This topic has been locked by a moderator.
I already offered a couple reasons why it might affect someone. You can criticize me for “condescension”
I criticized you for the following:
You have a really limited understanding of human emotions and experiences beyond your own life if you think that’s the case.
Which was condescending. You assume quite a lot about me for hardly knowing me.
Thanks for the psychology, professor…
I don’t see how I’m wrong either.
You literally that you can’t comprehend why anyone would cry in that situation. And yet, presumably, they did, so obviously you’ve got a problem trying to understand how some people’s emotions work.
Just because “that’s the way it is” doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be.
What do you expect me to do with these people I don’t get along with? Yell at them until they go away? See, the world has a lot of people with different views in life, and you have to learn to get along with them. If understanding that means I have a problem looking outside of myself… well, sorry I guess.
You’re putting a lot of words into my mouth that weren’t there. You said you’ve been repulsed and offended by coworkers. All I said was you don’t have to just throw your arms up in the air and go “oh well, that’s just the way it is!” The solution to each problem is dependent on the problem. Sucking it up is not the best or only solution in every case. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about that.
i think comedians spent so much time of their lives telling jokes and obviously dealing with comedy that most if not all of the regular jokes aren’t really funny to them anymore, and i think that that’s why they embrace the ‘absurd’ and shocking jokes with minorities and all of that. i don’t think it’s fucked up because it means that if they’re making the joke it means that they too think it’s absurd and shocking.
There’s a way to tell a joke about shocking subject matter in either good or bad nature. (Saying people have “downs syndrome” as an insult is obviously just in poor taste, and honestly not even a joke.)
i highly doubt comedians think of ‘down syndrome’ as an actual insult. it’s funny to some because assholes and stupid people would use it as an insult. so the comedian is indirectly making fun of those people.
do you think that what happened to james gunn, for example, was fair?
regarding this specific discussion - dom, i don’t think mfm and handman are defending that the ‘metoo’ movement should end, just that the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ thing is terrible if the accused person is in fact proven innocent. i think that was norm’s point. i’m pretty sure everyone who’s not a sexual predator agrees that it’s great that all these rapists are getting what they deserve. the problem here is with the ones that don’t deserve.
You’re talking about a legal matter - “guilty until proven innocent,” but this merely the court of public opinion. The reason why comments like Norm’s are misguided (at best) is they ignore the fact that most of these people suffer quite minimally in the long run (the whole thing about “career being over” is largely a myth), so all the comments really serve to do is to disparage those who are the victims (who rarely if ever get any actual justice) and dissuade them from speaking out, for fear that they will be either ignored or outright attached because they don’t have enough “evidence.”
i agree with you that this attitude is making victims more encouraged to speak out because it means that something is going to happen, but i think it gives them too much power. at this point anyone could claim anything about anyone and we’d be throwing stones at the accused even if whatever he’s being accused of is bullshit. that’s a problem. i don’t know a better way to handle these matters but i don’t think what’s happening is ideal either. a lot of people suck and a lot of people lie, so it’s always a possibility. i’m glad it’s rarely the case, but who knows where it’ll go next.
You literally that you can’t comprehend why anyone would cry in that situation. And yet, presumably, they did, so obviously you’ve got a problem trying to understand how some people’s emotions work.
People cry for a lot of reasons. I’m sure you wouldn’t understand it in some cases either. This does not mean we have a problem. However, considering Fallon’s show, and the circumstances, I am going to assume (a bad word, I know) they are of the generation that cries over everything. I find this more plausible than a producer suffering from some form of PTSD and Norm worship.
I already offered a couple reasons why it might affect someone. You can criticize me for “condescension”
I criticized you for the following:
You have a really limited understanding of human emotions and experiences beyond your own life if you think that’s the case.
Which was condescending. You assume quite a lot about me for hardly knowing me.
Weird to clarify when that’s exactly what I was talking about.
You claim anyone who cries at the comments are irrational and infantilized. You know literally nothing about these people other than that they cried at the comments. You don’t know why they cried, you don’t know what their relationship with Norm is like, you don’t know what their relationship with the Me Too movement is like. You don’t know if they have active tear ducts which leads to them crying easily, you don’t know if they’re tired or depressed or if something else was going on already and this just pushed them over the edge.
