How to kill your acting career

[ImmortalFlame]

Give me a break. I already indicated that what he said was in poor taste, and that rebuking him for it (and then MOVING THE HELL ON) was justified. I said this. I did. Get it straight in your mind.

Wow. Any reason for the hostility here?

I've made my point clear: this is an instance not just of people objecting to what he wrote, but of how he conducted himself in response. Surely you understand why reacting poorly when people call out something you say would naturally result in them "not MOVING THE HELL ON" as you put it.

So yes, people objecting to the joke is fine, but you tell him THAT. You don't start name-calling and trying to drag the person through the mud.

People can choose to react how they want. I don't condone all of it, but regardless his reaction to the initial objection is the issue.

Petty, insignificant, weak-minded, stupid, lame, moronic, pitiable.

Pretty ironic that the previous sentence was then followed by this one. Not see any incongruity, there?

And this crap ISN'T "newsworthy." Not in the slightest. And yet here we all are... sharing some stupid tale of a whole bunch of dummies throwing words around like apes chest-thumping. Social media is mostly a set of dumpster fires, with people eating out of it as if it were a grand ol' barbecue.

Then why are you here?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I beg your pardon?

View attachment 36014

You've basically proven yourself a gossip hound, bud. You jumped on me, apparently trying to start drama surrounding my being a "Trump supporter." Pathetic. Take your crap elsewhere. You couldn't dance with me if you tried.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Don't "draw a line", that's my take. Examine things on a case-by-case basis, make judgments and act accordingly. As it stands we have an idiotic culture that rewards "public outrage." As if any of us are so perfect with our usage of words, the jokes or things we say that pop into our minds. We call each other out - fine. But end it there.

Translation: People are free to disagree with things, provided they disagree in a way that I approve of and keep their levels of outrage to a level that you personally deem proportionate.

Problem is, there will always be people who care more about a person saying "x" than you, and you have no right to tell them that their reaction to "x" isn't justified or is disproportionate.

As it stands, we have a bunch of people going back and forth with this guy, literally whipping the whole mess up into a frenzy. The actual damage his initial comment may have caused is trivial - likely immeasurable - and ANY OTHER NON-CELEBRITY PERSON who had made the same joke would have been ignored entirely. Yes, he is a more public figure, potentially a "role model" - and so you rebuke him, tell him it was in poor taste. But don't publicly throw around labels like "misogynist," actively trying to damage the man and any potential career he's got fomenting. At that point, you're doing FAR MORE damage, and making it FAR MORE personal than this actor ever intended with his poor-taste, one-off, who-cares joke.

Because the feelings of celebrities matter more than everybody else?

People - yes, even non-famous ones - get called out on social media all the time. The point in this case, and the point of this thread, is that Boyega is a particular public figure who should do a better job of handling his public perception than he is currently doing.

People can throw around whatever labels they feel are appropriate for the circumstances, and you can't tell them not to. The best thing to do in situations like this is react appropriately and defend yourself when necessary. Boyega hasn't done that. He has been graceless and stupid in his handling of this, and it will likely significantly affect his career as a result. Which is a shame, because I am a fan of his work.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If somebody says something you find offensive or degrading, is it weak to stand up for yourself or others?

Considering it's a fictional character, yeah. There's probably no less than a million issues far more deserving of the attention and effort, amd getting hurt and joining the twit e-lynch mob over a joke making literally no one real the butt of it is just as pathetic as giving those arm chair whiners attention and validation.

 

[Cooky]

You've basically proven yourself a gossip hound, bud. You jumped on me, apparently trying to start drama surrounding my being a "Trump supporter." Pathetic. Take your crap elsewhere. You couldn't dance with me if you tried.

...Now you know why my wife can't stand me.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Wow. Any reason for the hostility here?

Yes, obviously.

I've made my point clear: this is an instance not just of people objecting to what he wrote, but of how he conducted himself in response. Surely you understand why reacting poorly when people call out something you say would naturally result in them "not MOVING THE HELL ON" as you put it.

He wouldn't have had to "conduct himself in response" had people not jumped on him with labels and questions about his character over a lame joke. In my opinion, he sensed what these people were trying to accomplish - the next social media witch-hunt - and he decided to defend himself. Maybe not the best choice, but that isn't for me to decide.

