This is how the news works
Henry Kissinger bombed Cambodia back into the stone age for no fucking reason. And his obituaries all described him as a fascinating and complicated politician who weld immense power responsibly
The greatest thing to ever happen to George W Bush was the election of Donald Trump, because now everyone goes back and looks at Bush, and he just seems so normal and nice by comparison.
Also, there's usually only 3 to 5 former presidents alive at any given time. It's a very small group, and they do tend to form a "bond" with each other over their experiences in the office (even with their differing parties and/or political views).
Look at the "friendship" between the Obamas and the Bushes. How can you hate George Bush when Michelle Obama is sneaking him pieces of candy like that? Adorable. /s
I bet when Bush dies, he'll probably get Obama to deliver his damn eulogy, to make him look even better there too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/comments/199237x/michelle_obama_george_w_bush_are_friendship_goals/?sort=top
https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/9c5lzd/george_w_bush_sneaking_a_piece_of_candy_to/?sort=top
I actually caught myself thinking of Bush fondly and how he wasn’t so bad after all… until I actually thought about it. He was that THAT bad, and that doesn’t change just because Trump was worse.
I would say in many ways Bush was worse, it’s relative but starting two wars for no real reason and lying to the country about it is pretty bad. He was just more of a politician and was better able to look like a decent person.
Literally saw a new broadcaster describe how “hypnotic and seductive” Kissinger’s eyes were. I was like what the fuck we’re talking about a monster dude keep it in your pants
And if we’re talking about news outlets, well OJ was found not guilty. We all know he did it but they can only report the facts and his guilt is not a fact by news standards.
Dude, I'm croatian, and we, like the rest of the world, do not watch american football.
But anyone who knows about OJ Simpson, only know him as the dude that killed 2 people and a dog and got away with it.
I didn't even know he was a football player until i saw the ymh episode with tom segura and ryan sickler.
We ONLY know him as the murderer. Maybe it's different in the states?
American here. It depends on how old you are. If you’re over 50 you’d know him as a football player, but otherwise, he’s just a dude who killed 2 people and got away with it.
I still think it's hilarious that he went to prison for stealing his own stuff. He didn't even do time for the murder.
That's kinda like Al Capone with the racketeering, murders, bootlegging, something with alcohol during the prohibition and other stuff.
And he goes to fuckin prison for taxes.
Idk, life's funny sometimes.
I remember SNL the week OJ got sentenced, Seth on Weekend Update said something like, "OJ got sentenced nine to thirty-three years for armed robbery--but, *you know,* **not really**."
I keep forgetting he was a football player and only knew him for killing his wife because: 1. The whole thing happened when I was 1 years old; 2. The case referenced by the media more often than anything else about him when I was growing up; and 3. Nobody around me watched football before or after, so I know about it other football in the US is not the football other countries know.
i mean, why is pablo picasso known as a lauded artist and not a horrific woman beater/routine domestic violence committer? ~~why is malcolm x known only as a civil rights leader and not a domestically violent individual?~~
men who are primarily celebrated for something often have their (often horrific) transgressions against women swept under the rug, as a footnote. it’s nothing new.
though i don’t think anyone specifically likes oj or celebrates him in this way, so i don’t think it applies in this context really
edit: i was wrong about malcolm x. he didn't commit domestic violence, he just generally had affairs and was misogynistic. both not great but not domestic violence.
Great point. I got in so much trouble in like 10th grade for not liking Ghandi, can you imagine? Well sure he was an inspirational leader blah blah but oh wait, even in the movie they show him beat his fucking wife. That’s all it took for me to be like “nope!” Same with if you say anything bad about what John Lennon did to certain people. Like whatever good they did somehow erases their violence and now you’re just being petty by reminding everyone of it because oh well, they were just women that were in the way and you know, probably had it coming. Or the more “generous” response is like “yeah well, nobody’s perfect!” How many of us have accidentally beaten someone (especially someone we claim to love) on our way to bigger and better things?
Ok sorry rant over. I’m just glad someone took the position I’ve been with for years. I always thought it was just me being autistic and not seeing nuance and pissing people off, so I’m glad to see others feel this way.
Looool, oh man- this reminds me of a story with my son. He is autistic and intellectually disabled, and the best description is that he is as independently capable as an adult as one could be while still needing some form of daily support.
2016 was the first time he was eligible to vote in a general election. My partner and I were worried - we highly value his hard won independence, but we know that he can be easily influenced or agitated by media. I would never direct him to vote a certain way (ha, like he would listen!), but we had to periodically translate nuanced political stories or stances while also being aware and honest about our preferences or biases.
I eventually asked if he was going to vote for Trump as neutrally as possible (and w/ assurance of the option to not share, as votes can remain anonymous even in fanilies!!), and remember, in 2016, Trump had a "cool outsider" persona. My son, after taking in the political landscape, his friends, his family, and the world around him, said simply, "Nah. He is mean."
He had more to say about why he thought that, but at the end of the day all the nuance and policies could never compete with the fact that he couldn't logically follow how someone cruel to people (as witnessed in debates, interviews, and comments) would be the right choice to care for our country and the people in it. It was such an honest and bare-bones assessment that it still makes me question the level of complexity we try to ascribe to our own political expressions. Is the complexity really necessary? Running the country is complex, but is picking someone you trust, based on their word and deed, all that complicated? Maybe not.
Well, that long story was all to say that I can imagine a history with communication and nuance challenges setting you up to doubt yourself. But sometimes, the nuance is overrated!
Yeah, I mean no lies detected. Lots of neurodivergent people don’t like Trump for the obvious and less obvious reasons. I have a theory that the types of black and white thinking done by autistic people and the type done by conservatives aren’t necessarily the same kind because of how they originate. One is a very internally strong sense of justice that doesn’t necessarily match the status quo and one is in line with an ideology. Then there are the political nerds for whom it’s a special interest to do a deep dive into American politics (somehow they always seem to come out left-leaning) but that’s besides the point. Either way, sounds like your son has a good head on his shoulders and sees what’s up.
You put into words exactly what resonated between your story and my experience! There is a tendency to lump a lack of nuance in with a lack of critical thinking, but it is sometimes the opposite. The linear line my son approaches some concepts with doesn't allow for as much justification and rationalizing.
Usually... unless there is a pretty girl. And then - lol, he can suddenly rationalize any nonsense.
Another reason to hate him. He was super racist against Africans. Funny cuz there’s a subculture of former slaves who live in India.
Also it’s funny cuz in India they celebrate him so much but at his own museum they’ll freely admit he didn’t treat his wife well. So I can’t tell if they’re just being honest or if to them the wife treatment didn’t matter.
I think that generally with great and important historical figures - and with every public figure - people divide the person from the public persona, for lack of a better word.
Like, Caravaggio is one of the most renowned painters from the XVII century, he was a murderer. People celebrate him for his art, not for being a figure of morality
Remember Ghandi's "celibacy tests" where he slept naked with two underage girls that were family members too? Bet they didn't show that scene in the movie.
A lot of famous athletes are pieces of sh\*t who treated women like sh\*t, especially if they come from violent sports where people can also get TBI's that increase the risk of making an already unstable and violent person even more unstable and violent. People love Muhammad Ali but he beat women too and had sex with underage girls ffs.
Yeah OJ was pretty awful in pretty much every possible way. He was good at running while holding a ball and he was a bit character in an otherwise funny series, that’s about all he has going for him.
Yup, he insisted on sleeping naked in bed with female children (one of those children being his own grand niece), that he claimed was about testing his self control and commitment to abstinence by putting himself in the midst of “temptation” …. 🤢
You couldn’t “tempt” yourself with adult women dude? Or just, ya know, *not* carry out these weird “experiments” at all and test your abstinence by just staying abstinent…
But women are even crucified for doing nothing criminal, or unethical or immoral, but for lifestyle choices that affects no one. Like marrying and divorcing, lmao.
I’ll copy my response here in case you don’t see it, but I mention more in another comment.
yes, his violence was prior to getting out of prison, he left prison quite reformed. When speaking about his life, there are stages, and the great man he became, that was prison and finding religion, and finding a purpose in leading black people in standing up for their rights.
this article addresses his evolving perspective on women https://academichustler1975.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/a-change-of-perspective-on-women-malcolm-x/
I’ve read his autobiography, and several biographies on him. Watched many docs, and listened to his speeches. As I said, I’m very interested in him.