I’m not saying as a fact that them crying was not-silly and completely justified. I don’t know them or why they cried. I know I would never cry in that situation. But I’m not them, and I’m aware that there are reasons that could lead to them doing so. The fact that you cannot comprehend any possible scenario in which them crying is anything but silly and infantile, just goes to show me that you have an empathy problem.
Now, as to why you’re getting so worked up about such a silly thing, I’ll take a step back and apologize for calling you irrational. I don’t know what it is about this situation that’s affecting you so deeply and making you emotional, so it’s unfair for me to call you such. But that doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with you.
i think comedians spent so much time of their lives telling jokes and obviously dealing with comedy that most if not all of the regular jokes aren’t really funny to them anymore, and i think that that’s why they embrace the ‘absurd’ and shocking jokes with minorities and all of that. i don’t think it’s fucked up because it means that if they’re making the joke it means that they too think it’s absurd and shocking.
There’s a way to tell a joke about shocking subject matter in either good or bad nature. (Saying people have “downs syndrome” as an insult is obviously just in poor taste, and honestly not even a joke.)
i highly doubt comedians think of ‘down syndrome’ as an actual insult. it’s funny to some because assholes and stupid people would use it as an insult. so the comedian is indirectly making fun of those people.
It depends on the context of the joke. In this scenario, where the context is seemingly a sincere apology, it definitely does not come across as anything but rude and uncaring.
do you think that what happened to james gunn, for example, was fair?
The situations are simply not analogous. I wouldn’t have had a problem with the Tonight Show cancelling a James Gunn appearance the day after those jokes resurfaced.
regarding this specific discussion - dom, i don’t think mfm and handman are defending that the ‘metoo’ movement should end, just that the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ thing is terrible if the accused person is in fact proven innocent. i think that was norm’s point. i’m pretty sure everyone who’s not a sexual predator agrees that it’s great that all these rapists are getting what they deserve. the problem here is with the ones that don’t deserve.
You’re talking about a legal matter - “guilty until proven innocent,” but this merely the court of public opinion. The reason why comments like Norm’s are misguided (at best) is they ignore the fact that most of these people suffer quite minimally in the long run (the whole thing about “career being over” is largely a myth), so all the comments really serve to do is to disparage those who are the victims (who rarely if ever get any actual justice) and dissuade them from speaking out, for fear that they will be either ignored or outright attached because they don’t have enough “evidence.”
i agree with you that this attitude is making victims more encouraged to speak out because it means that something is going to happen, but i think it gives them too much power. at this point anyone could claim anything about anyone and we’d be throwing stones at the accused even if whatever he’s being accused of is bullshit. that’s a problem. i don’t know a better way to handle these matters but i don’t think what’s happening is ideal either. a lot of people suck and a lot of people lie, so it’s always a possibility. i’m glad it’s rarely the case, but who knows where it’ll go next.
Victims should be allowed to speak out period. There shouldn’t be any “but”s after that.
I’m not emotional. Again you assume a lot about me for someone who doesn’t like to do that.
You literally that you can’t comprehend why anyone would cry in that situation. And yet, presumably, they did, so obviously you’ve got a problem trying to understand how some people’s emotions work.
People cry for a lot of reasons. I’m sure you wouldn’t understand it in some cases either. This does not mean we have a problem. However, considering Fallon’s show, and the circumstances, I am going to assume (a bad word, I know) they are of the generation that cries over everything. I find this more plausible than a producer suffering from some form of PTSD and Norm worship.
So basically “darn pussy kids need to man up and stop crying so much.” Okay cool.
Victims should be allowed to speak out period.
I just had an idea. There should be some sort of professional group that investigates these things rather than just putting it out on social media for the mob.
You literally that you can’t comprehend why anyone would cry in that situation. And yet, presumably, they did, so obviously you’ve got a problem trying to understand how some people’s emotions work.
