- #141
Jarvis323
- 1,243
- 986
DaveC426913 said:Neither can you. And yet...
...you presume to be able to speak for them.
You are objectifying them.
This logic doesn't make any sense at all to me, so I can't tell what your point is.
DaveC426913 said:Neither can you. And yet...
...you presume to be able to speak for them.
You are objectifying them.
That makes sense. You can only see you own point of view. That should raise some red flags for your perceptiveness.Jarvis323 said:This logic doesn't make any sense at all to me, so I can't tell what your point is.
I don't understand where you are coming from. Where did I impose a special requirement for being an actor without suffering specific consequences?DaveC426913 said:How is you deciding what they need any better?
Look I do not wish to end this like the Ukraine thread. I do respect your point Jarvis so please do not be offended by anything I say. But I cannot agree with your assessment. If we follow this path then essentially we will reach a point where staring at someone longer than they wish will be considered offensive and violent.Jarvis323 said:Another person suggesting actors need to be tough or quit because they will be alienated unless they attend special events where people are filmed being made fun of on potentially person and triggering subjects for our entertainment.
My approach and suggestion is all about advocating stepping outside of your own shoes and trying to imagine things from other peoples point of view, treating them as individuals, and being honest and without bias. I don't know how you are able to turn that around on me.DaveC426913 said:That makes sense. You can only see you own point of view. That should raise some red flags for your perceptiveness.
Think on alternate views before returning with more visceral reactions.
It's not my job to make your point, it's yours. There's a hundred other adjectives, and there's online thesauruses. If you can't find an appropriate one, you should pause and put more thought into your posts before posting them.Jarvis323 said:Fair enough, but the word you came up with is a far cry from what I meant.
Well, "bullying" isn't a descriptor you used before. It's a heckuva lot better than sadistic and barbaric.If there is no version of the word that means enjoying people suffer that separates bullying from mass murder...
It's not prejudices/biases, it's context. It matters a whole lot if the person insulting them is a stranger on the street vs a presenter at an awards show in their honor.Jarvis323 said:Can we get real and cut out the BS prejudices and biases and just look at people as people, and their situations worthy of individual, in depth intellectual treatment?
Sadistic definitely means literally exactly what I meant, and just doesn't happen to carry an embedded quantification in its severity. And I'm honestly not sure if there is another word that has a lighter connotation. The thesaurus gives me these options, all which have the same problem but are less precise: barbarous, brutal, perverse, ruthless, vicious , fiendish. Maybe I should have said mildly sadistic. Anyway, I think you should be intelligent enough to get my point and understand what I mean, and I think you probably do. So there is no point to continue with an inconsequential debate about the semantics.russ_watters said:It's not my job to make your point, it's yours. There's a hundred other adjectives, and there's online thesauruses. If you can't find an appropriate one, you should pause and put more thought into your posts before posting them.
Well, "bullying" isn't a descriptor you used before. It's a heckuva lot better than sadistic and barbaric.
Not that I agree that it is accurate. Bullying is typically intended to be coercive. But at least you've dropped to a more reasonable level.
Nobody actually said anything like that.Jarvis323 said:Another person suggesting actors need to be tough or quit because they will be alienated unless they attend special events where people are filmed being made fun of on potentially person and triggering subjects for our entertainment.
russ_watters said:Nobody actually said anything like that.
BTW, you were right in another post when you said other celebrities have been bullied, and some have quit or done harm to themselves. Being roasted at the Oscars isn't that.
Or when they ALL think they are "untouchable little kings".russ_watters said:It's not prejudices/biases, it's context. It matters a whole lot if the person insulting them is a stranger on the street vs a presenter at an awards show in their honor.
If you only read a one-liner definition, sure. But you should do better than that and recognize there's an implied severity in the usage. It's the name of a mental illness! The Websters definition includes an example of sawing off a person's leg in sections! Please tell me you don't actually believe these are equivalent.Jarvis323 said:Sadistic definitely means literally exactly what I meant, and just doesn't happen to carry an embedded quantification in its severity.
That isn't a response to what you quoted me saying.Jarvis323 said:Or when they ALL think they are "untouchable little kings".
And I've told you to knock off the hyperbole a million times!russ_watters said:ridiculously, massively, heinously bizarre hyperbole
You are reading things - misreading - that they did not say. Heck, it's you who is trying to gloss-over or mix different contexts.Jarvis323 said:It has been implied over and over again. At PF less so than elsewhere. Overall, this is a rampant implied sentiment. If the implications were in error, those statements should be clarified.
It's a response to your response to my response to another post (not by you), where somehow being "untouchable little kings" was said to be an important part of the context in the determination that they should be more open to insult and expected to be tougher handling it than ordinary people. If this is not a show of prejudice than I don't know what is.russ_watters said:That isn't a response to what you quoted me saying.
