DominicCobb

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

Frank your Majesty said:
which means the prequels got it totally wrong.

You’re not seeing what i’m saying. The PT used CG for Yoda, yes. But that’s because CG is (very arguably) superior to puppetry. It’s why Maz Kanata isn’t a puppet.
You can of course disagree that CG is more expressive etc, but it’s changing it BACK after it’s already been changed that is the comment on the franchise’s history that i’m talking about- in a way that merely “updating” Yoda was not.

I mean, they wouldn’t have made him a puppet in TLJ if they didn’t think that superior. I think many people would say puppet Yoda is far superior to CG Yoda.

As for ‘changing’ vs. ‘changing back,’ I don’t see any significant difference between the two, especially in this series where, if you were to watch chronologically, had TLJ used CG, that would seem like ‘changing back.’

I don’t think i’m really getting my point across. I’m trying to say that Maz Kanata wasn’t a puppet for the same reason PT Yoda wasn’t a puppet- the tech is newer. It wasn’t a comment on the puppet Yoda being bad. Yoda being a puppet in TLJ is a comment on CG Yoda being bad/worse, even though Maz Kanata exists.

I don’t see how it’s a comment on anything. TLJ is a sequel to ESB and ROTJ and in those films Luke interacts with a puppet Yoda. Simple as that I think.

It’s the director’s decision. When Lucas decided to change Yoda to be CG, that was his perogative. Hopefully a director isn’t making decisions based solely on what tech is “newer” (though I fear that was a big factor in many of Lucas’s PT decisions).

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:
As for how people on this site “cope” with the problems you mention, well a lot of people here just ignore the prequels, which are the cause of the majority of continuity problems with series to begin with.

I’d argue that the ST betrays the spirit of the series more than the PT did though. And that’s a larger problem than things like why Owen didn’t recognize 3-P0.
TFA is a waste of 200 million dollars because it copies a movie but makes it worse (And the argument that the first Disney SW movie needed to feel “familiar” is moot, since TFA locks the entire trilogy into a “big bad Empire vs. scrappy rebels” redo, complete with locking in the stale aesthetic/art direction), and TLJ writes Luke so incredibly OOC that he can’t be considered the same character who said “You’ve failed, your highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me.”

You made this thread to talk about (seemingly) continuity errors. If the ST doesn’t fit your personal canon, I think we already have a thread to discuss that. If not I don’t know what to tell you.

That’s so interesting to me, you’re talking about in a professional setting right? I’ve never had a job in my life where I didn’t refer to my boss by their first name.

BiggsFan44 said:

Frank your Majesty said:
which means the prequels got it totally wrong.

You’re not seeing what i’m saying. The PT used CG for Yoda, yes. But that’s because CG is (very arguably) superior to puppetry. It’s why Maz Kanata isn’t a puppet.
You can of course disagree that CG is more expressive etc, but it’s changing it BACK after it’s already been changed that is the comment on the franchise’s history that i’m talking about- in a way that merely “updating” Yoda was not.

I mean, they wouldn’t have made him a puppet in TLJ if they didn’t think that superior. I think many people would say puppet Yoda is far superior to CG Yoda.

As for ‘changing’ vs. ‘changing back,’ I don’t see any significant difference between the two, especially in this series where, if you were to watch chronologically, had TLJ used CG, that would seem like ‘changing back.’

Probably the best answer to your question is “who cares, they’re movies,” it can be pretty easy to look past minor inconsistencies when watching, especially when they’re usually completely irrelevant to the story at hand.

As for how people on this site “cope” with the problems you mention, well a lot of people here just ignore the prequels, which are the cause of the majority of continuity problems with series to begin with.

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

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.

Collipso, not every situation is the same so I’ve never said anything about a one size fits all solution. Comedians with a voice have a power that comes with responsibility. If they punch down and further harmful mindsets, they should be aware that their audiences might not like it. We should be careful when policing art but just because you’re making “art” doesn’t give you a get out of jail free card for doing and saying any manner of terrible and harmful things.

We were talking about Norm so I gave my thoughts on his case, where I felt the recompense (something incredibly minor) was easily justified. Gunn is a very different situation and does not seem to be very well justified (I’ve talked about this before at length).

moviefreakedmind said:

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.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

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.

Neverar, I think you missed a couple.

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

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?

Handman said:

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?

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

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?

Handman said:

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.

Handman said:

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.

Handman said:

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.

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

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.

Handman said:

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.

Handman said:

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.

Handman said:

You’re talking about a legal matter - “guilty until proven innocent,” but this merely the court of public opinion.

Exactly, and when have you ever trusted the public to get anything right? To even analyze anything? It’s really… a scary thought. Especially in a world where public opinion is treated as judge, jury, and executioner.

