Snow White and the Seven Dwarves: Moral Dyslexia over Celebrities

[Nazaroo]

Firstly I would like to make clear why I chose these 8 men as examples of a publicly
obvious moral dilemma:

These men were NOT chosen because their crimes were equally evil or excessive.

These men were NOT chosen because they are the most notorious, infamous or famous.

They were NOT chosen because they were the richest in a larger set of criminals.

They were NOT chosen because they were the worst of the many accused and convicted.

They were NOT chosen to target homosexuality at all, which is another separate issue
from the one before us, namely child exploitation.

They were NOT chosen to emphasize or exaggerate Jewish involvement,
media manipulation in any plot, or any unusual conspiracies.

They were NOT chosen because they are male offenders.

They were NOT chosen because of any particular shared ideology or philosophy beyond
their involvement in the crimes under review.

They were NOT chosen for their support of political parties or organizations.
---------------------------------

They WERE chosen because they were plainly guilty of a specific genre of crime:

Some were convicted of the exploitation of minors.
Some confessed to it.
Some were exposed post-humously.
Some displayed their choices openly.
Some fled grand jury indictments.
Some pled guilty to acquire more favourable treatment.

These 8 men were simply chosen because their basic involvement and guilt
is not under serious dispute.

These 8 men were also chosen because although the crimes involved are normally
considered extremely serious and morally reprehensible, these men were or are
unlikely to ever serve time in a real prison under the same conditions as a poor man.

Happy and Sleepy were found guilty of exploiting underage children in USA criminal courts.

Grumpy and Bashful fled the USA to France to avoid Grand Jury Indictments.

Sneezy and Dopey openly acknowledged the exploitation of a minor and fled to England.

Snow White was exposed post-humously in the U.K. media by police reports,

and Doc needs no introduction.

--------------------------------------------------------

But their obvious guilt on this point is not the issue of this thread.

My question open for discussion is this:

Why do many people, including the media and Western leaders,
treat these men differently?

Happy and Sleepy, Snow White, and possibly Grumpy,
are openly condemned, in media and in most private opinions.

People are embarrassingly silent on Bashful's outrageous wrongs,
presumably because of his supposed hardship as a later victim of Charles Manson.
His own involvement in Satanic cults, including Manson are overlooked.

Meanwhile, Doc, Sneezy, and Dopey are given 'carde blanche' and their crimes
are regarded as mere 'misdemeanors' to be explained and excused as either
'artistic eccentricity' or 'hey that was the 70s. It was a different era.'

Even if those excuses held up, why in God's name would anyone
concede that special privilege to them NOW?

When people (because they're black?) like Bill Cosby are being dragged back to
criminal court to be (re)tried for historical misdeeds,
WHY are people ... including FEMINISTS making excuses for these other clowns?

It can't be claimed by any educated person in the 21st century that we don't know
or can't find out who these men really are and what they did.

Is "Doc" being forgiven because he gave money and space to support feminist issues?

Are Sneezy and Dopey being lauded for their 'great contribution to the arts',
even though they openly and unrepentantly committed the very same crimes?

---------------------------

I want to be clear here also that we are not talking about people who
are merely uninformed or missed some media coverage or misconstrued the
purpose, ideology and culpability for such crimes that these people had.

We arent' talking about people who never knew that David 'Bowie' Jones deflowered a 12 year old and then passed her on to Jimmy Page.

We aren't talking about people who never suspected that the Subway Salesman
was actually a multi-millionaire predator.

We won't hold accountable those who thought that Hugh Hefner was actually
a pioneer in the Feminist movement and not an exploiter himself.

I want to know how people who can stop reading right now and google the stories
of these men and confirm for themselves the guilt or innocence of each one shown,
can without moral contradiction or hypocrisy praise SOME of the men here,
and CONDEMN the others.

I want to know what you can and will say,
who can excuse some of the men on this list (and the real list is long),
to the thousands of POOR men who are languishing in hardcore prisons,
for similar or even much less serious crimes, some facing 10-15 years, others over 25 years to life as 'dangerous offenders'.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

And the attacks on Nazaroo begin...

 

[Nazaroo]

And the attacks on Nazaroo begin...

