7 Arguments People Should Stop Using to Defend Their Favorite Celebs

demetria lucas September 2, 2016

I spend a great deal of my day trying to figure out what to write about for my next story. Luckily for me, there’s rarely a day that passes without a hot-button issue being debated on one of my many social timelines.

Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve spent a great deal of time, perhaps more than usual, “exchanging ideas” about issues surrounding Gabrielle Douglas, Nate Parker, Chris Brown, Colin Kaepernick and more. I’ve noticed some repetitive counterarguments that often derail otherwise substantive conversations. I mean, that is the point, isn’t it?

I rounded up a few of the most frequent (and illogical) ways uncomfortable (or sadistic) commenters ruin productive discussions:

1. “Why now?”

This is the go-to line for Bill Cosby apologists and Parker defenders. They want to know why Cosby’s accusers came forward after decades of silence. Or why Parker’s rape trial is being discussed now.

And I just want to know, “Why not now?” You can’t be charged with certain alleged crimes after a certain amount of time, but we can’t discuss them either, even when the story is current in the news cycle? Even when a celebrity sits for interviews about his misdeeds? Should we all consult our calendars for an undefined expiration date before caring or commenting?

If an alleged victim doesn’t speak up immediately, then she should take it to her grave? Is that how this works? If a heinous crime is alleged to have taken place and there’s been no past accountability, is time a get-out-of-anyone-having-an-opinion free card?

Someone let me know. I’m confused.

2. “But white people allow it/don’t do …”

White people are not the gold standard. I repeat: White people are not the gold standard. That there are moviegoers who turn a blind eye to Woody Allen or Roman Polanski, or separate the man from his work of art, isn’t a valid reason for black people to look past the shenanigans or crimes allegedly or actually committed by another black person. We ain’t gotta “follow the leader.” We can think independently and hold black folk accountable, when necessary.

Why I Just Can't Support 'The Birth of A Nation'

demetria lucas August 26, 2016

In light of the fiasco surrounding Nate Parker, and thus, his upcoming film, The Birth of A Nation in which Parker is the star, producer, director, and co-writer, I’ve been asked several times if I'm going to see the film.

I've already seen it. And I typically don't go to the theatre to see movies I've already seen at a screening. So to announce, “I am not going to see it!” is sanctimonious and silly. It’s not like I’m sacrificing anything. But I would like to see it again. I want to sit with it and dissect it this time.

That's only part of the reason I haven't joined the unofficial boycott of The Birth of A Nation. The other part? Honestly? I’ve been waiting for Nate Parker to pull his sh—together and fix this mess. It’s been two weeks since the story of his 1999 rape charges surfaced in national publications, and he hasn’t done that yet. As such, I still have moral conflict about going to the theatre. Unless that's resolved, I'm sitting this one out. There are too many things worthy of a having a moral conflict over. A movie— I don’t care who it’s about or how good it is— isn’t one of them.

I want to explain my decision. Nate Parker did a horrible thing many, many years ago. And after he was in the middle of a media storm resulting from the interviews he did with Variety and Deadline addressing his 1999 rape accusations, he said as much.

“There are things more important than the law” Parker wrote in a Facebook statusupdate last week. “There is morality; no one who calls himself a man of faith should even be in that situation… I look back on that time as a teenager and can say without hesitation that I should have used more wisdom.”

My problem with Parker is less about his past that cannot be changed and more about his recent interviews with Variety and Deadline where he sounded like a man who had not properly reflected upon his moral shortcomings. Addressing his 1999 rape accusations, which most people didn’t know about, he came across so smug, so dismissive, so self-centered as if he’s learned nothing about rape, consent, accountability, the value of women he isn’t related to, or even how to make a decent apology. I read those interviews and I felt like that Tyra clip from ANTM where she was yelling at the girl, "I was rooting for you! We were all rooting for you! How dare you!"

Him: "I Learned Pretty Quickly That "No" Didn't Mean "Stop"

demetria lucas August 23, 2016

(As part of my ongoing self-torture,) I asked a bunch of guys to share their thoughts with me about "the Nate Parker fiasco". I didn't tell them what to talk about, just through out a general, "What do you think about the Nate Parker fiasco?" and let them answer. (You might have caught the first post in that series here. And my response to that here.)