People cry for a lot of reasons. I’m sure you wouldn’t understand it in some cases either. This does not mean we have a problem. However, considering Fallon’s show, and the circumstances, I am going to assume (a bad word, I know) they are of the generation that cries over everything. I find this more plausible than a producer suffering from some form of PTSD and Norm worship.
So basically “darn pussy kids need to man up and stop crying so much.” Okay cool.
Yep. I used to cry a lot when I was really young. Did me no favors.
I’m not emotional. Again you assume a lot about me for someone who doesn’t like to do that.
You said you were pissed off. You seem to be quite worked up and angry in your posts. That’s beside the point of course because whether or not you’re being emotional shouldn’t matter, as I admitted it was wrong to call you irrational. I don’t know why you’re posting that way.
I said that four hours ago. I can’t stay angry at something like that for that long. I’m not sure how you want me to post…
Victims should be allowed to speak out period.
I just had an idea. There should be some sort of professional group that investigates these things rather than just putting it out on social media for the mob.
And sometimes they do. The problem is though is so many of these cases nothing happens, because there’s no evidence and nothing that can be proven besides someone’s word against someone else’s.
That doesn’t automatically mean they’re lying though, that’s just the nature of these crimes. And that’s not an accident. Many of these abusers continued because they knew there was nothing their victims could do about it. That’s why speaking publicly about is so important and why the Me Too movement shouldn’t be disregarded. In some cases this is all they can do.
You literally that you can’t comprehend why anyone would cry in that situation. And yet, presumably, they did, so obviously you’ve got a problem trying to understand how some people’s emotions work.
People cry for a lot of reasons. I’m sure you wouldn’t understand it in some cases either. This does not mean we have a problem. However, considering Fallon’s show, and the circumstances, I am going to assume (a bad word, I know) they are of the generation that cries over everything. I find this more plausible than a producer suffering from some form of PTSD and Norm worship.
So basically “darn pussy kids need to man up and stop crying so much.” Okay cool.
Yep. I used to cry a lot when I was really young. Did me no favors.
Has suppressing your emotions helped you succeed as a happy and fulfilled adult?
Tricky stuff.
Has suppressing your emotions helped you succeed as a happy and fulfilled adult?
Thanks. For someone who finds it odd I post in an angry manner, supposedly, you sure do throw a lot of backhanded insults. I’m not going to say I don’t either, but… well, let’s call it even.
And yes, I’m doing much better now than I was then.
I said that four hours ago. I can’t stay angry at something like that for that long. I’m not sure how you want me to post…
Which is when I called you irrational? Damn man, I can’t even apologize without you taking issue with it?
I said that four hours ago. I can’t stay angry at something like that for that long. I’m not sure how you want me to post…
Which is when I called you irrational? Damn man, I can’t even apologize without you taking issue with it?
I’m not taking issue with the apology. You said I still seemed to be angry over the same thing, and I said I wasn’t. I have no idea what you mean here.
I said that four hours ago. I can’t stay angry at something like that for that long. I’m not sure how you want me to post…
Which is when I called you irrational? Damn man, I can’t even apologize without you taking issue with it?
I’m not taking issue with the apology. You said I still seemed to be angry over the same thing, and I said I wasn’t. I have no idea what you mean here.
You were angry, I called you irrational. Later I apologized for calling you that, saying I didn’t know why you were angry. Whether or not you still are angry seems completely irrelevant to the point I was making - that calling you irrational was unfair of me.
Does that clear it up?
Norm MacDonald shouldn’t have said what he said. I really enjoy the old chunk of coal’s comedy, but this isn’t one of his greatest hits.
Norm however shouldn’t suddenly be shunned by the world for this. Sarcasm is hard to convey in print, and he could have said this with his most sarcastic voice possible. It’s very likely he played this as a joke.
There aren’t enough funny people in this world to start throwing them aside over something like that.
That’s not true at all.
What? Are you kidding? Have you spoken to people before? Almost none of them are funny or talented in any way.
There are nearly 8 billion people in the world. Just because most of them are not talented or funny doesn’t mean we are at a loss for talented and funny people. There’s plenty.
Hard disagree there.
