logic, the amount of attention that he has already drawn to CPC’s position and his support thereof far outweighs any supposed benefits of banning him from the ceremony. If there are people out there who think the CPC are capital fellows and **** Hong Kong, they already think that; I doubt people really actually think, ‘Oh, look, Donnie Yen/Tom Cruise said so, so it must be true! Lemme go donate to the CPC!’

But he doesn’t need to ask. He’s a US citizen, he already has all the rights he needs (I’m consciously not going into the caveat of how the US may not be entirely free, blah blah blah, because compared to China that’s a bit absurd). You cannot accuse me of denying disabled people their right to run because I can run now that I’m no longer disabled and they cannot. It’s not my fault that I’m no longer disabled, it’s not his fault that he now has a US passport and gets to speak his mind in public and it’s not his responsibility what effect that has on other people, be that the Academy, the people of Hong Kong or his fans.

And I appreciate that that’s how people approach these decisions. That’s their right to do so, of course it is. But I think that’s wrong. I can see how for all sorts of social-media-backlash-crap reasons one would refrain from hiring that Neo-Nazi, and anyway, with respect, presenting the Oscars ain’t rocket science. But it we’re talking hiring a Neo-Nazi musician or chef for your event, then I think the very phrasing of ‘is it okay’ is absurd and creepy. We are not children; the discussion concerns grown adults. It’s a private party’s private event so the party isn’t obliged to ask anyone, including itself, whether it’s ‘okay’ to hire any professional, I believe. If I like this musician’s stuff, I’ll hire him because I want to hear that exact music at my private event, and if anyone says I’m giving that musician a platform, I think the only reasonable response is, ‘I enjoy the sound of this person’s music and their comings and goings beyond producing that sound for my pleasure are none of my business/not of interest to me.’

I would. Yes. Now, if we get into the thorny issue of whether I’d be penalised by the mob for this decision, **** yes, of course. But in many ways I’d probably use my personal funds for an event like that sort of to make a point, because again, to me that’s freedom of speech, not the other way around, and I don’t see a contradiction there.

You know what, that’s fair enough. I respect that point of view.

That depends entirely on your definition of what ‘active’ is: if I’m a CEO (take Elon Musk) who says abortion sucks, people should all have more kids, and good job, DeSantis, I just don’t see how I’m oppressing anyone, actively or otherwise. I’m expressing a view. If that view affects others emotionally, well, oops. I’m equally affected by the rhetoric that abortion is great and no one seems to care about that.

@AgrippinaX

I don't want to be rude but what you're saying sounds very naive.

You seem to be of an opinion that words have no weight, and cannot influence or hurt, which clearly isn't true. A mature person takes responsibility for their words. And mature people have no tolerance for intolerance. There's a point where you say or do something that justifies making you a persona non grata. What that is and what exactly crosses the line is a very tough and long discussion. But to say there's no limit to what you can do and still be accepted as a public figure at an international event is downright oblivious.

You're responsible for what you're saying. And a celebrity, having a huge platform and a lot of fans who look up to them is doubly as responsible. Words have weight and we are responsible for what we're saying. Otherwise, you couldn't go to jail for encouraging murder or telling somebody to kill themselves. But you can. And before you attempt to muddle it up with "leftists say everything is hate speech blah blah blah", let me add that this has many layers and levels. Throwing somebody into jail for simply saying "Minio is an idiot" is ridiculous. But banning them from representing a "respected" multinational ceremony for perpetuating totalitarian spittle is understandable.

You also seem to be of opinion that one's words and deeds mean nothing as long as there's one good thing about them, e.g. they're musical geniuses. Of course, there's another side of that coin, which is the 'artist vs. their art' discussion. But if you were to hire a good neo-Nazi musician for your festival, you'd most likely have to pay them. How do you know you're not just indirectly sponsoring neo-Nazism, then, because chances are, this person would be spending that money on furthering their neo-Nazi doings. If the CCP pays Donnie Yen and then the Oscars also pay Donnie Yen for being a presenter, they'd both be giving him money. This could spawn opinions that not only do the Oscars not care about what he's saying and how, as an Oscars presenter, he is representing the Oscars but also that the Academy is sponsoring Yen to further carelessly spit out his nonsense. And that there'll be no consequences for that.

It sounds like you think that all forms of oppression should be treated equally, but it's pretty obvious that views opposed to abortion are more likely to have an effect on people's lives than views in favor of abortion. Does it really make sense to ignore the power dynamics and pretend like everyone is on even footing when it comes to free speech?

That’s fine, I don’t think anything gets particularly rude here. I made no comment about ‘leftists’ as I don’t actually think that’s what this is about.

On your very last sentence, yes, I believe so, but it’s (obviously, heh) your right to disagree.

I don't understand your point here. First of all, it's your music festival. You can choose whoever you want. Why would you go with a neo-nazi maniac who would only taint the event and make the experience worse for everybody involved?
Secondly, being a serial rapist doesn't constitute "freedom of speech", it's just committing a crime.
I think it's fair to be against giving a platform to hate without being against the inherent concept of freedom of speech. Maybe a volatile racist can say whatever stupid shit they want to, but that doesn't mean I can't choose not to work with them. That's perfectly within my rights too.