This was the first conversation I tried out. I originally posted it on my Facebook page last week.

*TRIGGER WARNING*

II texted a close guy friend to get his POV about Nate Parker. He doesn't do social media, really. So he's out of the loop on a lot of the discussions. I asked him about it on Wednesday, and he needed a night to go catch up. He wasn't even sure who Nate Parker was.

He got back to me on Thursday. He had no commentary on Parker. But he did share a few stories with me.

In one, he detailed a time in college that he and two of his friends were in a hotel room drinking. His boy's GF was there and she brought a girlfriend. The guy and his girl go for a walk, leaving my friend and another guy alone with the girl.

The girl seemed more interested in the second guy than my friend, so my friend rolls over and tries to go to sleep. He stirs at some point, and hears the girl saying, "no, no, no" just above a whisper. He looks over and sees the guy is on top of her and she's not pushing him off, but she is saying "no" again. Guy isn't stopping. He continues and they have sex.

I asked my friend what he did. He said "nothing.'

Him: "You’re looking at it like a black girl..."

demetria lucas August 20, 2016

“You’re not gonna get it,” he says. “Cause you’re looking at it like a black girl. White girls are entirely different.”

“He” is a Black man in his thirties, who was a high school and college athlete of a popular sport. He’s also someone I've known for years but just recently started to have real conversations with. We don’t talk about personal ish often, but when we talk we never talk about surface sh--.

We also “speak the same language”, in that, everything is a story. We don’t tell you, as much as we’ll share a story about what happened and you can interpret what you will about it, good or bad.

In light of the Nate Parker fall out-- and the vastly different reactions by some women versus some men-- I asked several male friends for their take. This is one of many.

I asked this friend to weigh in on Thursday. He didn’t know who Parker was. Sometimes I forget that everyone doesn’t blog/freelance, live online and have a 100 Google alerts and “breaking news” alerts sent to their phone daily.

I break down the gist of the case for him. The quick version and just the overall facts that we all agree on. He says he will take a look at the articles and read the transcripts and get back to me with an informed answer, but if he had to say something now, it would be…

“Hold up,” he asks. “She was white or black?

Me: “Why does it matter?”

Him: “It matters.”

Me: “She was white.”

Him: “That’s what I thought. Without reading the transcript. I’m going with not rape.”

Me: “Ok. Why?”

And this is how we get to: “You’re not gonna get it. Cause you’re looking at it like a black girl. White girls are entirely different.”

I present his thoughts with no commentary:

We Need to Talk About Nate Parker's Creepy Interview About His Past Rape Charge, Ya'll....

demetria lucas August 15, 2016

The Birth of A Nation debuts in theatres Oct. 7, which is why Parker sat down with Variety for an exclusive interview about some troublesome sh—now, two months before the press run to promote the film really revs up. In 1999, as a student at Penn State University, Parker and his roommate Jean Celestin— the co-writers “The Birth of a Nation”— were charged with raping an unconscious 20-year-old female student while she visited their apartment.

Parker was exonerated, mostly because he'd had previous consensual sex with the woman in question, as if a "yes" once (or however many times) is a "yes" forever. Celestin was convicted of rape and served six months in jail. According to the Variety article, he appealed the verdict, and a second trial was thrown out because the victim didn’t want to testify again. Variety notes that the woman sued the university and received a $17,500 settlement.

The Variety interview is creepy as f--k. Parker refers to the rape accusation/trial as "a very painful moment in my life". He cites the obstacles he's had in his life: "I grew up very poor. My father passed away. There are so many things that happened." He adds, that he is "an advocate of justice. I'm an older man now. I've matured a lot." He also mentions his wife and five daughters. Twice. Finally he says, "I have since moved on."

Film still from Nate Parker's The Birth of A Nation"

Why America Needs More Films About Slavery

demetria lucas January 28, 2016

It seems for every person like me, who anticipates showing up to a Magic Johnson theater (because you know they’re showing it) on opening night, there’s another person asking, “Really? Another slave film?”