I don’t see how the accusations against Ansari or Hardwick were fraudulent. I don’t understand why people are so desperate to think accusers are lying, when putting yourself out there in that way is just putting a target on your back. There’s not much perceivable benefit.
I don’t get the benefit either, but that doesn’t mean that those accusations weren’t obviously bullshit. The Ansari ones seemed to be just an airing of a bad, uncomfortable date.
How does that make it fraudulent?
It was an attempt to smear him over something that had no business being in the public sphere. Fraudulent may be the wrong word. Unethical? Exploitative? Take your pick.
I think it’s a story worth having a conversation about, as it is unbecoming behavior yet quite common. I don’t know if Ansari should have been named as it lumps him into a different group of people, where people might unfairly judge without having any concept of what happened (just having heard his name raised). I wouldn’t call it unethical or exploitative, however.
It’s unethical and exploitative for the reason you just mentioned. It took advantage of the MeToo movement in order to lump someone in with a much, much worse group of people.
Hardwick’s accusations were lies. They were obviously made up by a really unstable person and the claims were inconsistent with reality. I don’t get this notion that there aren’t liars out there. That really confuses me; of course there are. That’s why we have real trials.
I don’t see how they were “obviously made up.”
It seemed pretty obvious to me and most other people that actually looked at it objectively.
I did though? I had never heard of Dykstra and was actually a fan of Hardwick’s. I’ve yet to see anything that doesn’t fit the story as described by her.
There’s no corroborating evidence, in fact, all other testimony contradicts her claims. Plus, all of her known behavior during their relationship implies her as an “abusive” partner. There’s reason to believe that she resented him ending the relationship. She’s mentally ill and has a long history of lying. There is no reason to believe that she’s telling the truth, and there’s compelling evidence to believe that she’s lying. I don’t get why that’s such an unbelievable possibility.
Norm Macdonald Tonight Show Appearance Cancelled After #MeToo Comments
This really pisses me off. Not only are his comments reasonable, they have nothing to do with what anyone is getting upset at. And of course, the best way to traverse a controversy is to deny the man in the middle of it a voice.
Even moreso, his comments had made senior producers of the show cry. I am not sure how we as a society can continue if we cry over a differing viewpoint. Everyone upset at him has taken his comments out of context and misconstrued them. The man is a comedian ffs.
The internet freaking sucks. This groupthink mentality is killing us.
How the hell were his comments reasonable?
It’s insane how people will always defend the dipshit over the people who are actually hurt.
I don’t know. Did you actually read them? He’s saying we don’t give people due process or anything before taking away their livelihood. He mentions Chris Hardwick, a guy who did actually lose his job before he could prove his ex-girlfriend who had accused him of abuse was crazy.
Yes I did. He said that those losing their jobs (due to their own behavior) have it worse off than those actually being raped and harassed.
He was talking about Roseanne and Louis CK. No one was raped or even terribly harassed by them.
He gave them as examples. But it was in regard to talking about the movement in general.
Those examples imply that he was talking about the ones that weren’t that bad, and not talking about people like Spacey or Cosby or Weinstein, who are the real dangerous people.
Either way, he’s discounting the experiences of those abused. I’d like to believe he was telling the truth in his apology when he said he didn’t mean it that way. But that’s still how it came across.
Okay. That’s his problem. I don’t see the need to boot him off shows for that. That’s my point. There’s plenty of people that I hate showing up on TV and in movies. I deal with it.
It was one show appearance.
This is what Norm said:
So Jimmy said, ‘Come back whenever you want, but I think it will hurt the show tonight.’
I still think it’s a bad way to handle things.
Society has been infantilized to the point where any real challenge cannot even be comprehended. I am upset that I have to share this earth with them, even moreso that I am young, that the reasonable people will die off before I do.
The irony is that you’re being just as emotional and irrational as you claim they are.
I’m not crying or demanding someone lose their job for upsetting me.
How dare someone cry? Don’t you think that maybe some of those people might consider Norm a hero, and the fact that he is disparaging something that is important to them could make them quite emotional. What if they had suffered sexual abuse? Don’t you think that could make their feelings especially strong on the matter?