People can choose to react how they want. I don't condone all of it, but regardless his reaction to the initial objection is the issue.

And all the "initial objections" were put to him in "good taste" were they?

Pretty ironic that the previous sentence was then followed by this one. Not see any incongruity, there?

No one here knows who you are, do they? Am I ruining your career here? Did I call YOU a name? Those people on the social media sites - they ever going to see this post, do you think? Ever going to take any damage? You think this is going to go anywhere? Let's face the facts of what is really going on here... not compare apples to oranges.

Then why are you here?

To admonish this bull-crap, of course.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Still, the line must be drawn somewhere. Whether you draw it now, or closer to the tweets of certain politicians, is up to you.

It's one of the myriad of dumb twits. The only appropriate line is to chastize those who think they are actually doing something positive and constructive for society by relentlessly *****ing at people at ways they most likely wouldn't do to their face.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fame goes to one's head.

But anonymity is worse.
Anyway, I can't get excited over the nontroversy of a joke about boinking.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've made my point clear: this is an instance not just of people objecting to what he wrote, but of how he conducted himself in response.

Why are the objectors off limits? Why not focus on how they conducted themselves, which appears to be in an anti-social way? If it were a real exchange in the real world where they had to look eachother in the eyes, the we'd be calling them bullies.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, obviously.

Why? Why are you so angry about what I have written?

He wouldn't have had to "conduct himself in response" had people not jumped on him with labels and questions about his character over a lame joke.

People can say what they want. It's how you react to it that matters. In this case, his reaction to people calling what he wrote disgusting was to patronize and be rude towards them, or accusing them of being delusional.

In my opinion, he sensed what these people were trying to accomplish - the next social media witch-hunt - and he decided to defend himself. Maybe not the best choice, but that isn't for me to decide.

So you're okay with judging people for reacting offended to what he said, but when it comes to him attacking THOSE people for their offense it's "not for you to decide"?

This is pretty obvious hypocrisy.

And all the "initial objections" were put to him in "good taste" were they?

Like I said, people can react how they want, and did so in a variety of ways. To lump them all together misses the point, and risks making the problem worse by painting with a broad brush. The advantage Boyega had was that he is a singular person with a singular mind, so he needn't have addressed ALL objections (or even any). He had no control over how people react to what he writes, and he has no right to control it. But he has control over how HE responds.

That's the point.

No one here knows who you are, do they? Am I ruining your career here? Did I call YOU a name? Those people on the social media sites - they ever going to see this post, do you think? Ever going to take any damage? You think this is going to go anywhere? Let's face the facts of what is really going on here... not compare apples to oranges.

To admonish this bull-crap, of course.

Now you're just rambling.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why are the objectors off limits? Why not focus on how they conducted themselves, which appears to be in an anti-social way? If it were a real exchange in the real world where they had to look eachother in the eyes, the we'd be calling them bullies.

They aren't, and I never said they were. The difference is that Boyega is a public figure whose reaction to these tweets can have a significant impact on his career, and there are also likely a lot of people who simply objected to what he wrote and how he is conducting himself without resorting to bullying and abuse.

By all means, call out bullying and abuse where we see it, but to react the way Boyega is isn't calling out abuse or bullying - it's conducting it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Considering it's a fictional character, yeah. There's probably no less than a million issues far more deserving of the attention and effort, amd getting hurt and joining the twit e-lynch mob over a joke making literally no one real the butt of it is just as pathetic as giving those arm chair whiners attention and validation.

But attitudes, even towards fictional characters, can indicate attitudes towards real people and groups. When people objected to the casting of Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter play with a black actor, you could easily write off their criticism as insignificant because it was regarding a fictional character - but their objection and the ways in which they raised it had obviously racist components. In any case, the correct course of action when somebody objects to something you say in this context is not to rudely patronize them and generally act like a careless jerk towards them. It really isn't that difficult to just say "I'm sorry if anybody was genuinely upset by my joke".

 

[Father Heathen]

Elaborate.

No really, @Landon Caeli. I want to know what parallel you're trying to draw.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Translation: People are free to disagree with things, provided they disagree in a way that I approve of and keep their levels of outrage to a level that you personally deem proportionate.