Exactly. But I still want to hear people like Rusha explain why they can still admire Bowie,
after reading something like this, from a confused feminist...:

http://theroguefeminist.tumblr.com/post/93435503998/lori-maddox-talks-about-the-night-she-lost-her Lori Maddox talks about the night she lost her virginity to David Bowie on the VH1 special hosted by Pamela Des Barres. Can be found on Youtube. ​ yeah i know i just watched it - i just linked to it in my last post and actually i don’t think that’s how you spell her name: it’s Lori Mattix (I was spelling it wrong too) oh, and head’s up everyone, it’s at 11:24 in the documentary where Lori Mattix talks about being with David Bowie - she doesn’t specify her age, but she says it was before she was with Jimmy Page and she was only 13 or 14 when she was with Jimmy Page at one point, Pamela Des Barres, the women who made the documentary, brings up Lori Mattix being young at 10:39 and that she may have gotten “overwhelmed” by the scene, but Lori gets very defensive and says she felt much older - it’s clear Lori Mattix doesn’t see what happened to her as rape or assault and as consensual, but she was only 13 or 14 when it happened, so obvious Bowie and Page are reprehensible for deciding to be with someone so young also tw for sexual assault/attempted rape: at one point in the video (21:50) a woman named Cassandra Peterson talks about a time Jimmy Page attempted to have sex with her against her will (read: rape) and she narrowly escaped, topless - the gross thing is Pamela Des Barres laughs it off as her “enticing” him - one thing is for sure: Jimmy Page is literal scum

Links had be removed because video become pornographic and not appropriate for TOL

 

[Granite]

You don't even think Bowie is dead.

 

[Nazaroo]

You don't even think Bowie is dead.

Thats right, but to be fair to Bill Cosby,
if Bowie is caught incognito in LA,
he should be formally charged and tried where the crime was committed.

For all we know, Snow White also is drinking pina colatas on Epstein's private island as we speak.

 

[Granite]

Thats right, but to be fair to Bill Cosby,
if he's caught incognito in LA,
he should be formally charged and tried where the crime was committed.

For all we know, Snow White also is drinking pina colatas on Epstein's private island as we speak.

There ya go, folks...that's what you're dealing with.:yawn:

 

[TracerBullet]

Firstly I would like to make clear why I chose these 8 men as examples of a publicly
obvious moral dilemma:

These men were NOT chosen because their crimes were equally evil or excessive.

These men were NOT chosen because they are the most notorious, infamous or famous.

They were NOT chosen because they were the richest in a larger set of criminals.

They were NOT chosen because they were the worst of the many accused and convicted.

They were NOT chosen to target homosexuality at all, which is another separate issue
from the one before us, namely child exploitation.

They were NOT chosen to emphasize or exaggerate Jewish involvement,
media manipulation in any plot, or any unusual conspiracies.

They were NOT chosen because they are male offenders.

They were NOT chosen because of any particular shared ideology or philosophy beyond
their involvement in the crimes under review.

They were NOT chosen for their support of political parties or organizations.
---------------------------------

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[Nazaroo]

When I read Miss Farrow's claims and self-described anguish over Woody Allen,
I have to ask how others feel when they read it too:

An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow By Dylan Farrow February 1, 2014 3:04 pm February 1, 2014 3:04 pm Frances SilverDylan Farrow (A note from Nicholas Kristof: In 1993, accusations that Woody Allen had abused his adoptive daughter, Dylan Farrow, filled the headlines, part of a sensational story about the celebrity split between Allen and his girlfriend, Mia Farrow. This is a case that has been written about endlessly, but this is the first time that Dylan Farrow herself has written about it in public. It’s important to note that Woody Allen was never prosecuted in this case and has consistently denied wrongdoing; he deserves the presumption of innocence. So why publish an account of an old case on my blog? Partly because the Golden Globe lifetime achievement award to Allen ignited a debate about the propriety of the award. Partly because the root issue here isn’t celebrity but sex abuse. And partly because countless people on all sides have written passionately about these events, but we haven’t fully heard from the young woman who was at the heart of them. I’ve written a column about this, but it’s time for the world to hear Dylan’s story in her own words.) What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains. For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like. I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn’t like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didn’t like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn’t keep the secret anymore. When I asked my mother if her dad did to her what Woody Allen did to me, I honestly did not know the answer. I also didn’t know the firestorm it would trigger. I didn’t know that my father would use his sexual relationship with my sister to cover up the abuse he inflicted on me. I didn’t know that he would accuse my mother of planting the abuse in my head and call her a liar for defending me. I didn’t know that I would be made to recount my story over and over again, to doctor after doctor, pushed to see if I’d admit I was lying as part of a legal battle I couldn’t possibly understand. At one point, my mother sat me down and told me that I wouldn’t be in trouble if I was lying – that I could take it all back. I couldn’t. It was all true. But sexual abuse claims against the powerful stall more easily. There were experts willing to attack my credibility. There were doctors willing to gaslight an abused child. After a custody hearing denied my father visitation rights, my mother declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of probable cause by the State of Connecticut – due to, in the words of the prosecutor, the fragility of the “child victim.” Woody Allen was never convicted of any crime. That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up. I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls. I was terrified of being touched by men. I developed an eating disorder. I began cutting myself. That torment was made worse by Hollywood. All but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye. Most found it easier to accept the ambiguity, to say, “who can say what happened,” to pretend that nothing was wrong. Actors praised him at awards shows. Networks put him on TV. Critics put him in magazines. Each time I saw my abuser’s face – on a poster, on a t-shirt, on television – I could only hide my panic until I found a place to be alone and fall apart. ... Woody Allen is a living testament to the way our society fails the survivors of sexual assault and abuse."