You've lost me here. Whatever. I'll reiterate: context matters. Severity matters. Word definitions and connotations matter.Jarvis323 said:It's a response to your response to my response to another post (not by you), where somehow being "untouchable little kings" was said to be an important part of the context in the determination that they should be more open to insult and expected to be tougher handling it than ordinary people. If this is not a show of prejudice than I don't know what is.
I can certainly imagine it from Chris Rock's point of view. It must have hurt like the dickens.Jarvis323 said:... trying to imagine things from other peoples point of view, treating them as individuals, and being honest and without bias. I don't know how you are able to turn that around on me.
DaveC426913 said:I can certainly imagine it from Chris Rock's point of view. It must have hurt like the dickens.
Because, you see, the question at-hand isn't about sympathizing with Will Smith, it is about sympathizing with the guy who got assaulted. Are you seriously suggesting he "deserved" it?
No.Jarvis323 said:Realistically they are the ones suffering the most from the event.
russ_watters said:You've lost me here. Whatever. I'll reiterate: context matters. Severity matters. Word definitions and connotations matter.
The irony here is if you'd just tone down the hyperbole and stop putting words in peoples'mouths they didn't say (making inaccurate assumptions/interpretations), you'd probably find we aren't all that far apart. Under most scenarios of what happened (since we don't know for sure), I do think the joke went too far.
How many of these things have you actually seen written here? I think I count one. You'll have to quote them if you insist.Jarvis323 said:But I find the comments like, "Actors get paid to be roasted", or "They can go home if they don't want to be insulted", or "they think they are "untouchable little kings", or "This is part of the job, and they get paid a lot to do it", to be fair.
Necessary to withstand a one-liner roast meant in good humour?Jarvis323 said:They're people, that's it. They don't have special powers of human strength.
That's it? All this is because "could be disturbing?" That's a loooong way from "emotional violence".Jarvis323 said:...could be disturbing...
Talk about the forest for the trees! Chris Rock was long-arm punched in front of the entire world.Jarvis323 said:...just write off her justification for being hurt...
If the most of the world was bullying Chris Rock instead of Will and Jada Smith, then I would be focusing on standing up for him instead.DaveC426913 said:Talk about the forest for the trees! Chris Rock was long-arm punched in front of the entire world.
Where's your empathy?
Nobody is bullying anyone. They're mad at Will Smith because he punched someone. That's a crime.Jarvis323 said:If the most of the world was bullying Chris Rock instead of Will and Jada Smith, then I would be focusing on standing up for him instead.
So what? Do you suggest they should have skipped it to avoid the possibility of an insult, even though Will Smith was nominated and won an award?DaveC426913 said:It is an Oscar tradition to hire (they are paid) edgy comedians to MC the awards - and what comedians do is roast celebrities. They knew this going in.
No. I suggest that, like all adults, they take responsibility for their decisions and actions. They chose to go to the Oscars; they know Oscar humour can be edgy; they went.Jarvis323 said:So what? Do you suggest they should have skipped it to avoid the possibility of an insult, even though Will Smith was nominated and won an award?
DaveC426913 said:No. I suggest that, like all adults, they take responsibility for their decisions and actions. They chose to go to the Oscars; they know Oscar humour can be edgy; they went.
We all make such decisions every time we leave the house. We don't get to punch out the source of our ire just because it bumped into us.
So you mean yes then, not no. You can't have it both ways.DaveC426913 said:No. I suggest that, like all adults, they take responsibility for their decisions and actions. They chose to go to the Oscars; they know Oscar humour can be edgy; they went.
We all make such decisions every time we leave the house. We don't get to punch out the source of our ire just because it bumped into us.
I do not.Jarvis323 said:So you mean yes then...
So they should be tough and just take it then?DaveC426913 said:You keep trying to spin this as if they're the victims here. He assaulted Rock.I do not.
Unlike you, I'm not telling anyone what to do. I am only saying they are expected to adult. And that means take responsibility for themselves.
Stop telling me what I'm saying.Jarvis323 said:You are saying...
Yes. It must suck that she's losing her hair.Jarvis323 said:But do have any compassion for Jada in this circumstance?
You keep implying these things. If you don't mean them then clarify, because otherwise you are unintelligible.DaveC426913 said:Stop telling me what I'm saying.
No matter what follows "You are saying..." it is a straw man.
You can tell what I'm saying simply by using the scroll button.
It's a lost cause, Dave. Give it up. He's just going to keep spouting the same nonsense over and over.DaveC426913 said:Stop telling me what I'm saying.
No matter what follows "You are saying..." it is a straw man.
You can tell what I'm saying simply by using the scroll button.
Yes. It must suck that she's losing her hair.
Do you have an compassion for Chris Rock, who got his face rearranged?
You have not answered how you feel about the crime of assault and battery. Why not?