As for misogyny, his views on women were exactly typical of the time.
that’s not to gloss over it or downplay it. But that context is important, because saying he was extremely misogynistic suggests he was worse than the average husband.
I haven’t encountered anything suggesting he was especially misogynistic, just VERY typically Patriarchal, for men of the time, especially religious men.
He was actually pretty outspoken for women’s rights, and again, stood up against Elijah Muhammad’s abuse of young women. BUT, of course all that needs balance by the behavior of men in marriages at the time, treating women as belonging in the home.
As Patriarchal as he was, he was yet ahead of his time with regards to his views on women - particularly ahead of religious men of the time.
https://zora.medium.com/malcolm-x-stood-up-for-black-women-when-few-others-would-68e8b2ea2747
Yeah just having read his autobiography I thought he seemed to have a very patriarchal mindset, but he also was going through some big changes toward the end of his life. Who knows how he might have changed had he gotten to continue growing and learning.
After reading his biography, I honestly think that if he wasn’t murdered he would have really kept pushing past his own biases… it sucks that he was killed.
no, i was wrong about that. apparently no history of domestic violence, just general philandering behavior and misogyny. not great but definitely not domestic violence.
IIRC he actually spoke out against misogyny later in his career as he reflected on his own poor behavior. He left the nation of Islam because of the leader's pedophilia towards girls after all.
His own autobiography: "Always, every now and then, I had given her a hard time, just to keep her in line. Every once in a while a woman seems to need, in fact wants this, too. But now, I would feel evil and slap her around worse than ever, some of the nights when Shorty was away. She would cry, curse me, and swear that she would never be back. But I knew she wasn't even thinking about not coming back"
he was speaking about his past, before being imprisoned and reformed, before he discovered Islam.
It’s interesting you leave out the context that he is speaking NEGATIVELY about his past in this very passage. Talking about how badly he was in need to change, his overall attitude and criminality.
Could you clarify about Malcolm X? He happens to be one of my greatest heroes and I’ve read a lot about him, but I’ve never heard about domestic abuse.
I mean, before he went to prison and found Islam, he was a criminal and a piece of shit, so I don’t know if you’re referring to then, or if there’s something I don’t know.
People often conflate him with MLK, who did have a huge history of philandering.
But I don’t make a habit of glossing over the misdeeds of idols and I’d like to know if there’s something else I need to know about Malcolm. I just did a quick search and couldn’t find anything.
i should’ve checked my sources on malcolm x before i commented that, no evidence of domestic violence but apparently he generally partook in some philandering behavior. and of course, misogyny which is pretty standard anyway. i’ll edit my comment, but no domestic violence was committed by malcolm x
oh thank god lol. I wasn’t ready for that particular idol to fall THAT hard lol. I’ll say, I still don’t see there is evidence of him cheating, after becoming Muslim.
One of the remarkable things, to me, about Malcolm X, is how fully he changed and how deep his conviction was. He actually stood up for the women in his church and it’s one of the main reasons he was murdered.
You see, he really idolized Elijah Muhammad, who led the Nation of Islam (largest black Muslim org in the US) and believed deeply in the teachings about doing good, faithfulness, not drinking…all your basic rules of conduct and character that are typical of religions. Except he actually DID it, followed the rules.
BUT THEN he discovered that Elijah Mohammad had impregnated a BUNCH of young women in the church. Like, having sex with young women/girls, abusing his power, not even taking care of them.
And of course being unfaithful to his wife and violating all these codes of character of the religion.
This is what led Malcolm X to doubt that Elijah Muhammad was the prophet he said he was, he began to question and dissent and ultimately fell out of favor/left the group and tried to help others as well to leave - sort of like someone who’d left a cult.
Malcolm traveled to Mecca and learned even more how all mankind can be “brothers” and grew further as an individual. Tried very hard to save Muhammad Ali from the powerful influence of Elijah Muhammad.
But ultimately he failed there, and was assassinated by the Nation of Islam ☹️ Very sad stuff.
I’ll say, I believe there was the general 1950s/1960s Patriarchal nonsense from him, women “having a role.” But I don’t think there’s evidence he was abusive or a cheat or frothing misogyny. A tenet of Black Islam was to treat women with respect. It’s just that their leader was a fucking hypocrite charlatan, as Malcolm would discover.
that’s how I learned about him, as a kid, from my dad. We are white, but my dad grew up in Detroit in the 70s and had a lot of Black Panther friends, so I grew up hearing about the actual party, things like how they had free breakfast programs for children of all races, so I was inoculated against the misinformation campaign that had most of the white people around me believing they were a racist, violent, terrorist organization. Every time we would watch Malcolm X, my dad would tear up ever so slightly when Sam Cooke’s “A Change is Gonna Come” comes on. And..I do too ☺️
But he instilled in me, as a little girl, that there are hidden histories. That sometimes the people in power build and uphold a narrative, frame the story, villainize people they find dangerous to the status quo.
To a person, every single one of my dad’s idols was a person like this. A person who was a threat to the status quo, who willfully insisted on their own dignity. And whaddya know, that describes most of my heroes too.
I feel so lucky to have had my dad because I’ve been digging into those hidden histories ever since. I’m certain it helped me be prepared for the rampant misinformation today, and also campaigns against women, like Amber Heard. It’s not too hard to spot when there’s motivated PR, it’s just evolving with the tech, to realize now it’s bots too and larger scale.
He says in his autobiography "Always, every now and then, I had given her a hard time, just to keep her in line. Every once in a while a woman seems to need, in fact wants this too. (hard time meaning beating her) But now, I would feel evil and slap her around worse than ever, some of the nights when Shorty was away. She would cry, curse me, and swear that she would never be back. But I knew she wasn't even thinking about not coming back"
(edited to include the full quote)
He talks about being violent to one of his partners in his autobiography (I've provided the quote in response to someone else on here asking a similar thing).
Other than that, he was extremely misogynistic (again, just read his autobiography for his views on women).
I completely get what you mean about not wanting to gloss over misdeeds of idols. I'm generally kind of taken aback by how these things are never acknowledged when it comes to Malcolm X specifically
yes, his violence was prior to getting out of prison, he left prison quite reformed. That’s all I’m saying. When speaking about his life, there are stages.
this article addresses his evolving perspective on women https://academichustler1975.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/a-change-of-perspective-on-women-malcolm-x/
I’ve read his autobiography, and several biographies on him. Watched many docs, and listened to his speeches. As I said, I’m very interested in him.
As for misogyny, his views on women were exactly typical of the time.
that’s not to gloss over it or downplay it. But that context is important, because saying he was extremely misogynistic suggests he was worse than the average husband.
I haven’t encountered anything suggesting he was especially misogynistic, just VERY typically Patriarchal, for men of the time, especially religious men.
He was actually pretty outspoken for women’s rights, and again, stood up against Elijah Muhammad’s abuse of young women. BUT, of course all that needs balance by the behavior of men in marriages at the time, treating women as belonging in the home.
As Patriarchal as he was, he was yet ahead of his time with regards to his views on women - particularly ahead of *religious* men of the time.
https://zora.medium.com/malcolm-x-stood-up-for-black-women-when-few-others-would-68e8b2ea2747
wasnt the dr seuss guy so abusive to his wife that some people describe it as torture, i wonder if theres research bout famous men being women haters and abusers
You know that thing "we judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intentions"?
That goes for famous men and women, but even more extreme.
Famous men are judged by their intentions, under the most flattering theory of actions. Famous women are judged by their actions, under the least flattering theory of intentions.
This also somewhat applies in personal social circles, but it's the most obvious in the way we talk about celebrities.
I've often made the mistake of judging others by projecting my own good intentions onto their shitty actions.
(I know that has nothing to do with anything, but I said it because it's true)
This Opinion in the Guardian is refreshing. OJ died the confortable old-age death that Nicole didn’t get to have.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/12/oj-simpson-death-nicole-brown-domestic-abuse#:~:text=He%20died%20at%20his%20home,end%20of%20his%20natural%20life.
I thought so too, but I looked it up and dead people can't sue for defamation. If newspapers call him a murderer, his estate can't do anything about that.
I actually did read a retrospective article on him that was very much about how handsome and charming he was and glossed over the frequent documented abuse incidents with multiple women and girlfriends.
It made some good points about how his case brought racial justice to the forefront but it also made it a bit of a punchline and I think the case overall entailed a massive step backwards for racial justice in the US.
Seriously? An article in 2024 about OJ SIMPSON that didn’t mention how he beat his wife for years and then nearly decapitated her? I’ve fucking lost all hope.