__________________

they need to get over themselves and move on

Indeed.

My point wasn’t to deliberately invite a neo-Nazi maniac ‘just because’. I do remember a school event where teenagers tried to perform Green Day’s Holiday and were told by the school they had to change the ‘Sieg Heil’ bit to ‘Hello’ in order to be able to perform it. I can see why a school would do that, though I also see why these kids wanted to respect the integrity of the original version and I respect that (and yes, it’s a ‘**** you’ to school, but I think the logic is sound). But we’re not in school anymore, the Oscars are for adults who don’t need to be shielded from things in advance.

My point was that if I loved this person’s music (take, I don’t know, IAMX), and if I found out that IAMX either became or has always secretly been a neo-Nazi, or has been accused of rape, I don’t think that makes his music any worse and constitutes reason enough not to have him as my entertainment. The only reason we supposedly don’t exist in a ‘vacuum’ is because of the internet, and the internet doesn’t rule everyone’s world.

It wouldn’t even occur to me, personally, to think in the direction of ‘platforming’ if I invited someone to perform at an event. Frankly I think it’s hilarious to think anyone’s such decision, even the Academy’s, can single-handedly take a platform from an established artist with a fan base. The hubris in thinking that, you know, wow!

If I was making a film/show with my own money and it had been set to largely be scored by IAMX (as with How to Get Away With Murder), I wouldn’t change my mind or that set-up even if some allegations were floated. Five years ago it wouldn’t have even occurred to me that this film/show could then subsequently land in any sort of financial trouble because of that decision. It would literally have never crossed my mind to think, ‘Could someone have a problem with this artist? Let’s cover all the bases.’ I think it’s a disgrace to think like that.

Nowadays it would of course, but I would always try to stick to my creative gut and see what happens. I was personally thrilled that Phoenix’ Joker made such a killing because people were making similar noises that the film gives ‘a platform’ to undesirable people ‘we’ don’t like. So that shows it can be done, and if Joker can make a killing, then I can do a blast of an event with IAMX even if he’s a convicted rapist.

I just don’t believe that reasonable people would see IAMX in my example and think, ‘Here’s a serial neo-Nazi rapist, why is he performing?’, I don’t see how that would be the primary consideration. I’m sure some people think like that but that’s their business, I don’t see why one should cater to them over those who don’t think like that. My view is people would see IAMX and think, ‘Here’s IAMX, that means the vibe should be such and such’, like in HTGAWM or whatever it is. Or people would think, if they’ve never heard the music but read about IAMX, ‘This is a bit like Daft Punk’.

I’m surrounded by many art-, music- and film-loving people, family, acquaintances, colleagues etc., it’s obviously the kind of people I tend to hang out with. I do remember people saying they couldn’t watch Death in Venice the same way after finding out about the abuse on set, and I actually felt the same discomfort on that front, but I still think the film should be screened and widely shown to people.

(Obviously Visconti is dead so ‘platforming’ is irrelevant but he’s actually a perfect example; the man was an Italian count, I’d love to see people de-platform that or take resources away from him. Everything he made was done using own money and I would go the same route. I remember he sold family jewels to finance his films, and good for him. Lesley Paterson, nominated for a BAFTA this year, had to run a marathon to finance her film and she won and did it. Maybe if everyone used their own resources instead of relying on corporate handouts, de-platforming would run its course naturally).

https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/news/a43155210/lesley-paterson-triathlete/

Either way, however, I don’t know anyone of any age, profession, race or nationality outside of Twitter who thinks that it makes sense for Marilyn Manson to not perform anymore nor release any music because he’s an abuser. In fact I and a lot of the people I know actively miss his music and feel the void it left, his recent stuff like Killing Strangers from John Wick was great and it’s a shame that I don’t get to experience that music anymore (including in John Wick 4) because of some political crap.

Again, I disagree with your final point; being a rapist may be a crime, but being able to continue to make music or art as a rapist or write newspaper columns if you are a journalist without interference does constitute freedom of speech. The art/column doesn’t need to be about the act of rape, but Gary Glitter deserves his Joker soundtrack royalties because he’s earnt them, because the music is good, and he made it independently of whatever else he’s been up to.

It’s a consumer’s right not to watch Kevin Spacey’s films, not to read that journalist’s column or not to listen to Marilyn Manson, but that doesn’t mean Spacey shouldn’t continue to make films or Manson make new music. I firmly believe that all that ‘no-platforming’ stuff is juvenile and absurd, and of course the true greats can rise beyond that, and good for them.

Edit: seen JW4 now. Also, I know people will think I’m deliberately being controversial/contrarian/annoying, but Donnie Yen makes this film, he brings it to life, and yes, he is cooler than Keanu (no wonder they didn’t dare kill him off). Donnie Yen rocks here, he is mesmerising. Obviously targeting the Asian market and all, but good for them.

yep like seriously

The petition on change.org reflects the sentiments of those who feel strongly about Yen's statements.

__________________
incredibox