There’s no right and wrong answer here. The fact of the matter is that people will vote with their wallets. And I think if someone’s going to buy a ticket to a comedy show they have a right to decline if that person is a sexual predator. More importantly, if someone has been sexually assaulted or harassed, they have a right to say it publicly.

As for making sure that the mob pays attention to all the nuances of every case, it’s not possible. But people paying attention will always be better than letting rapists and the like run amok with no recourse.

Handman said:

Are you trying to imply that that’s a good thing?

I’m just saying that’s my experience, and based on that experience, this reaction was excessive.

I don’t know why you would want a world where people could just hypothetically be terrible to one another and it’s considered valid behavior.

I’m saying there are people I have to work with that I don’t necessarily get along with, but I have to. That’s just the way it is. What would I say to HR? “I think this person is an asshole”?

I just can’t comprehend such a strong reaction to something that really doesn’t affect anyone either way.

Just because “that’s the way it is” doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be.

I already offered a couple reasons why it might affect someone. You can criticize me for “condescension” but I don’t see how I’m wrong. You admit you can’t comprehend why. The truth is you seem to have a problem looking outside of yourself and your own life. Not everyone’s the same as you.

Collipso said:

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.)

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.”

Handman said:

Oh I know you don’t care. I was talking about Handman.

“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.”

If I cried at any of the jobs I’ve held, I’d be a laughingstock and never taken seriously again, regardless of what it was over. There are jobs where I’d have probably been beaten up had I done that.

Are you trying to imply that that’s a good thing? Because that’s a pretty twisted and cruel group of people who’d laugh or beat up someone expressing a normal human emotion.

Crying over a comment made by some comedian (not a coworker, not a friend, a comedian you don’t know) in a magazine seems a little silly, and shouldn’t be held as the basis for a business decision.

You’ve got to be kidding me if you think they canceled his appearance due solely to the reaction of the producers. Lot of people were upset.

It’s incompatible with the world I inhabit, where I have been absolutely repulsed (and yes, even offended) by the people I had to deal with on a daily basis.

If you have a legitimate gripe with a coworker you should be able to speak with someone about it. I don’t know why you would want a world where people could just hypothetically be terrible to one another and it’s considered valid behavior.

moviefreakedmind said:

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.

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.

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.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

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.’

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

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.

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 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.

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.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

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.

Not to mention, in the case of Hardwick, Dykstra’s career was hurt being of him. And of course Hardwick is back on air now? So in what way is what Norm saying reasonable?

He was immediately taken off the air until he could prove that Dykstra was lying about him, which, fortunately for him, he was able to do and he managed to be spared. Of course his name being cleared got only a fraction of the coverage that the false accusations got.

Did he actually prove she was lying though? Or did they just not prove she wasn’t not not lying?

He proved that her allegations were completely unfounded and incongruent with how their relationship actually was, especially since it was well documented that she was the “abusive” (if you want to use that word) one in the relationship before it ended.

Unless I missed something, I don’t think some break up texts really an really prove everything you say they do.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

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 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’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.

Also, that’s not what producers do. Like, at all.

It was just my summation.

You’re talking about a different job entirely.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

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.

Who was really “hurt”? Seriously.

We’re talking about “Me Too” right? People are hurt every day by sex pests of all sorts. And Norm Macdonald says he’s glad “Me Too is done” or whatever. How anyone could take Norm’s side on this is insane to me.

I thought we were talking about Macdonald, Louis CK and Roseanne Barr. No one was hurt by Macdonald or Roseanne and I don’t think that anyone was really hurt by Louis CK either, to be honest. Me Too uncovered some monsters, which is good, but it also encouraged a lot of fraudulent accusations like the ones against Aziz Ansari and Chris Hardwick. I’m glad that “time’s up” for the sexual harassers in the industry, but I also think that the whole public trial for anything resembling sexual misconduct is a terrible idea and I hope that we’re done with that.

You have to be kidding me about CK. That shit was fucked up and certainly could not insignificant emotional distress at the very least.

I guess. I don’t know, it’s a little fucked up and pretty pathetic but I don’t really care. He asked people if he could masturbate in front of them.

That he “asked them,” first of all doesn’t matter, because a) they almost certainly thought he was joking, and b) some of the accusers said he didn’t ask, CK just said he ‘only ever asked’ in his apology to make it sound less bad and save face, which should be obvious from the rest of his apology (which wasn’t even really an apology, honestly).

There aren’t enough funny people in this world to start throwing them aside over something like that.

That’s not true at all.

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?

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.”

I never said there aren’t liars out there (though it’s really quite doubtful they’d be in large numbers considering). It just seems wrongheaded to always assume these people are lying just because they’re accusing people you like.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

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)

Also, that’s not what producers do. Like, at all.

I’ll agree it’s not a big deal. Which is why it’s weird for me to see people like Handman get so worked up over it.