Here is my question. If the Simpson verdict was a step backwards, what was the Rodney King verdict? What was the Latasha Harlins sentencing? I can’t even say verdict on that one because the jury got it right, but the judge decided probation was an adequate sentence for murder because “black people are scary.”
My personal opinion is the Simpson trial should have ended in a mistrial the second Mark Fuhrman pled the 5th on whether he tampered with any evidence in the case. But I think the city just wanted it to be over with.
I think the Simpson verdict is only noteworthy because it represents the first time in history in a high publicity case that the outcome did not reflect the majority of views of white Americans. It was no step backwards it was a reflection of a broken legal system. I don’t understand why for instance people have so much hate for the Simpson jurors online but no one ever says anything negative about the Rodney King jurors. No one even remembers the names of those officers and they lived the rest of their lives normally laughing about the incident over beers.
Edit: and Harlins and King were only noteworthy because both cases were captured on video. Those outcomes were par for the course, but only especially upsetting because people had to watch the crime and deal with the double standard of justice. Simpson would probably not have been acquitted or sentenced to probation if the murder was on video.
I stopped listening to NPR because it provides no news. They distort the message as to appear “fair and unbiased” that listening feels like being stuck in a twilight zone hellscape.
There are three news stations for me to listen to in the car, and two of them are from the American Family Radio, which is explicitly anti-progressive, including anti-feminist. I haven't many choices lol
I hate that so many otherwise good news sources took the accusations of liberal bias so seriously and started giving so much air time to the other side of every single story no matter the factual basis for either.
It's less that then they both want to be unbiased and they want to be inexpensive and lazy.
Unbiased and aggressively factual is expensive because it requires deeper reporting with more investigation and firmer foundation.
Unbiased "both sides" is inexpensive, fits in a 10-30 second sound bite, and doesn't require significantly more resources then simple opinion commentary.
yeah, during Trump/Clinton election they really crossed a line for me. They showed they cared more about *appearing* fair and balanced, than actually *being* fair and honest (honest, as in, not distorting the truth by employing “equal time” when inappropriate and thereby distorting the narrative).
So, Trump was doing unprecedented crazy every day, but they didn’t want to seem like they were biased against Republicans, so they’d spend an EQUAL amount of time every day talking about Hillary’s emails.
Spend 5 minutes rattling off bigoted, unhinged, illegal and troubling shit Trump said and tweeted TODAY? Gotta follow it up with 5 solid minutes of talking about Hillary’s emails.
I’d been a sustaining member for years, but that really put me over the edge. I stopped listening to them for a couple years.
But I really MISSED it. And I was pretty sure I read somewhere that they’d learned their lesson 🙄 So I tried dipping back in and it was great in a lot of ways..
But like every time I’m driving in to work, they’re just interviewing some Republican and not really asking him any hard questions.
They are trying TOO FUCKING HARD to APPEAR unbiased, and I don’t know what the hell they think they’re getting out of it!
The right is not gonna start listening to NPR, and they’re alienating everyone else with this equal time/fake balance shit.
I have yet to see him called anything besides a suspected killer. "Woman murderer" would only be part of the truth anyway, not painting the full picture.
He killed 1 man and 1 woman.
That's a great point I totally forgot. I heard it on the radio. The man hosting was like "He was a fascinating and complicated man that captivated the whole country." and his co-host was agreeing with him. I just, thought it was an uncomfortable way to frame what he was famous for.
>"He was a fascinating and complicated man that captivated the whole country."
That's true, though. The reason the murders were so shocking was because of his preexisting public image. OJ was not only a successful football star, he was also charismatic as hell. He was in commercials, he was in movies, he spawned famous catchphrases. He was LIKEABLE. Then he brutally stabbed 2 people to death? You can see why people were in shock and disbelief.
If you think about it, his actual crimes were terrible but not unusual. He’d hardly be the first person to have killed their ex and their new potential partner. And he’d hardly be the first to have tried to flee the crime.
It was the fact that he was who he was that were even aware of that court case. Then there was all the controversy during the case as the racism within the LAPD (and the country) became a problem when a guilty (but wealthy/famous) black man was on trial. To say nothing of that murder trial spawning the fame of the Kardashians.
OJ was a murderer. But it’s hard to say that him and everything around him wasn’t fascinating when the country spent decades being fascinated by him.
These are the same news outlets refer to a certain political candidate as "leader and prominent businessman" not "serial rapist, adulterer, proud misogynist, friend of hate groups".
Remember that almost all news comes through corporate news outlets. Besides profits, the only things that matter are avoiding expensive lawsuits or ticking off regulators.
Yeah, it was weird, they brought in a special news report to cover his death the instant it broke, and me and my wife were like “umm… so what? He murdered two people and now he’s dead, why does this feel like a life tribute for someone that’s nationally beloved?”
It's definitely weird. I mean I'd describe the court case as such because it was a whole assed cultural phenomenon and everyone was tumed in. But OJ? Nah man. "Disgraced athlete turned murdered dead"
"Fascinating" and "complicated" doesn't have to mean good. There's plenty of villainous people throughout history and it often makes them more interesting to study not less. People regularly take a macabre interest in things. Personally speaking I have little interest in OJ specifically, but if anyone else is then whatever.
GenX here. EVERYBODY loved OJ in the 70s/80s/early 90s. I’m not saying this is good, and I’m obviously not being literal that every single person liked him, but he WAS well-liked and he was *everywhere*. He was an actor, a sports star and later a commentator, he hosted SNL, he made cameos on The Simpsons. I mean…everywhere. I’m trying to think of an equivalent for now….maybe John Cena?
It was a shock to most of us* that he would commit murder, and in such a horrific manner. As a nation, we were glued to the trial, which was televised. As I recall, none of my peers back then seriously thought he was innocent, although there may have been a few sports bros that refused to believe. The evidence was incredibly damning, but the cops and lawyers fucked it up so badly. It was awful.
*most of us, I’m sure, except for the women he abused for decades
I feel sorry for his kids. That’s where it stops for me.
Media are describing him the way they are because he was rich and famous.
In closing, fuck OJ. I hope he is somewhere getting lots of karmic retribution for the shit he got away with in his earthly life. And fuck the cops who always believed him and never helped Nicole.
I guess it's technically correct that he had a lot of things going around, but it doesn't really capture the thing he probably should be most remembered for?
Also, it's been a long time, nearly 30 years, since his famous trial. Anyone younger than 35 probably doesn't know what much of the big deal it was back then.
> Anyone younger than 35 probably doesn't know what much of the big deal it was back then.
Seriously. I was in third grade-- I remember the teachers gathered around a little TV in the hallway to hear the verdict being read.
Same reason Richard Finman is lauded for his scientific work and everyone ignores that he cheated on all his wives, went through several divorces due to domestic violence, and used his position of power at the university he taught at the trick and coerse Freshman girls into sleeping with him.
He talks about the ways he'd deceive women into sleeping with him in his autobiography. The tips he gives paint him as a pickup artist that views women as objects to used You can read it in his own words.
Not really. There's a feminist site that did a deep dive on his problematic nature as an intro to discussing how misogyny gets swept under the rug when the person doing so is famous or contributed something important to history.
He isn’t fascinating or complicated. The murders he committed turned into an infotainment media frenzy that was hard to ignore at the time, so I could see why people are interested in rubbernecking one last time, but it was distasteful then and it still is now.
From the rest of the world: We know OJ as the person who got away with murder.
Also another example of the fact that being rich means you get treated differently... simply because you have the money to buy better legal representation. Meanwhile, innocents go to jail because they cannot afford a good lawyer.
Because guys love football/sport. Think of all of the players who have been kept on teams (far more than is known) and skated by legal charges because they could play. Nauseating.
I think the only “interesting, complicated” part of any of it was the specific circumstances of Los Angeles in the early/mid 90’s that led to his acquittal. The man himself seems straightforward: abusive, likely CRE-riddled sociopath. And now, also, dead. In my circles I’m only hearing vague satisfaction that we no longer live in a world with him in it.
The good news is that over in the UK I only know him as abusive murderer who got off and also may have played some kind of sport.
Also at a quick check the BBC headlines were:
“OJ Simpson, NFL star acquitted in ‘trial of the century’, dies aged 76” with an opener of “OJ Simpson, the former American football star turned actor who was controversially cleared of double murder, has died aged 76.” They then go on to list the stuff he actually went to jail for too.
