• Gary Oldman Rants About Political Correctness, Defends Mel Gibson And Alec Baldwin
    99 replies, posted
[quote] he pretty much hates all the movies he's worked on that you love[/quote] this is what i cared most about there are a lot of movies i can think of that he was in and if he called them shitty he would have shitty taste
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45204866]For the most part I agree, but people do/say retarded things when they're drunk so that's definitely not always the case. I just hate how people go "well I was drunk forgive me :(" and honestly expect that's all they need to get off the hook. Somebody took a shit on the floor in my bathroom once and I was apparently a huge asshole for making them clean it up because they had a hangover. Even besides the whole raging drunk thing, if somebody is a bigot I don't care about that. If I got bent out of shape every time somebody had different views than I do or were flat out fucking wrong, I'd have gone thoroughly crazy years ago. Even if somebody went up to Mel Gibson and was like "yo, Mel, stop hating the Jews," I doubt that would make a difference in his mind. Very rarely do I get truly offended about anything, even if it's directed at or about a particular group I'm a part of. I just accept that people have all sorts of views reinforced by a lot of things that may or may not be true, I can say whatever but ultimately they control what they believe.[/QUOTE] When I say "take it seriously" I mean you can consider him anti-Semitic due to his comments. Those comments even though he was drunk,[i]especially[/i] because he was drunk, when he made them tell you what you need to know about him. Whether you, or anyone else, should care is a different issue. I enjoyed Edge of Tomorrow but I know people who won't see it because they don't want to contribute money to Scientology, via Tom Cruise. Everyone has different lines that they won't cross. I disagree with people who have Oldman's perspective because it comes across as saying that today's lines you can't cross are too restrictive. The only difference between what he'd consider the good old days and now is that minority groups and women didn't have a voice back then. That's why it seems 99 times out of 100 the person complaining about no one being able to take a joke in this overly politically correct world is a straight white male Christian. What they are really complaining about is the fact that they can't bash other groups with impunity these days.
Who do you hate, Gary Oldman? [video=youtube;UJZUTlVBLr8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJZUTlVBLr8[/video]
In vino veritas.
He [URL="http://jezebel.com/gary-oldman-very-remorseful-about-anti-semitic-comments-1595638708"]apologized[/URL]... I think? Possibly? I'm not too sure.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;45205224]Those comments even though he was drunk,[i]especially[/i] because he was drunk, when he made them tell you what you need to know about him.[/QUOTE] I dunno if this is true. I've never been blackout drunk before because even with reduced decision making abilities from drinking I am not a fool, but the idea that who you are when you're drunk is your true self minus any inhibitions strikes me as not totally true. You can hold an idea in your head, you can know it's not true and therefore "file" it under shit you shouldn't say because it isn't true. If your inhibitions are lowered though and suddenly saying it seems like a good idea or at least doesn't seem like a bad idea, does that mean that is who you really are or does that just mean that is how you are when your decision making abilities are seriously inhibited? Drunk people stumble, and with increasing drink do they stumble more. We would never argue that the way someone stumbles when they're drunk is how they truly walk, because what it actually is, is your balance and coordination being thrown out by intoxication. But what is saying stupid things when you're drunk, but your frontal lobe "slacking off" with the result being that, as your good judgement is seriously impaired by your stupor, you say and do stupid things. It does not take a racist to hear for example, racist Jewish stereotypes, and store them in memory, as what you remember without actively trying to is largely hard to control. So you remember these things, you disagree with them while your ability to make a sound judgement is still there. Take away that safeguard however and you're saying them even though you don't agree with them. It isn't a case of you secretly holding the ideas to be true and then when drunk you don't feel inhibited about saying them at all. This is not to say that there doesn't exist people who hold racist views and hold them back, only airing them when they are drunk, it is to say that this is not always the case. On the matter of political correctness. I think that silencing people only makes them hold their views in private and unless they are particularly ballsy, away from any conversation or debate. This may at first seem ideal, that racist or sexist ideas never make it out into the open and no one has to get offended at anyone's dialogue. There is a caveat though; these people still hold their views but now because they cannot bring them into the open they can never be refuted through argumentation. People now just privately hold whatever stupid ideas they have using the fact that they are not accepted to be said as an excuse to never have them scrutinised by people who would rationally criticise why they hold their particular beliefs. The world may seem like a better place when no one is being openly bigoted, but you must remember that these people can still vote and wherever they can assert their beliefs without being silenced or shamed, they will. It's much like people who hold an idea they know to be weak, but hold very dearly, and as a result they refuse to argue with you because they know you would dismantle that idea. Only now you have given them an excuse just to keep it private. Shaming someone as a bigot is not the way to make someone stop being a bigot, directly refuting their fallacious beliefs in whatever way they may require is the way. I think political correctness gets in the way of that, but you may disagree with me as is your right. You may also not think it is important to change people's minds, only stop people from being emotionally harmed by hurtful language, that too is your right, though I disagree with it.
