How to kill your acting career

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

So Boyega's reaction is in no way whatsoever inappropriate?

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?

Of course not, but look at the original Tweet:

“It’s not about who she kisses but who eventually lays the pipe."

Do you get the impression that this sentence only specifically relates to a fictional character, or that it's giving the impression of being a general rule about how to think of women in general?

To use your example, laughing at Tyrion slapping Joffrey is fine. But tweeting "I wish more people would slap children like Tyrion slapped Joffrey" might justifiably raise a few eyebrows. Or writing "Jenny Curran is a perfect example of why some women deserve AIDs" might get people's backs up.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So Boyega's reaction is in no way whatsoever inappropriate?

Yeah. He fed trolls should be mostly ignored or denied attention until they starve to death.

Do you get the impression that this sentence only specifically relates to a fictional character, or that it's giving the impression of being a general rule about how to think of women in general?

We have nothing more than a short twit. Maybe. Maybe not. We don't really know. I'm guessing it's possible no one asked him anything to get clarification.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It doesn't really matter anyway. Star Wars has turned to crap.

Yep. Yet another great saga pummeled into obscurity

 

[Father Heathen]

I oppose sexism, sexual harassment, etc. but how did making sexual jokes or talking about sexual desire in general fall under this (depending on who you're talking to/about, intent and context, of course)?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Or writing "Jenny Curran is a perfect example of why some women deserve AIDs" might get people's backs up.

Just as we could easily go on an outrage that you don't really care about women due to your lack of not paying attention to her or caring about her plight because it's not disclosed what she died of, and it could just as easily been Hep C, which wasn't identified until a few years after her death.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

What are you talking about? Please explain. You HAVE been stating that I cannot disagree. You use the exact wording that I "can't". You did. I understand why you are trying now to back out of your statements, because they are incredibly inconsistent and unsupportable... but please acknowledge that that is exactly what you said.

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

What? Of course there is. A man made a joke in poor taste, and people called him out with foul language and name-calling in many instances. In fact, the very first response attributed to this whole "campaign" of rep-smearing was from someone who replied:

Bro you’re extremely disgusting and gross also f***ing disrespectful…

Now, this person is entirely capable of making this statement... and I am entirely capable of disagreeing, as is John Boyega. I am also entirely capable of calling that man "disgusting" back... and I can tell him I think he is going overboard, and that his words are pathetic and out of proportion. I can call his reaction moronic, and tell him directly that it will now take some evidence to the contrary to convince me that he is not a moron himself, because, as it stands, all of the evidence I have of his existence (granted, I know it isn't much, but again, it's ALL I have) informs me that he is, indeed, a moron.

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

And you know full well that people can have concerns over people having potentially less-than-legitimate-concerns about what they perceive as sexist jokes. That's where we're at. I have concerns about these people's ability to accurately perceive a situation. As I see it, they are falling down and failing to give this "problem" the weight that it actually deserves (which is next to none). I see this as a problem, and I am calling it out. You have a problem with that - and so we discuss. if that's childish. So be it... I will be childish to the end of my days.

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.

We've been over this already. Self-defense. He could have chosen to defend himself the way you would have rather seen it - by apologizing and recanting, etc. But he chose not to. I still stand by his decision to defend himself. And in my opinion, these people who took this overboard deserve to have come under fire. John Boyega is attempting to do that himself. Perhaps not the best choice... but I certainly don't fault him for it. Any of us are free to tell people to go to hell if we think their "concern" is unfounded. Any of us.

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"?

All of the above, basically. As stated, I admit it isn't some plethora of evidence. But based on the meager evidence I do have, these people can't take a joke, and they believe that words actually hurt them. It's laughable... and yes, I stand behind my assessment that this sort of behavior comes from the mind of idiots. I admit this is only my opinion... but I honestly hope there are others out there of the same mind and that some day this rein of terror that people afford mere words will end. Don't be like these people. Just don't. Any of you out there reading this... I implore you. Don't be like these drivel-casting idiots. Oh... and don't make sexist jokes either. There are, certainly, problems with that also.

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

No. You don't take a knife to a gun fight... you take a gun. That way, you're both "speaking the same language." Or how about the idiom "a taste of their own medicine." Sometimes it takes going there. It just does. People might want to tell you "don't stoop to their level." Fine. Say that all you want... but you who feel that way don't always get to make the decisions now, do you? No... you don't.