You’re really reaching, aren’t you? No one should be crying over this. Honestly, I don’t even believe that anyone actually cares about this enough to cry about it, especially not soulless producers who’s sheer existence is to squeeze every dime they can out of any and everything. This is a manufactured controversy. Everyone on earth will forget about it two days from now.
It’s not reaching, it’s speculating how someone else might have that sort of reaction. Whereas some people take their own personal feelings as the only reasonable ones to have in any given situation, I understand that not everyone is like me and has had my life. (it’s called empathy)
Yeah, I don’t need your lesson on empathy.
Sorry if I though the concept was foreign to you, don’t know what made me think that.
I’m pretty conscious of other people’s perspectives. I disregard them a lot, but I am conscious of them. You disregard people who irritate you. You’ve done it to me quite a bit, actually. And that’s fine! I expect nothing less. One of the reasons that I don’t give a shit about how most people feel is because no one gives a shit about how I feel. It’s a fair trade.
I’m not sure what you mean by me “disregarding.” I disagree a lot. But I don’t disregard someone else’s experiences. I don’t know why you’re so nihilistic but I’m sure there’s a reason. Doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with you.
You were pretty quick to throw aside my take on 13 Reasons Why a while back, and there’ve been other times too. It’s okay, we all do it.
I just don’t understand being angry at someone for crying. Again, you can disagree with them, sure. But being mad at them for crying when you literally don’t know anything about them? And when the fact that they’re crying is being told to you third hand?
I’m not angry. I just don’t think that it’s happened.
I was talking about the producers, who I bet my life aren’t crying over sexual assault. I’m sure some person with PTSD that loves Norm Macdonald and hates what he said would cry, I guess, but that’s not who I was talking about and you know it.
That’s just crazy. You don’t know who those producers are, plain and simple. The fact that you think it’s impossible for a producer to be a human being or to have PTSD and love Norm Macdonald is absolutely insane.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that these producers were in tears over this comment. I find that hard to believe. Just like if I told you that I was in tears over Warbler’s insults, you’d find that extremely hard to believe. Not literally impossible, but so implausible that it probably didn’t happen. I don’t get why you’re acting as though it’s totally reasonable to think that multiple big-shot producers on the Tonight Show are unstable that they broke down into tears and started crying over this statement. Do you really think that that happened? Really? If someone held a gun to your head and said, “Do you really think that those producers started crying over that statement? Answer yes or no!” would you even have to think twice about your answer?
I know you well enough to know that an insult from warb wouldn’t provoke that reaction. But these people who were supposedly crying, I know nothing about them. It’s honestly ridiculous to me that we’re even talking about this.
Right! And I know that anyone strong and cutthroat enough to climb the corporate ladder and become a producer for the biggest late night talk show on American TV isn’t breaking down in tears over Norm Macdonald. Is it possible that a producer could cry over this? Yes. Is it likely? No.
I’m still not convinced that anyone actually cried over this, though. I know it’s possible but I find it hard to believe.
I don’t know if it’s true either. I don’t know why someone should care so much whether someone else cries or not.
I’m certainly not losing sleep over it. I’m talking about it now because I have nothing else to do at the moment. I certainly am not going to be spending this time working. You really like to assume that whenever someone brings something up or gets annoyed at something that they’re fixated on it. It’s obnoxious.
Oh I know you don’t care. I was talking about Handman.
I don’t see how that invalidates anything. Imagine how annoying it would be if every time you complained about something, someone was there to point out how you shouldn’t actually care. Have a little empathy.
The Person in Question
Hardwick’s accusations were lies. They were obviously made up by a really unstable person and the claims were inconsistent with reality. I don’t get this notion that there aren’t liars out there. That really confuses me; of course there are. That’s why we have real trials.
I don’t see how they were “obviously made up.”
It seemed pretty obvious to me and most other people that actually looked at it objectively.
I did though? I had never heard of Dykstra and was actually a fan of Hardwick’s. I’ve yet to see anything that doesn’t fit the story as described by her.