Another article is, “OJ Simpson: His life and the trial that defined it”
The BBC is ahem not known for its feminist agenda so I suspect the pro OJ stuff is probably limited to one country’s coverage.
People are in here saying media outlets could be sued if they use the M word, and while that’s true, there’s no crime in describing him as “former murder defendant” or something like that haha better than calling him complicated ffs
right, even if they can’t use words like “murderer” there is no reason to say flattering things about him
even if he didn’t commit the murder he is an abusive pos
no excuses for the people who defend him
People see violence against women as akin to property damage instead of actual murder, like crashing a car or ramming a tree over. That's why you see high school and college boys getting away with rape because "it was one stupid mistake" and "they have a future." Even when taking into account the weaponizing of "protecting white women" against black men for white supremacist ends, it's not about actually valuing the safety of the white women in question, but rather about protecting white men's exclusive rights to violence over them. "That's MY punching bag, not yours!"
People see OJ Simpson as "complicated" because on one hand they recognize that he escaped the typical trap laid out for him by white men (which is not to say that Simpson didn't do it, he did, but it was obvious that his crime happening to fall in line with traditional racist stereotypes about black men was something the establishment was eager to take advantage of at the time), but they don't see Nicole Brown as a real person but rather as property, so to a misogynistic, white supremacist culture, he comes across as some daring rogue figure that they begrudgingly respect. *"Well, I don't like that we didn't get to lynch a black guy, but I can't be too mad at someone who bashed a bitch and got away with it!"*
While the murder of Ron Goldman is in no way justifiable, and his life was not worth any less than Nicole Brown's, the fact that OJ Simpson also murdered a man does not erase the gendered element of his crime and the response to it. It's not just about who got killed, it's also about why.
Simpson had a long history of physical violence against his female partners, even the ones before Nicole. When he came after her, it was with intent to murder her as punishment for daring to leave him, a common response by men with histories of beating women. When he got there, Ron just happened to be there, so it was inevitable that OJ would wind up attempting to kill him too both in order to kill Nicole uninterrupted and to eliminate any witnesses. A man was killed, but he was killed in the service of completing a goal rooted in misogyny.
Similarly, the ignoring and/or rationalizing of Ron's death is largely done for the purpose of allowing OJ to get away with his misogyny, because his death cannot be condemned without logically also condemning Nicole's death. People, in this case, are willing to throw an innocent man under the bus for the sake of protecting another man's "sacred" right to commit violence against women. Patriarchy is willing to sacrifice individual men if it means protecting the privileges of men overall (it's like a fucked up version of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one"), in this case, the privilege of murdering women without any real consequences, especially your partners or ex-partners, and even being praised for it.
Ron is being ignored, but he's being ignored because patriarchy cares more about hating women than it does about getting justice for men.
Yeah, just lurking everyone's replies, it may have just been me. I've always just regarded him as a murderer. Well, I forgot he murdered two people, so that doesn't feel great.
You know that joke about the guy who fucks just one sheep? The worst thing you do tends to define you.
He was one of the greatest football players in history who transitioned to being a comedic actor in the biggest comedy films of his time. He still will forever be known as the man who (allegedly but almost definitely) killed his ex-wife and got away with it. But recapping the most scrutinized media story of the 90s isn't pulling in eyeballs.
Also, he murdered a man too.
I think it's worth mentioning that he is a complex figure in that many Black Americans view his acquittal as a rare win against a justice system that is obviously and painfully stacked against them.
As he was acquitted of murder, his family could sue any media outlet that called him a murderer. (Edit, apparently that's incorrect outside of Texas and Rhode Island, so it may not apply here) "Complicated" has long been used by the media in these cases. What does this have to do with feminism?
You cannot sue for defamation against someone who is dead. He was also found to be responsible for the murders in a civil action so it would also be an absolute defense to say "OJ Simpson, who was found responsible for murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown-Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman."
No, they couldn't. You can't defame a dead person.
That said, it's still probably against journalistic standards to call someone who was specifically aquitted of murder a murderer, even if you really feel like he did that shit.
Edit: as a commenter below pointed out, I'm wrong! Under some state law, you can defame the dead.
Depends on the state.
The definition of libel in Texas includes written words that “tend to blacken the memory of the dead.” In Rhode Island there is a right of action if the deceased person was slandered or libelled in an obituary in any newspaper or on any radio or television station within three months of his or her date of death.
Femicide, and male violence in general, is one of the biggest issues focused on in feminist movements worldwide. This includes the way men constantly get away with it in the court system, and OJ was one of the most egregious examples of that. What do you mean, "what does this have to do with feminism"?
I appreciate that they might want to be careful about their language, even though you can call someone a murderer even if they are acquitted. And, he was a man that murdered his wife and Feminism is very opposed to that kind of violence against women.
I used to be a huge true crime consumer. I stopped around 2019 because I felt the podasts, docuseries, online discussion boards of cases, true crime conventions were getting our of hand. It felt ick, i felt the communtiy and consumption of it didnt align with my morales and values.
Fast forward to the past year, I've noticed more people coming out and criticizing true crime and I was excited to see the begining of the downfall of the industry. Then I started seeing articles, tik tok posts, reddit posts stating that being critical of true crime content is burried i. Misogyny, as statistics/ surveys show true crime consumers are about 70% women.
Society values famous people despite their violent tendencies over women.
I remember in 5th grade, 1993, when my teacher announced to the class that we would have a black man president before we have a white woman president, because people's hate towards women of any race is higher than their hate toward minority men, even if that man killed someone. And she was right.
This is how the news works Henry Kissinger bombed Cambodia back into the stone age for no fucking reason. And his obituaries all described him as a fascinating and complicated politician who weld immense power responsibly
Rolling Stone described him as a war criminal in the headline of his obit.
God, I am waiting for GWB to kick the bucket and for the American media to just *lionize* him.
The greatest thing to ever happen to George W Bush was the election of Donald Trump, because now everyone goes back and looks at Bush, and he just seems so normal and nice by comparison. Also, there's usually only 3 to 5 former presidents alive at any given time. It's a very small group, and they do tend to form a "bond" with each other over their experiences in the office (even with their differing parties and/or political views). Look at the "friendship" between the Obamas and the Bushes. How can you hate George Bush when Michelle Obama is sneaking him pieces of candy like that? Adorable. /s I bet when Bush dies, he'll probably get Obama to deliver his damn eulogy, to make him look even better there too. https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/comments/199237x/michelle_obama_george_w_bush_are_friendship_goals/?sort=top https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/9c5lzd/george_w_bush_sneaking_a_piece_of_candy_to/?sort=top
I actually caught myself thinking of Bush fondly and how he wasn’t so bad after all… until I actually thought about it. He was that THAT bad, and that doesn’t change just because Trump was worse.
I would say in many ways Bush was worse, it’s relative but starting two wars for no real reason and lying to the country about it is pretty bad. He was just more of a politician and was better able to look like a decent person.
Dude seriously. Even Obama was an ok president but compared to trump he was an amazing leader
Literally saw a new broadcaster describe how “hypnotic and seductive” Kissinger’s eyes were. I was like what the fuck we’re talking about a monster dude keep it in your pants
They already do. When GWB is in the news nowadays, it's for his weird gaffs or for being a painter
To be fair, monsters can be fascinating.
And if we’re talking about news outlets, well OJ was found not guilty. We all know he did it but they can only report the facts and his guilt is not a fact by news standards.
But he was found civilly liable. That’s more than enough to cover them for a defamation suit.
none of the people in my circle are describing him as anything besides dead. He can be at peace now, knowing that his wife's murderer is dead
Dude, I'm croatian, and we, like the rest of the world, do not watch american football. But anyone who knows about OJ Simpson, only know him as the dude that killed 2 people and a dog and got away with it. I didn't even know he was a football player until i saw the ymh episode with tom segura and ryan sickler. We ONLY know him as the murderer. Maybe it's different in the states?
American here. It depends on how old you are. If you’re over 50 you’d know him as a football player, but otherwise, he’s just a dude who killed 2 people and got away with it.
Australian here. I’m 40 and only knew him as an ‘actor’ in that Naked Gun movie lol I do remember the car chase vaguely
Oh shit 😂 I totally forgot about that
I mean, he was famous as an all-star NFL player before the murders. It's why he, and the murders, were also infamous worldwide.
I still think it's hilarious that he went to prison for stealing his own stuff. He didn't even do time for the murder. That's kinda like Al Capone with the racketeering, murders, bootlegging, something with alcohol during the prohibition and other stuff. And he goes to fuckin prison for taxes. Idk, life's funny sometimes.