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

So? That's all part and parcel of me telling them to "shut the hell up." Part of my schtick to try and get across to them that there are people out there who look at their behavior and think "Wow... what a bunch of idiots." THIS is what gets people to change their minds about emotion-driven behavior. The judgment of vast amounts of your fellow man. I'm trying to turn the tide here. That's it. That's what I am doing. Obviously A LOT more people think like you do... and give words this incredible POWER. I don't... and I think it is a dumb thing to do. I always will. Words are cheap. They are garbage. I use them PRECISELY because a lot of you think they have power. I am, again, fighting you with the weapons chosen for the battle. The weapons YOU allowed to be the most powerful against you. Admittedly... that is taking advantage. But I do so to make a point. Just stop giving the words the power and they have none.

No, he took the road of attacking people.

I see no need in explaining why I feel this justified again. Read back over my previous posts for the answer if you're interested. Otherwise, don't. I cannot give further care to this point.

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

I've also explained this. Done.

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

What the hell is "Mamet" and why should I care?

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

You can't tell me what to do. I thought we established this already?

 

[Father Heathen]

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

It's obviously different if you're joking about something you've actually done, like using wealth and fame to sexually assault people. Gloating about criminal activity goes far beyond "jokes".
Also, when it comes to decorum and professionalism, obviously presidents will be held to higher standards/expectations than the rest of us.

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

Trump's facing impeachment for breaking constitutional law, not for being a crappy comedian.
Also the right has its own form of PC; it demands religious and patriotic reverence.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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

And I am a jack-***. I admit it freely. Don't listen to me.

 

[Cooky]

It's obviously different if you're joking about something you've actually done, like using wealth and fame to sexually assault people. Gloating about criminal activity goes far beyond "jokes".
Also, when it comes to decorum and professionalism, obviously presidents will be held to higher standards/expectations than the rest of us.


Trump's facing impeachment for breaking constitutional law, not for being a crappy comedian.
Also the right has its own form of PC; it demands religious and patriotic reverence.

Hmm, an 8-point reply. Cutting it down to about 1 or 2 would have made it a little more response-friendly... Now I feel overwhelmed.

 

[PureX]

What is it about Twitter that makes people, particularly people in extremely visible positions that are hugely affected by public perception, always want to do and say things that look bad and then double-down on them over and over and over again?

Is it really so hard to just go "Sorry about that last Tweet - just a bit of a tasteless joke"?

There is a very fine and vacillating line between good notoriety and bad notoriety. And for those who are trying to use notoriety to becomes professionally "famous", it's even trickier, still. Look what happened to Rosanne. And she was a pro at it.

Personally, I think if one has talent, they should let that speak for them.

 

[Father Heathen]

Hmm, an 8-point reply. Cutting it down to about 1 or 2 would have made it a little more response-friendly... Now I feel overwhelmed.

But they're all relevant and interconnected points. over-simplifying things is what causes these problems to begin with.

 

[Stevicus]

Don's pass it on to your friends and snicker together as you label him a misogynist and high-five one another like you just scored one for "society."

Well put. I think what strikes me about things like this is that it often comes off as so disingenuous, as if it's following some kind of script or formula. It's like trained monkeys flinging poo as a response to certain stimuli. None of it seems real to me. Of all the people who responded, I'd be willing to bet that almost none of them truly felt any genuine offense, hurt, or anguish deep in their hearts over what was said. That's why a lot of people roll their eyes at political correctness, since it often comes off as "feigned offense," which appears more of a deception and attempt to manipulate than an honest attempt to express one's true feelings.

Indeed, it seems more an attempt to project what the other guy's feelings might be (in this case, misogyny). This implies a claim that he said what he said because he has hateful feelings towards women. But there's no real evidence or indication of what his true feelings are, other than quotes on Twitter. And we can't really read his mind or see what's inside his heart, so those attempting to attribute feelings to this person which can't be proven, then I would see that as arguing in bad faith.

In other words, it's one thing for someone to say "I don't like what you said" or "what you said hurt my feelings," but it's yet another thing to say "you said this because you are a _______ (insert pejorative here)."

I think it's valid for someone to talk about what offends them personally, but when they make unfounded assumptions about the individual who might have uttered the offending remark, then that crosses the line of fair play. They can still say it, since we're all protected by the First Amendment. But I don't generally take them any more seriously than I would monkeys flinging poo.