Do you think she just made this junk up, Granite?

 

[Granite]

When I read Miss Farrow's claims and self-describe anguish over Woody Allen,
I have to ask how others feel when they read it too:

An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow By Dylan Farrow February 1, 2014 3:04 pm February 1, 2014 3:04 pm Frances SilverDylan Farrow (A note from Nicholas Kristof: In 1993, accusations that Woody Allen had abused his adoptive daughter, Dylan Farrow, filled the headlines, part of a sensational story about the celebrity split between Allen and his girlfriend, Mia Farrow. This is a case that has been written about endlessly, but this is the first time that Dylan Farrow herself has written about it in public. It’s important to note that Woody Allen was never prosecuted in this case and has consistently denied wrongdoing; he deserves the presumption of innocence. So why publish an account of an old case on my blog? Partly because the Golden Globe lifetime achievement award to Allen ignited a debate about the propriety of the award. Partly because the root issue here isn’t celebrity but sex abuse. And partly because countless people on all sides have written passionately about these events, but we haven’t fully heard from the young woman who was at the heart of them. I’ve written a column about this, but it’s time for the world to hear Dylan’s story in her own words.) What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains. For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like. I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn’t like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didn’t like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn’t keep the secret anymore. When I asked my mother if her dad did to her what Woody Allen did to me, I honestly did not know the answer. I also didn’t know the firestorm it would trigger. I didn’t know that my father would use his sexual relationship with my sister to cover up the abuse he inflicted on me. I didn’t know that he would accuse my mother of planting the abuse in my head and call her a liar for defending me. I didn’t know that I would be made to recount my story over and over again, to doctor after doctor, pushed to see if I’d admit I was lying as part of a legal battle I couldn’t possibly understand. At one point, my mother sat me down and told me that I wouldn’t be in trouble if I was lying – that I could take it all back. I couldn’t. It was all true. But sexual abuse claims against the powerful stall more easily. There were experts willing to attack my credibility. There were doctors willing to gaslight an abused child. After a custody hearing denied my father visitation rights, my mother declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of probable cause by the State of Connecticut – due to, in the words of the prosecutor, the fragility of the “child victim.” Woody Allen was never convicted of any crime. That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up. I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls. I was terrified of being touched by men. I developed an eating disorder. I began cutting myself. That torment was made worse by Hollywood. All but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye. Most found it easier to accept the ambiguity, to say, “who can say what happened,” to pretend that nothing was wrong. Actors praised him at awards shows. Networks put him on TV. Critics put him in magazines. Each time I saw my abuser’s face – on a poster, on a t-shirt, on television – I could only hide my panic until I found a place to be alone and fall apart. ... Woody Allen is a living testament to the way our society fails the survivors of sexual assault and abuse."

Do you think she just made this junk up, Granite?

What I think is that you're a deeply sick man.

 

[Nazaroo]

Some might think even Jarred merely "pleaded" 'guilty' to avoid a harsh treatment
in the courts.

But why would anyone openly not only express remorse ahead of conviction,
but also pay out 1.4 MILLION DOLLARS to the victims, aged 11-17?

Is that the action of an innocent man?

If Jarred thinks he's guilty, who are we to debate that?

But also consider that most humane and reasonable people don't think that
this kind of exploitation is a mere joke or misdemeanour.
These children really felt traumatized and abused.
Do you think they were, or are they exaggerating perhaps?