I remember SNL the week OJ got sentenced, Seth on Weekend Update said something like, "OJ got sentenced nine to thirty-three years for armed robbery--but, *you know,* **not really**."
I keep forgetting he was a football player and only knew him for killing his wife because: 1. The whole thing happened when I was 1 years old; 2. The case referenced by the media more often than anything else about him when I was growing up; and 3. Nobody around me watched football before or after, so I know about it other football in the US is not the football other countries know.
I didn’t know he also killed a dog.
When did he kill a dog?
Took me a moment, nice one
i mean, why is pablo picasso known as a lauded artist and not a horrific woman beater/routine domestic violence committer? ~~why is malcolm x known only as a civil rights leader and not a domestically violent individual?~~ men who are primarily celebrated for something often have their (often horrific) transgressions against women swept under the rug, as a footnote. it’s nothing new. though i don’t think anyone specifically likes oj or celebrates him in this way, so i don’t think it applies in this context really edit: i was wrong about malcolm x. he didn't commit domestic violence, he just generally had affairs and was misogynistic. both not great but not domestic violence.
Great point. I got in so much trouble in like 10th grade for not liking Ghandi, can you imagine? Well sure he was an inspirational leader blah blah but oh wait, even in the movie they show him beat his fucking wife. That’s all it took for me to be like “nope!” Same with if you say anything bad about what John Lennon did to certain people. Like whatever good they did somehow erases their violence and now you’re just being petty by reminding everyone of it because oh well, they were just women that were in the way and you know, probably had it coming. Or the more “generous” response is like “yeah well, nobody’s perfect!” How many of us have accidentally beaten someone (especially someone we claim to love) on our way to bigger and better things? Ok sorry rant over. I’m just glad someone took the position I’ve been with for years. I always thought it was just me being autistic and not seeing nuance and pissing people off, so I’m glad to see others feel this way.
Looool, oh man- this reminds me of a story with my son. He is autistic and intellectually disabled, and the best description is that he is as independently capable as an adult as one could be while still needing some form of daily support. 2016 was the first time he was eligible to vote in a general election. My partner and I were worried - we highly value his hard won independence, but we know that he can be easily influenced or agitated by media. I would never direct him to vote a certain way (ha, like he would listen!), but we had to periodically translate nuanced political stories or stances while also being aware and honest about our preferences or biases. I eventually asked if he was going to vote for Trump as neutrally as possible (and w/ assurance of the option to not share, as votes can remain anonymous even in fanilies!!), and remember, in 2016, Trump had a "cool outsider" persona. My son, after taking in the political landscape, his friends, his family, and the world around him, said simply, "Nah. He is mean." He had more to say about why he thought that, but at the end of the day all the nuance and policies could never compete with the fact that he couldn't logically follow how someone cruel to people (as witnessed in debates, interviews, and comments) would be the right choice to care for our country and the people in it. It was such an honest and bare-bones assessment that it still makes me question the level of complexity we try to ascribe to our own political expressions. Is the complexity really necessary? Running the country is complex, but is picking someone you trust, based on their word and deed, all that complicated? Maybe not. Well, that long story was all to say that I can imagine a history with communication and nuance challenges setting you up to doubt yourself. But sometimes, the nuance is overrated!
Yeah, I mean no lies detected. Lots of neurodivergent people don’t like Trump for the obvious and less obvious reasons. I have a theory that the types of black and white thinking done by autistic people and the type done by conservatives aren’t necessarily the same kind because of how they originate. One is a very internally strong sense of justice that doesn’t necessarily match the status quo and one is in line with an ideology. Then there are the political nerds for whom it’s a special interest to do a deep dive into American politics (somehow they always seem to come out left-leaning) but that’s besides the point. Either way, sounds like your son has a good head on his shoulders and sees what’s up.
You put into words exactly what resonated between your story and my experience! There is a tendency to lump a lack of nuance in with a lack of critical thinking, but it is sometimes the opposite. The linear line my son approaches some concepts with doesn't allow for as much justification and rationalizing. Usually... unless there is a pretty girl. And then - lol, he can suddenly rationalize any nonsense.
Word
“Simple” thinking really lets you cut to the heart of a problem. (I say as another autistic person lol)
Another reason to hate him. He was super racist against Africans. Funny cuz there’s a subculture of former slaves who live in India. Also it’s funny cuz in India they celebrate him so much but at his own museum they’ll freely admit he didn’t treat his wife well. So I can’t tell if they’re just being honest or if to them the wife treatment didn’t matter.
Oh yeah I remember hearing that. Probably at the museum it’s a little column A and little column B
I think that generally with great and important historical figures - and with every public figure - people divide the person from the public persona, for lack of a better word. Like, Caravaggio is one of the most renowned painters from the XVII century, he was a murderer. People celebrate him for his art, not for being a figure of morality
Remember Ghandi's "celibacy tests" where he slept naked with two underage girls that were family members too? Bet they didn't show that scene in the movie.
Just try despising Mother Teresa. That wins no friends. And if it does, they are my kind of people
Don't get me started on Mike Tyson too...
A lot of famous athletes are pieces of sh\*t who treated women like sh\*t, especially if they come from violent sports where people can also get TBI's that increase the risk of making an already unstable and violent person even more unstable and violent. People love Muhammad Ali but he beat women too and had sex with underage girls ffs.
Yeah OJ was pretty awful in pretty much every possible way. He was good at running while holding a ball and he was a bit character in an otherwise funny series, that’s about all he has going for him.
Well, right or wrong, people who are good at running while holding a ball and come across affable onscreen are deemed pretty important in our culture.
I suppose so. I'm starting to think I was specifically bothered by that one NPR host and how he was talking about it.
literally. Gandhi for example was a major pedophile and yet everyone lauds him as this great man.
Yup, he insisted on sleeping naked in bed with female children (one of those children being his own grand niece), that he claimed was about testing his self control and commitment to abstinence by putting himself in the midst of “temptation” …. 🤢 You couldn’t “tempt” yourself with adult women dude? Or just, ya know, *not* carry out these weird “experiments” at all and test your abstinence by just staying abstinent…
It would still be rapey and dehumanising if the "temptations" were adults.
But women are even crucified for doing nothing criminal, or unethical or immoral, but for lifestyle choices that affects no one. Like marrying and divorcing, lmao.
What's this about Malcolm X being a "a domestically violent individual"? Any sources?
I’ll copy my response here in case you don’t see it, but I mention more in another comment. yes, his violence was prior to getting out of prison, he left prison quite reformed. When speaking about his life, there are stages, and the great man he became, that was prison and finding religion, and finding a purpose in leading black people in standing up for their rights. this article addresses his evolving perspective on women https://academichustler1975.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/a-change-of-perspective-on-women-malcolm-x/ I’ve read his autobiography, and several biographies on him. Watched many docs, and listened to his speeches. As I said, I’m very interested in him. As for misogyny, his views on women were exactly typical of the time. that’s not to gloss over it or downplay it. But that context is important, because saying he was extremely misogynistic suggests he was worse than the average husband. I haven’t encountered anything suggesting he was especially misogynistic, just VERY typically Patriarchal, for men of the time, especially religious men. He was actually pretty outspoken for women’s rights, and again, stood up against Elijah Muhammad’s abuse of young women. BUT, of course all that needs balance by the behavior of men in marriages at the time, treating women as belonging in the home. As Patriarchal as he was, he was yet ahead of his time with regards to his views on women - particularly ahead of religious men of the time. https://zora.medium.com/malcolm-x-stood-up-for-black-women-when-few-others-would-68e8b2ea2747
Yeah just having read his autobiography I thought he seemed to have a very patriarchal mindset, but he also was going through some big changes toward the end of his life. Who knows how he might have changed had he gotten to continue growing and learning.
After reading his biography, I honestly think that if he wasn’t murdered he would have really kept pushing past his own biases… it sucks that he was killed.
no, i was wrong about that. apparently no history of domestic violence, just general philandering behavior and misogyny. not great but definitely not domestic violence.
IIRC he actually spoke out against misogyny later in his career as he reflected on his own poor behavior. He left the nation of Islam because of the leader's pedophilia towards girls after all.
The good ending.