And I cannot disagree with and be outraged at other people's "outrage", is that it? Be careful now... this is a slippery slope you have stepped out onto. I know I've go the traction in my shoes to handle it... do you?

Problem is, there will always be people who care more about a person saying "x" than you, and you have no right to tell them that their reaction to "x" isn't justified or is disproportionate.

Oh, but I do! Exactly as much "right" as they have to criticize the joke in the first place. You might want to take my hand... you're slipping!

Because the feelings of celebrities matter more than everybody else?

No... because a career matters a heck of a lot more than someone's level of word-related "butt-hurt." Do you not agree?

People - yes, even non-famous ones - get called out on social media all the time. The point in this case, and the point of this thread, is that Boyega is a particular public figure who should do a better job of handling his public perception than he is currently doing.

And I acknowledged as much. Again - please be on point in the discussion here. Making points I already made effectively does nothing. With this tactic you can only possibly be trying to make it look like I have objected to this point (which I have not - again... I made it myself), and thereby strike me down like a scythe taken to a strawman.

People can throw around whatever labels they feel are appropriate for the circumstances, and you can't tell them not to.

You have got to be joking. I "can't?" Are you kidding? OF COURSE I CAN. I can tell them to shut their damn mouths as easily as any rebuke comes out of that same mouth. They don't have to listen to me... but if there are enough voices like mine, then maybe they will stop and think for a minute. That's all I can ask for. I'm not trying to be the "thought police" here, or "rule with an iron fist." But telling people to shut the hell up? That's right up my alley!

The best thing to do in situations like this is react appropriately and defend yourself when necessary. Boyega hasn't done that. He has been graceless and stupid in his handling of this, and it will likely significantly affect his career as a result. Which is a shame, because I am a fan of his work.

As stated, he took the road of defending himself from people who were trying to hurt him with their words. I don't fault him for it. I do fault him for the initial joke, and I fault all the morons who reacted the way they did in their over-the-top manner. I do... I fault them. And I think they're idiots. Oh wait... you told me I'm not allowed to do that, right? Oh double wait... I didn't care at all, did I? Oh that's right... sorry man, looks like you didn't win this time. Not that I did, either. You beginning to see how this all works yet?

 

[Father Heathen]

It's okay to criticize humor, or to find it unfunny, off-putting, offensive, etc. But this desire where an apology is not enough, that they must pay with their career is ridiculous.

This reminds me of this story: Rosetta scientist Dr Matt Taylor apologises for ‘offensive’ shirt
The scientific accomplishments were overshadowed by a controversy over a tacky, tasteless shirt that was blown out of proportion. Even after a tearful apology, rather than accepting it and moving on, many were still frothing and thirsting for blood. To question or criticize something is one thing, but this desire to ruin people over butthurt is ridiculous.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

By all means, call out bullying and abuse where we see it, but to react the way Boyega is isn't calling out abuse or bullying - it's conducting it.

When it's that many doing it, when they are that relentless, Boyega was the one being bullied. Ganged up on, harassed, and not letting it go.

But attitudes, even towards fictional characters, can indicate attitudes towards real people and groups.

Can, but its a terrible indicator. Even your examole extends outside of it being confined to fantasy. Would me laughing at Prince/King Jeoffrey when Tyrion slaps him, and saying anx thinking "mean" things about about him mean I hate boys or kings? If I call Jenny Curran a dumb skanky ***** who deserved to die, does that mean I hate women?

 

[Cooky]

No really, @Landon Caeli. I want to know what parallel you're trying to draw.

Fine. It was about saying stupid stuff for fun, and then being taken all seriously and what not...

I guess the fans want this guy 'impeached' from Star Wars now. Acting all PC, like libs do and all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And I cannot disagree with and be outraged at other people's "outrage", is that it? Be careful now... this is a slippery slope you have stepped out onto. I know I've go the traction in my shoes to handle it... do you?

Where have I said you cannot disagree? The point is that you're becoming an example of the very thing you're railing against, and losing sight of what the issue actually is.

Oh, but I do! Exactly as much "right" as they have to criticize the joke in the first place.

Er, no. There's no comparison to the two.

No... because a career matters a heck of a lot more than someone's level of word-related "butt-hurt." Do you not agree?