Former Subway Spokesman Jared Fogle Has Paid $1.1 Million of $1.4 Million Restitution to Victims 1.8kSHARES 0 Comments subscribe now Jared Fogle leaves an Indianapolis courthouse in August Michael Conroy/AP By Hilary Shenfeld @HilaryShen 10/26/2015 AT 06:20 PM EDT Former Subway spokesman Jared Fogle has paid a total of $1.1 million to 11 of his 14 victims in advance of his sentencing next month on federal charges of child pornography and having sex with minors. The 11 victims each received $100,000, and the three remaining victims are each due to get the same amount. In total, Fogle is expected to pay $1.4 million before his November 19th court date, at which he has agreed to plead guilty to charges against him, Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven DeBrota tells PEOPLE. Fogle's 14 victims ranged in age from 10 to 17 when the crimes occurred, and four are now adults, DeBrota says. The money is intended to go toward victims' counseling, support, medical treatment and other elements of their ongoing recovery. "We have some victims here who are in acute need of help," DeBrota says. "Recovering from human trafficking can be extremely difficult." The amount of the restitution requested by prosecutors was determined by a variety of factors, including Fogle's ability to pay, DeBrota says. Fogle earned money by starring in numerous Subway ads after losing 235 pounds, in part, by hewing to a diet that included Subway sandwiches. "None of these people are experiencing a windfall, and will be dealing with the after effects of this for the rest of their lives," DeBrota says.

 

[Nazaroo]

Maybe Roman Polanski's case will somehow look different.

That way we can explain why Polanski is given honour and VIP treatment, instead of prison:

Sexual abuse case On March 10, 1977, Polanski, then aged 43, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Jane Gailey[10] (now Samantha Geimer).[11] A grand jury charged Polanski with five charges: rape by use of drugs perversion sodomy lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen furnishing a controlled substance to a minor[9] This ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the a different charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[12] According to Geimer's testimony to the grand jury, Polanski had asked Geimer's mother (a television actress and model) if he could photograph the girl as part of his work for the French edition of Vogue,[13] which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. Geimer testified that she felt uncomfortable during the first session, in which she posed topless at Polanski's request, and initially did not wish to take part in a second, but nevertheless agreed to another shoot. This took place on 10 March 1977, at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles. At the time the crime was committed, Nicholson was on a ski trip in Colorado, and his live-in girlfriend Anjelica Huston who was there, left, but later returned while Polanski and Geimer were there. Geimer was quoted in a later article as saying that Huston became suspicious of what was going on behind the closed bedroom door and began banging on it, but left when Polanski insisted they were finishing up the photo shoot.[14] "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there."[15] In a 2003 interview, she recalled that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and described how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this".[16] Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,[17] and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her,[18][19] each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.[12][20][21][22] Although Geimer has insisted that the sex was non-consensual, Polanski has disputed this.[23][24] Under California law, sexual relations with anyone under the age of 14 is statutory rape.[25] Describing the event in his autobiography, Polanski stated that he did not drug Geimer, that she "wasn't unresponsive", and that she did not respond negatively when he inquired as to whether or not she was enjoying what he was doing.[26] The 28-page probation report submitted to the court by Kenneth Fare (signed by deputy Irwin Gold) concluded by saying that there was evidence "that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing." The officers quoted two psychiatrists' denial of Roman being a pedophile or sexual deviate.[27] Claiming to protect Geimer from a trial, her attorney arranged a plea bargain.[4] Polanski accepted, and, under the terms of the agreement, the five initial charges were dismissed. Instead, Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[28]

I mean if we accept Roman Polanski's version of events,
its ok to have sex with a 13 yr old, give her drugs and sodomize her,
as long as she is apparently willing.

Does that sound qualitatively different than the crimes of the other six dwarves?

 

[musterion]

It's really simple, and the simplest explanations are often correct. Some of these men are/were more loved by the Left than others, or are/were more useful to global agendas than others. Whatever the case, if someone is willing to overlook an offense committed by one party while condemning the exact same offense committed by another party, the person doing the condemning is a hypocrite.

And remember, these are just some of the ones we know about.

 

[Nazaroo]

It's really simple, and the simplest explanations are often correct.
Some of these men are/were more loved by the Left than others,
or are/were more useful to global agendas than others.

Whatever the case, if someone is willing to overlook an offense
committed by one party while condemning the exact same offense
committed by another party, the person doing the condemning is a hypocrite.

And remember, these are just some of the ones we know about.