There’s no corroborating evidence, in fact, all other testimony contradicts her claims. Plus, all of her known behavior during their relationship implies her as an “abusive” partner. There’s reason to believe that she resented him ending the relationship. She’s mentally ill and has a long history of lying. There is no reason to believe that she’s telling the truth, and there’s compelling evidence to believe that she’s lying. I don’t get why that’s such an unbelievable possibility.
Just because no evidence has been presented doesn’t mean none exists. As for the rest I’d be interested to see citations. But I will say the story she published would seem to suggest that her apparent “mental illness” was either caused by or not helped by the relationship. For me, hearing Hardwick’s coworkers come out and say “that sounds about right” seems pretty damning, but I don’t know everything. Just seems insane to me to say “she’s obviously lying.” Never said it was an impossibility that she is but just doesn’t seem likely to me.
Society has been infantilized to the point where any real challenge cannot even be comprehended. I am upset that I have to share this earth with them, even moreso that I am young, that the reasonable people will die off before I do.
The irony is that you’re being just as emotional and irrational as you claim they are.
I’m not crying or demanding someone lose their job for upsetting me.
How dare someone cry? Don’t you think that maybe some of those people might consider Norm a hero, and the fact that he is disparaging something that is important to them could make them quite emotional. What if they had suffered sexual abuse? Don’t you think that could make their feelings especially strong on the matter?
You’re really reaching, aren’t you? No one should be crying over this. Honestly, I don’t even believe that anyone actually cares about this enough to cry about it, especially not soulless producers who’s sheer existence is to squeeze every dime they can out of any and everything. This is a manufactured controversy. Everyone on earth will forget about it two days from now.
It’s not reaching, it’s speculating how someone else might have that sort of reaction. Whereas some people take their own personal feelings as the only reasonable ones to have in any given situation, I understand that not everyone is like me and has had my life. (it’s called empathy)
Yeah, I don’t need your lesson on empathy.
Sorry if I though the concept was foreign to you, don’t know what made me think that.
I’m pretty conscious of other people’s perspectives. I disregard them a lot, but I am conscious of them. You disregard people who irritate you. You’ve done it to me quite a bit, actually. And that’s fine! I expect nothing less. One of the reasons that I don’t give a shit about how most people feel is because no one gives a shit about how I feel. It’s a fair trade.
I’m not sure what you mean by me “disregarding.” I disagree a lot. But I don’t disregard someone else’s experiences. I don’t know why you’re so nihilistic but I’m sure there’s a reason. Doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with you.
You were pretty quick to throw aside my take on 13 Reasons Why a while back, and there’ve been other times too. It’s okay, we all do it.
Well it was unfair of me to discredit your perspective without considering that it might be a factor, but in fairness that’s exactly what you were doing with your take, basically saying anyone who didn’t see things the same way you did was wrong.
I was talking about the producers, who I bet my life aren’t crying over sexual assault. I’m sure some person with PTSD that loves Norm Macdonald and hates what he said would cry, I guess, but that’s not who I was talking about and you know it.
That’s just crazy. You don’t know who those producers are, plain and simple. The fact that you think it’s impossible for a producer to be a human being or to have PTSD and love Norm Macdonald is absolutely insane.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that these producers were in tears over this comment. I find that hard to believe. Just like if I told you that I was in tears over Warbler’s insults, you’d find that extremely hard to believe. Not literally impossible, but so implausible that it probably didn’t happen. I don’t get why you’re acting as though it’s totally reasonable to think that multiple big-shot producers on the Tonight Show are unstable that they broke down into tears and started crying over this statement. Do you really think that that happened? Really? If someone held a gun to your head and said, “Do you really think that those producers started crying over that statement? Answer yes or no!” would you even have to think twice about your answer?
I know you well enough to know that an insult from warb wouldn’t provoke that reaction. But these people who were supposedly crying, I know nothing about them. It’s honestly ridiculous to me that we’re even talking about this.
Right! And I know that anyone strong and cutthroat enough to climb the corporate ladder and become a producer for the biggest late night talk show on American TV isn’t breaking down in tears over Norm Macdonald. Is it possible that a producer could cry over this? Yes. Is it likely? No.