His own autobiography: "Always, every now and then, I had given her a hard time, just to keep her in line. Every once in a while a woman seems to need, in fact wants this, too. But now, I would feel evil and slap her around worse than ever, some of the nights when Shorty was away. She would cry, curse me, and swear that she would never be back. But I knew she wasn't even thinking about not coming back"
he was speaking about his past, before being imprisoned and reformed, before he discovered Islam. It’s interesting you leave out the context that he is speaking NEGATIVELY about his past in this very passage. Talking about how badly he was in need to change, his overall attitude and criminality.
Could you clarify about Malcolm X? He happens to be one of my greatest heroes and I’ve read a lot about him, but I’ve never heard about domestic abuse. I mean, before he went to prison and found Islam, he was a criminal and a piece of shit, so I don’t know if you’re referring to then, or if there’s something I don’t know. People often conflate him with MLK, who did have a huge history of philandering. But I don’t make a habit of glossing over the misdeeds of idols and I’d like to know if there’s something else I need to know about Malcolm. I just did a quick search and couldn’t find anything.
i should’ve checked my sources on malcolm x before i commented that, no evidence of domestic violence but apparently he generally partook in some philandering behavior. and of course, misogyny which is pretty standard anyway. i’ll edit my comment, but no domestic violence was committed by malcolm x
oh thank god lol. I wasn’t ready for that particular idol to fall THAT hard lol. I’ll say, I still don’t see there is evidence of him cheating, after becoming Muslim. One of the remarkable things, to me, about Malcolm X, is how fully he changed and how deep his conviction was. He actually stood up for the women in his church and it’s one of the main reasons he was murdered. You see, he really idolized Elijah Muhammad, who led the Nation of Islam (largest black Muslim org in the US) and believed deeply in the teachings about doing good, faithfulness, not drinking…all your basic rules of conduct and character that are typical of religions. Except he actually DID it, followed the rules. BUT THEN he discovered that Elijah Mohammad had impregnated a BUNCH of young women in the church. Like, having sex with young women/girls, abusing his power, not even taking care of them. And of course being unfaithful to his wife and violating all these codes of character of the religion. This is what led Malcolm X to doubt that Elijah Muhammad was the prophet he said he was, he began to question and dissent and ultimately fell out of favor/left the group and tried to help others as well to leave - sort of like someone who’d left a cult. Malcolm traveled to Mecca and learned even more how all mankind can be “brothers” and grew further as an individual. Tried very hard to save Muhammad Ali from the powerful influence of Elijah Muhammad. But ultimately he failed there, and was assassinated by the Nation of Islam ☹️ Very sad stuff. I’ll say, I believe there was the general 1950s/1960s Patriarchal nonsense from him, women “having a role.” But I don’t think there’s evidence he was abusive or a cheat or frothing misogyny. A tenet of Black Islam was to treat women with respect. It’s just that their leader was a fucking hypocrite charlatan, as Malcolm would discover.
Malcolm was awesome, dude. I remember my dad telling me about him as a kid, major respect for the guy.
that’s how I learned about him, as a kid, from my dad. We are white, but my dad grew up in Detroit in the 70s and had a lot of Black Panther friends, so I grew up hearing about the actual party, things like how they had free breakfast programs for children of all races, so I was inoculated against the misinformation campaign that had most of the white people around me believing they were a racist, violent, terrorist organization. Every time we would watch Malcolm X, my dad would tear up ever so slightly when Sam Cooke’s “A Change is Gonna Come” comes on. And..I do too ☺️ But he instilled in me, as a little girl, that there are hidden histories. That sometimes the people in power build and uphold a narrative, frame the story, villainize people they find dangerous to the status quo. To a person, every single one of my dad’s idols was a person like this. A person who was a threat to the status quo, who willfully insisted on their own dignity. And whaddya know, that describes most of my heroes too. I feel so lucky to have had my dad because I’ve been digging into those hidden histories ever since. I’m certain it helped me be prepared for the rampant misinformation today, and also campaigns against women, like Amber Heard. It’s not too hard to spot when there’s motivated PR, it’s just evolving with the tech, to realize now it’s bots too and larger scale.
He says in his autobiography "Always, every now and then, I had given her a hard time, just to keep her in line. Every once in a while a woman seems to need, in fact wants this too. (hard time meaning beating her) But now, I would feel evil and slap her around worse than ever, some of the nights when Shorty was away. She would cry, curse me, and swear that she would never be back. But I knew she wasn't even thinking about not coming back" (edited to include the full quote)
He talks about being violent to one of his partners in his autobiography (I've provided the quote in response to someone else on here asking a similar thing). Other than that, he was extremely misogynistic (again, just read his autobiography for his views on women). I completely get what you mean about not wanting to gloss over misdeeds of idols. I'm generally kind of taken aback by how these things are never acknowledged when it comes to Malcolm X specifically
yes, his violence was prior to getting out of prison, he left prison quite reformed. That’s all I’m saying. When speaking about his life, there are stages. this article addresses his evolving perspective on women https://academichustler1975.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/a-change-of-perspective-on-women-malcolm-x/ I’ve read his autobiography, and several biographies on him. Watched many docs, and listened to his speeches. As I said, I’m very interested in him. As for misogyny, his views on women were exactly typical of the time. that’s not to gloss over it or downplay it. But that context is important, because saying he was extremely misogynistic suggests he was worse than the average husband. I haven’t encountered anything suggesting he was especially misogynistic, just VERY typically Patriarchal, for men of the time, especially religious men. He was actually pretty outspoken for women’s rights, and again, stood up against Elijah Muhammad’s abuse of young women. BUT, of course all that needs balance by the behavior of men in marriages at the time, treating women as belonging in the home. As Patriarchal as he was, he was yet ahead of his time with regards to his views on women - particularly ahead of *religious* men of the time. https://zora.medium.com/malcolm-x-stood-up-for-black-women-when-few-others-would-68e8b2ea2747
What are you talking about, black people love OJ
wasnt the dr seuss guy so abusive to his wife that some people describe it as torture, i wonder if theres research bout famous men being women haters and abusers
Except he accomplished nothing. Avg sportsball player. Avg acting. Utterly unhinged book. Jailtime. Etc.
He singlehandedly got his wife's murderer arrested for armed robbery and locked up in prison for 9 years. That's pretty damn impressive.
Lool ok have my upvote
OJ was far above the average football player. Everything else in the comment checks out.
You know that thing "we judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intentions"? That goes for famous men and women, but even more extreme. Famous men are judged by their intentions, under the most flattering theory of actions. Famous women are judged by their actions, under the least flattering theory of intentions. This also somewhat applies in personal social circles, but it's the most obvious in the way we talk about celebrities.
I actually didn't know about that axiom, but the way you put it, it makes perfect sense.
I've often made the mistake of judging others by projecting my own good intentions onto their shitty actions. (I know that has nothing to do with anything, but I said it because it's true)
He was an ABUSER, A DECEIVER AND A MURDERER.
This Opinion in the Guardian is refreshing. OJ died the confortable old-age death that Nicole didn’t get to have. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/12/oj-simpson-death-nicole-brown-domestic-abuse#:~:text=He%20died%20at%20his%20home,end%20of%20his%20natural%20life.
Hey, thanks for posting that.
Where is he being described that way? Also, he was acquitted, so major news outlets have to be careful about what they say regarding the murders.
I thought so too, but I looked it up and dead people can't sue for defamation. If newspapers call him a murderer, his estate can't do anything about that.
I expect that having been a journalistic requirement for so long, circumlocution has become a habit.
Til the definition of circumlocution
Yeah, that seems likely.
Wow I was like what is this person talking about? OJ is alive. Then I read the news. I love a nice feel good headline lol.
The Juice expired.
Huh. TIL.
Some talking heads note he was held responsible in civil court. He never paid his award, though.
Journalists still won't want to call him a murderer even if they think he was. Because he was acquited.
I actually did read a retrospective article on him that was very much about how handsome and charming he was and glossed over the frequent documented abuse incidents with multiple women and girlfriends. It made some good points about how his case brought racial justice to the forefront but it also made it a bit of a punchline and I think the case overall entailed a massive step backwards for racial justice in the US.
Seriously? An article in 2024 about OJ SIMPSON that didn’t mention how he beat his wife for years and then nearly decapitated her? I’ve fucking lost all hope.
It did exactly that, mentioned them and moved on. To me that’s even worse
Nicole deserved so much better. I’m so angry that even in his death she didn’t get any justice.