I agree with you.

But we also must allow for those confused or uninformed people floating in the middle.

These people have heard nothing, or perhaps only second-hand rumours about people.

And Christians are naturally repelled by gossip and murmurs and unsubstantiated charges or accusations.

The problem is, what do we do when we are actually confronted with substantial evidence,
that goes beyond circumstantial or simply one person's claim.

In some of the above cases at least, there is not only evidence beyond rumour,
or even the testimony of one person. We also have the admissions of the accused,
or other heavily corroborating evidence. So its not just rumours.

The underage 'groupies' who were 'guided' and managed by Hollywood sleazeballs,
and who were brought to wealthy 'pop stars' are a good example of the fact that
many others were aware of what was going on and witnessed the main narratives.

The bottom line is that underage girls were trafficked to rich sleazeballs,
who were willing to break the law and buy off objectors.

Remember that in many cases here at least, the accused are not disputing major elements
of the basic facts. They confess to their actions and even sometimes express remorse.

A large part of their defence is that what they were doing wasn't really wrong,
because these girls under 14 allegedly 'consented'.

They would argue in some cases that 'some 12 and 13 yr olds are mature',
and that its not 'rape', not even 'statutory rape' if a 12 yr old gives consent.

Some people, including feminists, have even defended these people because
they also believe that a 12 or 13 yr old girl has the right and power to give consent.

What do you say about that?

 

[Rusha]

Exactly. But I still want to hear people like Rusha explain why they can still admire Bowie,
after reading something like this, from a confused feminist...

Well, I hadn't commented because this is the first time I have ever read anything about this. To make it clear, I opened a thread regarding Bowie for people who, like myself, enjoyed his music and talent.

IF there is validity to what is being stated, then like Roman Polanski, he would be scum.

Without other info (such as criminal allegations), I, like everyone else, can only judge celebrities by what I hear and view on the radio and screen.

I think you should know by now, Naz, that I would never knowingly condone or defend a rapist or child molester. At one time, I use to be a fan of both Michael Jackson and Bill Cosby. That changed due to all of the allegations against them.

 

[Nazaroo]

Well, I hadn't commented because this is the first time I have ever read anything about this. To make it clear, I opened a thread regarding Bowie for people who, like myself, enjoyed his music and talent.

IF there is validity to what is being stated, then like Roman Polanski, he would be scum.

Without other info (such as criminal allegations), I, like everyone else, can only judge celebrities by what I hear and view on the radio and screen.

Thank you for your honesty.

I had hoped I had identified you as one of the many ordinary people
who have been deceived by these people, due to their power and influence.

 

[Rusha]

Thank you for your honesty.

I had hoped I had identified you as one of the many ordinary people
who have been deceived by these people, due to their power and influence.

I change my view on people and celebrities based on what I see and read about them IF the info is legitimate.

I *use* to actually admire Trump prior to his treatment of his first wife. Same thing with OJ Simpson. Anything that has to do with child or domestic physical or sexual abuse influences how I view people and celebrities.

 

[Nazaroo]

I change my view on people and celebrities based on what I see and read about them IF the info is legitimate.
...
Anything that has to do with child or domestic physical or sexual abuse influences how I view people and celebrities.

Admirable: child and spousal abuse is wrong, a sin, and a crime.

And that includes abuse of men by women. The focus should be on the crime,
not the gender of the accused or alleged victims.

 

[Rusha]

Admirable: child and spousal abuse is wrong, a sin, and a crime.

And that includes abuse of men by women. The focus should be on the crime,
not the gender of the accused or alleged victims.

Absolutely correct. Someone's gender should never be the deciding factor as to whether or not someone is guilty or innocent of committing a crime.

 

[gcthomas]

I change my view on people and celebrities based on what I see and read about them IF the info is legitimate.

But the art is not synonymous with the artist. It is possible to appreciate genius in someone's art in any field without tacitly supporting the darker sides of their personalities.

I enjoy reading books and listening to music written by people whom I would really not like to spend time with.

 

[Rusha]

But the art is not synonymous with the artist. It is possible to appreciate genius in someone's art in any field without tacitly supporting the darker sides of their personalities.

I enjoy reading books and listening to music written by people whom I would really not like to spend time with.

Admittedly, it's hard to turn off the admiration of something (such as the performances of a celebrity) that you have enjoyed previously once you find out what the person stands for.

To say I was disappointed to read the recent allegations against Bill Cosby would be an understatement.