Stop being childish. You know full well people can have legitimate concerns about what they perceive as sexist jokes.

And I acknowledged as much. Again - please be on point in the discussion here. Making points I already made effectively does nothing. With this tactic you can only possibly be trying to make it look like I have objected to this point (which I have not - again... I made it myself), and thereby strike me down like a scythe taken to a strawman.

Go and look at your first post in the topic. You completely missed the point of Boyega's reaction, and acted as if the issue was entirely one-sided.

You have got to be joking. I can;t? Are you kidding? OF COURSE I CAN. I can tell them to shut their damn mouths as easily as any rebuke comes out of that same mouth. They don't have to listen to me... but if there are enough voices like mine, then maybe they will stop and think for a minute.

Oh really? So your calling everyone who objected to Boyega's tweets "petty, insignificant, weak-minded, stupid, lame, moronic, pitiable" was an appeal to rational discussion, was it? Or your calling them "abjectly weak"?

You don't think your reaction to them is at all a perfect example of the problem?

That's all I can ask for. I'm not trying to be the "thought police" here, or "rule with an iron fist." But telling people to shut the hell up? That's right up my alley!

You didn't do that, though. You called them names and dismissed them as weak.

As stated, he took the road of defending himself from people who were trying to hurt him with their words.

No, he took the road of attacking people.

I don't fault him for it. I do fault him for the initial joke, and I fault all the morons who reacted the way they did in their over-the-top manner. I do... I fault them. And I think their idiots. Oh wait... you told me I'm not allowed to do that, right?

No. The issue comes with lumping all of those people into a single group and insulting and dismissing them.

Oh double wait... I didn't care at all, did I? Oh that's right... sorry man, looks like you didn't win this time. Not that I did, either. You beginning to see how this all works yet?

You going to become coherent at some point and stop pretending this is dialogue from a Mamet play?

I'm not impressed by your theatrics. Deal reasonably or not at all.

 

[Cooky]

I was just kidding around earlier, @A Vestigial Mote... I don't think it's a big deal.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why? Why are you so angry about what I have written?

You? No. I'm upset with the situation... you happen to bear the brunt of it. I apologize for that... but what is a person who doesn't really care to do, honestly?

People can say what they want.

Yes! Precisely! Just as I can say that these people's outrage is misplaced, and make my case.

It's how you react to it that matters. In this case, his reaction to people calling what he wrote disgusting was to patronize and be rude towards them, or accusing them of being delusional.

But that's just it as well, if a great enough number of people reacted in coming to this man's defense and telling all those who would accuse him over a stupid, misplaced joke, then maybe THEIR REACTIONS could be the ones under fire also. That's what I advocate wholeheartedly for (if it wasn't already obvious). I am trying to be one of those voices. And you find fault in that... which is why we are discussing in the first place. You can't silence me, and I can't silence you. As it should be.

So you're okay with judging people for reacting offended to what he said, but when it comes to him attacking THOSE people for their offense it's "not for you to decide"?

Self defense is a thing, and it is treated differently than pre-meditated attack. Do you not agree?

This is pretty obvious hypocrisy.

No... apples to oranges again. See the question just above and answer it, please.

Like I said, people can react how they want,

I completely agree! Which is why I am perfectly able to react to those people's outrage by labeling their actions petty and idiotic. I mean... what exactly are you arguing here? That they can react as they want when a poor-taste joke is involved, but I can't react who I want to their reaction? I know you aren't saying this... and yet... that sounds a lot like what you are saying. I can rebuke their rebuke. I can. Are YOU going to stop me? No, you aren't. And I have my reasons... which I have stated.

To lump them all together misses the point, and risks making the problem worse by painting with a broad brush. The advantage Boyega had was that he is a singular person with a singular mind, so he needn't have addressed ALL objections (or even any). He had no control over how people react to what he writes, and he has no right to control it. But he has control over how HE responds.

And you fault him for how he responded, while I do not. Where does this leave us?

Now you're just rambling.

It boils down to me having EVERY right to react however I please to those people's "outrage." That's what I am telling you. That was what my "rambling" was about. What can I say? I'm a "rambler." Go ahead and fault me for it. Take it up with my social media PR.