I'm not trying to legitimize the views of Gary Oldman and especially not Mel Gibson, I understand the way he feels but the way he has described it comes across as very ham-fisted and ignorant. Anyway though... I sincerely believe that being intolerant of bigots and racists not only allows them to continue to exist, but literally breeds more of them by causing feelings of resent and exclusion. This eventually leads to extremism. Don't get me wrong, their beliefs are pretty deplorable, but you don't change people's minds by making their beliefs unspeakably taboo and shaming them for it. Changing a person's views requires not only thoroughly refuting their arguments but also being considerate and understanding of why they might [I]personally[/I] feel that way. I think the biggest failure of political correctness is that rather than teaching people to be sensitive and considerate to the painful memories and suffering of others, plus taking into consideration the social context and implications of our language; instead we pretend that the only thing that matters is covering up these problems like they don't even exist, and making them unspeakably taboo. That doesn't actually fix the problem though, it's essentially just coddling.
I personally believe people are a little too sensitive today to the point of creating a society of victimization and fear. The "check your privilege" and shit is a direct result of this 12 or so years ago when I was even more frequent on the internet than now, there was really none of this. No SJWs and shit. I wonder what changed. He has a point where a lot of people are hypocrites.
"people can't take a fucking joke" = "i can't fucking take criticism :(" [QUOTE=Glitchman;45208589]I personally believe people are a little too sensitive today to the point of creating a society of victimization and fear. The "check your privilege" and shit is a direct result of this 12 or so years ago when I was even more frequent on the internet than now, there was really none of this. No SJWs and shit. I wonder what changed. He has a point where a lot of people are hypocrites.[/QUOTE] what probably changed is that more people has access to the internet now than 12 years ago computers were pretty expensive back then, so was the internet. but now, with a lot more people having access to the internet, you hear more opinions from different set of people
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;45204944]I'm having a hard time imagining the context in which somebody could use a racial slur in an offensive gesture and not be racist, how could you use a racial slur [I]to verbally degrade somebody[/I] as being a member of their "race," and not be a racist for doing so? Using racial slurs is just generally bad, at least, beyond using a racial slur in reference or for literary explanation, because really, saying something like "the n word" in place of "nigger" is just evasive paraphrasing even though everybody knows what you mean anyways. But generally speaking, an insult is used to verbally degrade somebody. You call somebody an idiot, because being an "idiot" is a bad thing. You call somebody "a piece of shit" because pieces of shit are bad. Logically, if you call somebody a racial slur of your choosing as an insult, wouldn't that mean you think that -x ethnicity/race- is a bad thing? Maybe I'm just being obtuse, but honestly you didn't provide any context examples whatsoever in your post. You just made a dubious statement and didn't support it with any reasoning or examples.[/QUOTE] Insults are as much about the other person's opinions as your own. If I say to someone "your mother's a whore" then chances are I don't actually know their mother, but just want to upset them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.