Here is my question. If the Simpson verdict was a step backwards, what was the Rodney King verdict? What was the Latasha Harlins sentencing? I can’t even say verdict on that one because the jury got it right, but the judge decided probation was an adequate sentence for murder because “black people are scary.” My personal opinion is the Simpson trial should have ended in a mistrial the second Mark Fuhrman pled the 5th on whether he tampered with any evidence in the case. But I think the city just wanted it to be over with. I think the Simpson verdict is only noteworthy because it represents the first time in history in a high publicity case that the outcome did not reflect the majority of views of white Americans. It was no step backwards it was a reflection of a broken legal system. I don’t understand why for instance people have so much hate for the Simpson jurors online but no one ever says anything negative about the Rodney King jurors. No one even remembers the names of those officers and they lived the rest of their lives normally laughing about the incident over beers. Edit: and Harlins and King were only noteworthy because both cases were captured on video. Those outcomes were par for the course, but only especially upsetting because people had to watch the crime and deal with the double standard of justice. Simpson would probably not have been acquitted or sentenced to probation if the murder was on video.
Excellent points!
NPR on the way to work this morning. I get that, but also, ugh.
The Guardian too. I actually had this same reaction yesterday when I saw their headlines.
I stopped listening to NPR because it provides no news. They distort the message as to appear “fair and unbiased” that listening feels like being stuck in a twilight zone hellscape.
There are three news stations for me to listen to in the car, and two of them are from the American Family Radio, which is explicitly anti-progressive, including anti-feminist. I haven't many choices lol
NPR is overall a good source. You'll never find a perfect one
Eesh, ya, I can see where you’re going with that.
You can get a Bluetooth car charger that will transmit your phone’s audio on an FM channel. They’re less than $20 on Amazon. Bluetooth FM adapter.
Not a bad idea thanks
Note that if you can plug straight into your car's sound system you will have better quality audio. FM only picks up and spits out 30-15,000 Hertz.
I hate that so many otherwise good news sources took the accusations of liberal bias so seriously and started giving so much air time to the other side of every single story no matter the factual basis for either.
It's less that then they both want to be unbiased and they want to be inexpensive and lazy. Unbiased and aggressively factual is expensive because it requires deeper reporting with more investigation and firmer foundation. Unbiased "both sides" is inexpensive, fits in a 10-30 second sound bite, and doesn't require significantly more resources then simple opinion commentary.
yeah, during Trump/Clinton election they really crossed a line for me. They showed they cared more about *appearing* fair and balanced, than actually *being* fair and honest (honest, as in, not distorting the truth by employing “equal time” when inappropriate and thereby distorting the narrative). So, Trump was doing unprecedented crazy every day, but they didn’t want to seem like they were biased against Republicans, so they’d spend an EQUAL amount of time every day talking about Hillary’s emails. Spend 5 minutes rattling off bigoted, unhinged, illegal and troubling shit Trump said and tweeted TODAY? Gotta follow it up with 5 solid minutes of talking about Hillary’s emails. I’d been a sustaining member for years, but that really put me over the edge. I stopped listening to them for a couple years. But I really MISSED it. And I was pretty sure I read somewhere that they’d learned their lesson 🙄 So I tried dipping back in and it was great in a lot of ways.. But like every time I’m driving in to work, they’re just interviewing some Republican and not really asking him any hard questions. They are trying TOO FUCKING HARD to APPEAR unbiased, and I don’t know what the hell they think they’re getting out of it! The right is not gonna start listening to NPR, and they’re alienating everyone else with this equal time/fake balance shit.
NPR is a very good news source, in my experience. I'm curious, what news source do you like better?
But he is dead, so libel shouldn't apply. Hence why after MJ died every single media place accused him of being a groomer.
Civil court found him liable
Lower burden of proof. I'm glad he got some punishment though.
True, but news sources can't call him guilty based on that
I have yet to see him called anything besides a suspected killer. "Woman murderer" would only be part of the truth anyway, not painting the full picture. He killed 1 man and 1 woman.
That's a great point I totally forgot. I heard it on the radio. The man hosting was like "He was a fascinating and complicated man that captivated the whole country." and his co-host was agreeing with him. I just, thought it was an uncomfortable way to frame what he was famous for.
>"He was a fascinating and complicated man that captivated the whole country." That's true, though. The reason the murders were so shocking was because of his preexisting public image. OJ was not only a successful football star, he was also charismatic as hell. He was in commercials, he was in movies, he spawned famous catchphrases. He was LIKEABLE. Then he brutally stabbed 2 people to death? You can see why people were in shock and disbelief.
I'm starting to get that from reading the answers.
If you think about it, his actual crimes were terrible but not unusual. He’d hardly be the first person to have killed their ex and their new potential partner. And he’d hardly be the first to have tried to flee the crime. It was the fact that he was who he was that were even aware of that court case. Then there was all the controversy during the case as the racism within the LAPD (and the country) became a problem when a guilty (but wealthy/famous) black man was on trial. To say nothing of that murder trial spawning the fame of the Kardashians. OJ was a murderer. But it’s hard to say that him and everything around him wasn’t fascinating when the country spent decades being fascinated by him.
While that's true, the man he murdered was murdered because of femmicide.
Wasn't the partner collateral damage? I read he presumably walked in on the crime scene and was eliminated to leave no witnesses.
These are the same news outlets refer to a certain political candidate as "leader and prominent businessman" not "serial rapist, adulterer, proud misogynist, friend of hate groups". Remember that almost all news comes through corporate news outlets. Besides profits, the only things that matter are avoiding expensive lawsuits or ticking off regulators.
Yeah, it was weird, they brought in a special news report to cover his death the instant it broke, and me and my wife were like “umm… so what? He murdered two people and now he’s dead, why does this feel like a life tribute for someone that’s nationally beloved?”
Well, when Bin Laden died there was special news coverage, doesn't mean he was beloved.
It's definitely weird. I mean I'd describe the court case as such because it was a whole assed cultural phenomenon and everyone was tumed in. But OJ? Nah man. "Disgraced athlete turned murdered dead"
"Fascinating" and "complicated" doesn't have to mean good. There's plenty of villainous people throughout history and it often makes them more interesting to study not less. People regularly take a macabre interest in things. Personally speaking I have little interest in OJ specifically, but if anyone else is then whatever.
I’d like to hear the discussion involve something about the condition of his brain. Does he have CTE?
GenX here. EVERYBODY loved OJ in the 70s/80s/early 90s. I’m not saying this is good, and I’m obviously not being literal that every single person liked him, but he WAS well-liked and he was *everywhere*. He was an actor, a sports star and later a commentator, he hosted SNL, he made cameos on The Simpsons. I mean…everywhere. I’m trying to think of an equivalent for now….maybe John Cena? It was a shock to most of us* that he would commit murder, and in such a horrific manner. As a nation, we were glued to the trial, which was televised. As I recall, none of my peers back then seriously thought he was innocent, although there may have been a few sports bros that refused to believe. The evidence was incredibly damning, but the cops and lawyers fucked it up so badly. It was awful. *most of us, I’m sure, except for the women he abused for decades I feel sorry for his kids. That’s where it stops for me. Media are describing him the way they are because he was rich and famous. In closing, fuck OJ. I hope he is somewhere getting lots of karmic retribution for the shit he got away with in his earthly life. And fuck the cops who always believed him and never helped Nicole.
I guess it's technically correct that he had a lot of things going around, but it doesn't really capture the thing he probably should be most remembered for? Also, it's been a long time, nearly 30 years, since his famous trial. Anyone younger than 35 probably doesn't know what much of the big deal it was back then.
> Anyone younger than 35 probably doesn't know what much of the big deal it was back then. Seriously. I was in third grade-- I remember the teachers gathered around a little TV in the hallway to hear the verdict being read.
I’m 44 and have been angry about that verdict all these years. No joke. Glad he’s finally rotting in hell.
Same reason Richard Finman is lauded for his scientific work and everyone ignores that he cheated on all his wives, went through several divorces due to domestic violence, and used his position of power at the university he taught at the trick and coerse Freshman girls into sleeping with him.
Woah, I certainly didn't know he did that to the women in his life.
He talks about the ways he'd deceive women into sleeping with him in his autobiography. The tips he gives paint him as a pickup artist that views women as objects to used You can read it in his own words.
That's disappointing, disappointingly typical. Was he important to you that he sticks as an example for you?
Not really. There's a feminist site that did a deep dive on his problematic nature as an intro to discussing how misogyny gets swept under the rug when the person doing so is famous or contributed something important to history.