There are a lot of ways one can be “strong,” and a lot of ways to become a producer without being “cutthroat.”
I’m still not convinced that anyone actually cried over this, though. I know it’s possible but I find it hard to believe.
I don’t know if it’s true either. I don’t know why someone should care so much whether someone else cries or not.
I’m certainly not losing sleep over it. I’m talking about it now because I have nothing else to do at the moment. I certainly am not going to be spending this time working. You really like to assume that whenever someone brings something up or gets annoyed at something that they’re fixated on it. It’s obnoxious.
Oh I know you don’t care. I was talking about Handman.
I don’t see how that invalidates anything. Imagine how annoying it would be if every time you complained about something, someone was there to point out how you shouldn’t actually care. Have a little empathy.
I don’t know where invalidating comes into play, but it does seem strange to me that someone could get into a minor tizzy over a story told third hand about someone else allegedly crying, as if it was the end of western civilization. Maybe it’s just internet outrage culture encouraging everyone to have an extreme reaction to everything. Maybe Handman really did have a genuine emotional reaction to the story. And I guess I could try to understand it - if you were bullied for crying as a kid, and then became an adult who was forced to always suck it up, to see someone in a successful position not following those rules you thought mandatory and for no one else to have a problem with that, I can see how that might be infuriating. And maybe this is off base and inappropriate armchair psychoanalyzing but I’m just trying to make sense of it (for my own sake, if nothing else). I can’t comprehend why someone would care so much about someone else crying, and yet someone does (or did). At the end of the day, though, as I keep saying, doesn’t mean I can’t disagree.
Hardwick’s accusations were lies. They were obviously made up by a really unstable person and the claims were inconsistent with reality. I don’t get this notion that there aren’t liars out there. That really confuses me; of course there are. That’s why we have real trials.
I don’t see how they were “obviously made up.”
It seemed pretty obvious to me and most other people that actually looked at it objectively.
I did though? I had never heard of Dykstra and was actually a fan of Hardwick’s. I’ve yet to see anything that doesn’t fit the story as described by her.
There’s no corroborating evidence, in fact, all other testimony contradicts her claims. Plus, all of her known behavior during their relationship implies her as an “abusive” partner. There’s reason to believe that she resented him ending the relationship. She’s mentally ill and has a long history of lying. There is no reason to believe that she’s telling the truth, and there’s compelling evidence to believe that she’s lying. I don’t get why that’s such an unbelievable possibility.
Just because no evidence has been presented doesn’t mean none exists. As for the rest I’d be interested to see citations. But I will say the story she published would seem to suggest that her apparent “mental illness” was either caused by or not helped by the relationship. For me, hearing Hardwick’s coworkers come out and say “that sounds about right” seems pretty damning, but I don’t know everything. Just seems insane to me to say “she’s obviously lying.” Never said it was an impossibility that she is but just doesn’t seem likely to me.
Society has been infantilized to the point where any real challenge cannot even be comprehended. I am upset that I have to share this earth with them, even moreso that I am young, that the reasonable people will die off before I do.
The irony is that you’re being just as emotional and irrational as you claim they are.
I’m not crying or demanding someone lose their job for upsetting me.
How dare someone cry? Don’t you think that maybe some of those people might consider Norm a hero, and the fact that he is disparaging something that is important to them could make them quite emotional. What if they had suffered sexual abuse? Don’t you think that could make their feelings especially strong on the matter?
You’re really reaching, aren’t you? No one should be crying over this. Honestly, I don’t even believe that anyone actually cares about this enough to cry about it, especially not soulless producers who’s sheer existence is to squeeze every dime they can out of any and everything. This is a manufactured controversy. Everyone on earth will forget about it two days from now.
It’s not reaching, it’s speculating how someone else might have that sort of reaction. Whereas some people take their own personal feelings as the only reasonable ones to have in any given situation, I understand that not everyone is like me and has had my life. (it’s called empathy)
Yeah, I don’t need your lesson on empathy.
Sorry if I though the concept was foreign to you, don’t know what made me think that.
I’m pretty conscious of other people’s perspectives. I disregard them a lot, but I am conscious of them. You disregard people who irritate you. You’ve done it to me quite a bit, actually. And that’s fine! I expect nothing less. One of the reasons that I don’t give a shit about how most people feel is because no one gives a shit about how I feel. It’s a fair trade.
I’m not sure what you mean by me “disregarding.” I disagree a lot. But I don’t disregard someone else’s experiences. I don’t know why you’re so nihilistic but I’m sure there’s a reason. Doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with you.
You were pretty quick to throw aside my take on 13 Reasons Why a while back, and there’ve been other times too. It’s okay, we all do it.
Well it was unfair of me to discredit your perspective without considering that it might be a factor, but in fairness that’s exactly what you were doing with your take, basically saying anyone who didn’t see things the same way you did was wrong.
That really wasn’t even quite what my take was. I was saying no subject should be off limits in storytelling just because of people get disturbed by it. There are movies and TV shows with messages or content that I find wrong or disgusting. It may affect my appreciation for the movie, but that’s it. I don’t think it should be off limits or shouldn’t be depicted in film.
The Person in Question
i think comedians spent so much time of their lives telling jokes and obviously dealing with comedy that most if not all of the regular jokes aren’t really funny to them anymore, and i think that that’s why they embrace the ‘absurd’ and shocking jokes with minorities and all of that. i don’t think it’s fucked up because it means that if they’re making the joke it means that they too think it’s absurd and shocking.
There’s a way to tell a joke about shocking subject matter in either good or bad nature. (Saying people have “downs syndrome” as an insult is obviously just in poor taste, and honestly not even a joke.)
i highly doubt comedians think of ‘down syndrome’ as an actual insult. it’s funny to some because assholes and stupid people would use it as an insult. so the comedian is indirectly making fun of those people.
It depends on the context of the joke. In this scenario, where the context is seemingly a sincere apology, it definitely does not come across as anything but rude and uncaring.
do you think that what happened to james gunn, for example, was fair?
The situations are simply not analogous. I wouldn’t have had a problem with the Tonight Show cancelling a James Gunn appearance the day after those jokes resurfaced.
i wasn’t talking about norm’s case since i haven’t read anything about it, or any other specific case for that matter. i’m talking in more general terms. and you haven’t really answered if you think that what happened to james gunn was fair.
regarding this specific discussion - dom, i don’t think mfm and handman are defending that the ‘metoo’ movement should end, just that the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ thing is terrible if the accused person is in fact proven innocent. i think that was norm’s point. i’m pretty sure everyone who’s not a sexual predator agrees that it’s great that all these rapists are getting what they deserve. the problem here is with the ones that don’t deserve.
You’re talking about a legal matter - “guilty until proven innocent,” but this merely the court of public opinion. The reason why comments like Norm’s are misguided (at best) is they ignore the fact that most of these people suffer quite minimally in the long run (the whole thing about “career being over” is largely a myth), so all the comments really serve to do is to disparage those who are the victims (who rarely if ever get any actual justice) and dissuade them from speaking out, for fear that they will be either ignored or outright attached because they don’t have enough “evidence.”
i agree with you that this attitude is making victims more encouraged to speak out because it means that something is going to happen, but i think it gives them too much power. at this point anyone could claim anything about anyone and we’d be throwing stones at the accused even if whatever he’s being accused of is bullshit. that’s a problem. i don’t know a better way to handle these matters but i don’t think what’s happening is ideal either. a lot of people suck and a lot of people lie, so it’s always a possibility. i’m glad it’s rarely the case, but who knows where it’ll go next.
Victims should be allowed to speak out period. There shouldn’t be any “but”s after that.
they have always been allowed to speak. problem is they have to be taken seriously. i just think we should find a better way to do that without instantly incriminating the accused person because they might be innocent.
James Gunn is a perfect example of someone shut down for political reasons over “offensive” comments that no one should’ve been surprised by. The alt-right hate mob and the left-wing hate mob are in alignment when it comes to deplatforming people.
The Person in Question