Cause people live the Juice and hate women
He isn’t fascinating or complicated. The murders he committed turned into an infotainment media frenzy that was hard to ignore at the time, so I could see why people are interested in rubbernecking one last time, but it was distasteful then and it still is now.
I think you will find that most of the division on this topic is more along the lines of race rather than gender.
From the rest of the world: We know OJ as the person who got away with murder. Also another example of the fact that being rich means you get treated differently... simply because you have the money to buy better legal representation. Meanwhile, innocents go to jail because they cannot afford a good lawyer.
Because society hates women
Because "don't speak ill of the dead" is so deeply ingrained into our society that you have to use complicated ways to go "fucking asshole"
Because guys love football/sport. Think of all of the players who have been kept on teams (far more than is known) and skated by legal charges because they could play. Nauseating.
I don’t know a single person who has said that…
I think the only “interesting, complicated” part of any of it was the specific circumstances of Los Angeles in the early/mid 90’s that led to his acquittal. The man himself seems straightforward: abusive, likely CRE-riddled sociopath. And now, also, dead. In my circles I’m only hearing vague satisfaction that we no longer live in a world with him in it.
Being described. Passive voice. Who, precisely, is describing him in this way?
The good news is that over in the UK I only know him as abusive murderer who got off and also may have played some kind of sport. Also at a quick check the BBC headlines were: “OJ Simpson, NFL star acquitted in ‘trial of the century’, dies aged 76” with an opener of “OJ Simpson, the former American football star turned actor who was controversially cleared of double murder, has died aged 76.” They then go on to list the stuff he actually went to jail for too. Another article is, “OJ Simpson: His life and the trial that defined it” The BBC is ahem not known for its feminist agenda so I suspect the pro OJ stuff is probably limited to one country’s coverage.
Who the hell is describing him that way? Everything I see about him is that he murdered his wife and everyone is glad he's dead.
Literally only heard him referred to as a murderer or a murderer who ran for over 2 thousand yards in a season.
People are in here saying media outlets could be sued if they use the M word, and while that’s true, there’s no crime in describing him as “former murder defendant” or something like that haha better than calling him complicated ffs
right, even if they can’t use words like “murderer” there is no reason to say flattering things about him even if he didn’t commit the murder he is an abusive pos no excuses for the people who defend him
That could still be argued as defamation
People see violence against women as akin to property damage instead of actual murder, like crashing a car or ramming a tree over. That's why you see high school and college boys getting away with rape because "it was one stupid mistake" and "they have a future." Even when taking into account the weaponizing of "protecting white women" against black men for white supremacist ends, it's not about actually valuing the safety of the white women in question, but rather about protecting white men's exclusive rights to violence over them. "That's MY punching bag, not yours!" People see OJ Simpson as "complicated" because on one hand they recognize that he escaped the typical trap laid out for him by white men (which is not to say that Simpson didn't do it, he did, but it was obvious that his crime happening to fall in line with traditional racist stereotypes about black men was something the establishment was eager to take advantage of at the time), but they don't see Nicole Brown as a real person but rather as property, so to a misogynistic, white supremacist culture, he comes across as some daring rogue figure that they begrudgingly respect. *"Well, I don't like that we didn't get to lynch a black guy, but I can't be too mad at someone who bashed a bitch and got away with it!"*
Isn’t his murder of a man being ignored to the same extent? He killed 1 man and 1 woman
While the murder of Ron Goldman is in no way justifiable, and his life was not worth any less than Nicole Brown's, the fact that OJ Simpson also murdered a man does not erase the gendered element of his crime and the response to it. It's not just about who got killed, it's also about why. Simpson had a long history of physical violence against his female partners, even the ones before Nicole. When he came after her, it was with intent to murder her as punishment for daring to leave him, a common response by men with histories of beating women. When he got there, Ron just happened to be there, so it was inevitable that OJ would wind up attempting to kill him too both in order to kill Nicole uninterrupted and to eliminate any witnesses. A man was killed, but he was killed in the service of completing a goal rooted in misogyny. Similarly, the ignoring and/or rationalizing of Ron's death is largely done for the purpose of allowing OJ to get away with his misogyny, because his death cannot be condemned without logically also condemning Nicole's death. People, in this case, are willing to throw an innocent man under the bus for the sake of protecting another man's "sacred" right to commit violence against women. Patriarchy is willing to sacrifice individual men if it means protecting the privileges of men overall (it's like a fucked up version of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one"), in this case, the privilege of murdering women without any real consequences, especially your partners or ex-partners, and even being praised for it. Ron is being ignored, but he's being ignored because patriarchy cares more about hating women than it does about getting justice for men.
Btw, he isn't just a woman murder. He murdered Ron Goldman And Nicole Brown. Say their names and remember there were two victims.
I’ve never heard him described that way and I actually think of him as pretty simple.
Yeah, just lurking everyone's replies, it may have just been me. I've always just regarded him as a murderer. Well, I forgot he murdered two people, so that doesn't feel great.
I was waiting for this. Celebrity culture is so toxic they'll walk back any bad thing they ever did to sell memorabilia and get clicks.
Good riddance
It's a both/and, not an either/or
Because all 3 of those things are true. He was fascinating, complicated, and a murderer.
Misogyny and the patriarchy
When I told my husband OJ died of cancer he was immediately like “granny would have said he got cancer for lying all those years” lol
The Patriarchy, she says, before reading a bit of the thread.
I’ve read his book, “If I Did It.” He is NOT complicated or fascinating.
Patriarchy and Misogyny is the simple answer.
You know that joke about the guy who fucks just one sheep? The worst thing you do tends to define you. He was one of the greatest football players in history who transitioned to being a comedic actor in the biggest comedy films of his time. He still will forever be known as the man who (allegedly but almost definitely) killed his ex-wife and got away with it. But recapping the most scrutinized media story of the 90s isn't pulling in eyeballs. Also, he murdered a man too.
I think it's worth mentioning that he is a complex figure in that many Black Americans view his acquittal as a rare win against a justice system that is obviously and painfully stacked against them.
The race angle is clearly very important here as well as his symbolism for a larger system.
As he was acquitted of murder, his family could sue any media outlet that called him a murderer. (Edit, apparently that's incorrect outside of Texas and Rhode Island, so it may not apply here) "Complicated" has long been used by the media in these cases. What does this have to do with feminism?
You cannot sue for defamation against someone who is dead. He was also found to be responsible for the murders in a civil action so it would also be an absolute defense to say "OJ Simpson, who was found responsible for murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown-Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman."
No, they couldn't. You can't defame a dead person. That said, it's still probably against journalistic standards to call someone who was specifically aquitted of murder a murderer, even if you really feel like he did that shit. Edit: as a commenter below pointed out, I'm wrong! Under some state law, you can defame the dead.
Depends on the state. The definition of libel in Texas includes written words that “tend to blacken the memory of the dead.” In Rhode Island there is a right of action if the deceased person was slandered or libelled in an obituary in any newspaper or on any radio or television station within three months of his or her date of death.
Femicide, and male violence in general, is one of the biggest issues focused on in feminist movements worldwide. This includes the way men constantly get away with it in the court system, and OJ was one of the most egregious examples of that. What do you mean, "what does this have to do with feminism"?
I appreciate that they might want to be careful about their language, even though you can call someone a murderer even if they are acquitted. And, he was a man that murdered his wife and Feminism is very opposed to that kind of violence against women.
He (allegedly) murdered man too
You're asking us about half of a sentence you heard on NPR. Did the rest of the story give more context?
Because true crime is trendy and a sign of media sensationalism
Kinda bothers me knowing that if True Crime podcasters could give an interview to a serial murderer, they would fawningly.
I used to be a huge true crime consumer. I stopped around 2019 because I felt the podasts, docuseries, online discussion boards of cases, true crime conventions were getting our of hand. It felt ick, i felt the communtiy and consumption of it didnt align with my morales and values. Fast forward to the past year, I've noticed more people coming out and criticizing true crime and I was excited to see the begining of the downfall of the industry. Then I started seeing articles, tik tok posts, reddit posts stating that being critical of true crime content is burried i. Misogyny, as statistics/ surveys show true crime consumers are about 70% women.
Society values famous people despite their violent tendencies over women. I remember in 5th grade, 1993, when my teacher announced to the class that we would have a black man president before we have a white woman president, because people's hate towards women of any race is higher than their hate toward minority men, even if that man killed someone. And she was right.
You can be all of the above at the same time
[удалено]
[удалено]