Rude Comments And Reactions

Don't Get Me Wrong I AM Not Standing Up For Rude Comments Or Random Celebrities, I Just Think It's Wrong To Get On One Person

So, I don't know if you guys have watched the news or Entertainment Tonight lately, but a woman named Joan Rivers from "Fashion Police" has yet made another ignorant joke on National TV. On National TV she has made two jokes that have made people who watch TV, which not everyone does anymore, a little mad. She made one Holocaust Joke that said, "The last time a German looked this hot was when they were pushing Jews into the ovens." about model Heidi Klum. She also made a joke about musical artist Adele that said, "Oh no! No! She's thin! Can we just talk to each other here?" "What is her song, 'Rolling in the Deep'? She should add, 'Fried Chicken'." "She sang live and said, 'My throat, my throat, I don't know if I can swallow.' And I said, 'Oh, you can swallow'."

Now let's try to understand. Why is this such a big deal? Now I understand these were some offensive comments. But people in this domain, the Internet, say things that are like x10 as worse. And I don't see why they don't try and slam us over it. It's always some actress or some famous person who says it on TV. Now I asked my sister, and she said because it was national, mainstream television. But the internet is worldwide too, and don't tell me place like YouTube and Facebook aren't mainstream. And you should see half the comments people on there make. And guess who addresses it, no one. I think the only reason they point out certain celebrities is because they are one person they can mess with. As about 45% of the internet are bad mouth, racist, pedophile, crazy, horny, and ignorant people. ​

 

Our dearly beloved National Treasure Uncle Stephen Fry puts it much better than I ever could in this short clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqPcjm-X5GQ

 

Where would we be without your sense of humour (humor)? You are funny Tourist.

 

Hey! its not even in the right order!

As for the topic somethings are taboo to speak of, we like to think we are civilised, that we are better people, that we have evolved... so we ignore somethings but when someone speaks of it openly they burst our bubble and that makes us angry so we have to cast that person out of society so others learn to keep their mouth shut. As for the stuff that goes on the internet we can just blame it on kids on drugs and bad parents...

 

Ye know i always asked myself whats the difference between a guy of 77 dating a 67 and a guy of 27 dating 17... we look at the guy of 27 like he is some sick person but of the 77 its ok...

 

I get you're just making a point here but I just got ta say it.......

The difference is maturity. A 17 year old is still learning about the world and how to make choices in it. We see them as innocent still, easily taken advantage of. By the time your 67 society believes you've figured out how to protect yourself and make good decisions. If you have teenagers you'll know they make a lot of really bad decisions.

Celebrities have placed themselves in the public eye and must live up to a higher standard, if they screw up society loves to pounce because its a way of saying "see your no better then me."

I do understand what you are saying about the internet. People make selfish, highly confrontational remarks and we ignore them as being too stupid to react to or not worth our time to care to respond. This is mostly because we don't care about who they are and what they type speaks volumes about them and less about who they are dissing. Online Reputation is forever and you will be judged in the real world for your virtual attitude.

It is unfortunate that our society is filled with terribly sad people who want nothing better then to destroy other's lives online and off. The 'guy' who had a mental breakdown from the stress of trying to do something good in this world by making a documentary about Kony comes to mind. The terrible things said about him online caused him to have a mental break down, which unfortunately was caught on video and hit TV land causing even more 'hate' to come his way. Its a way for those who feel beaten down by life to beat others down who are getting the attention they desperately want. That doesn't make it right.

Here in the lower mainland BC we had a young girl who posted a cry for help of Youtube and then committed suicide. Her suicide has sparked public outrage about cyber bullying for about 3 months. Then it moved on to the background used by groups that are trying to get legislation changed. Even after her suicide there was bullying on her facebook memorial page and some really terrible things put out on youtube. People who didn't know her couldn't stand it that she had her 15 minutes of fame and tried to piggyback on it.

We can choose to ignore the problem, we can be part of the problem, or we can be part of the solution.

Just a thought: How much of the negative remarks on forums comes from being able to hide behind a screen name? Some people have bad selfish entitled attitudes regardless of a screen name but how much easier is it to be mean when you are able to hide?

 

^Exactly. You might have the right to offend but I also have the right not to hear it. Though I also have the right to ignore it too. Or if you exercise your right to be a prick I also have the right to tell you were you can go.

I hear this from the students at the school I work in all the time, usually when they are bulling some other kid and are getting a bit cheeky. 'I have the right, don't I, to say what I like in a free country?'. Yeah, you do, but there is a reason people do things with some class and decorum that you are just not understanding.

Really, all 'Freedom of Speech' actually means is that you will not be punished by a government body for just voicing an opinion. Doesn't mean you have the right to say anything with impunity. Doesn't mean that other people cannot punish you for what you say either. The British historian David Irvine was arrested during a visit to Austria for denying the holocaust happened. Is this right? I don't personally think it is, but it's worth remembering that Austria is also a member of the EU and as such I think it also must abide to basic human rights, free speech among them.

Things are never black or white. If you think it is, I'll ask you a question: do you have the freedom to enslave?

 

Yes but it is funny when you think about it, now in most countries you reach the adult age at 18, but couple of decades ago it was 21 in some(still is in some not sure), century ago and more people were aloud to marry at age 18 and less, at some point it was even strange if a woman was not married by the age of 18. So were kids back then smarter than today or just cause they had shorter lives they were forced to push the limits?

Now do keep in mind I'm not defending pedophiles or something just find the idea how we change to look at things with time.
What was a shock to talk in public before is now normal like people talking about sex on tv and who did who, so who knows maybe with time people bashing celebs publicly would be considered a sport...

 

Not to be picky or anything, but don't you think children of the past had longer life spans than us? I mean the modern world has a lot of things killing kids faster. Murders, drugs, and even the pollution in the air. The past even had cleaner air than us. And with all the things we put in our body, they probably had more durability and strength too.

 

Actually we still have the advantage our life span is longer, people back if you get to be 50 your already a legend as they didnt have modern medicine, now we get to live to 70 easy.
Murders: They had plague, disease that we now cure with a pill, plus people killed each other since they got out of their cave and figured how to use hands.
Drugs: no one is forcing them to take those, i didnt take drugs and i bet lots of other people didnt too.
Pollution: yes we have that one but you still can live with it, no one dies cause of it we just not healthy.

(facepalm) for more reason then mentioned up

But got to ask how does your argument connect to my post?

 

Don't have to facepalm. Sheesh
And when you said, "So were kids back then smarter than today or just cause they had shorter lives they were forced to push the limits?"
That is why it was connected.

 

Sorry couldnt help it

Ah i see now were you made the connection, sorry thought it was common knowledge forgot we each have an area that interest us and we learn more about it.
Now we consider a man of 20 to be young and just starting to live, hundreds of years ago at 20 he would be seen as a grown man probably with a job and a family already. And up to late 19 century it was quite normal for a man of 30-40 to marry a girl of 15 sometimes even lower. Sadly in some places this is still normal...

 

Just because it was accepted by society at one point doesn't make it right. You make some other good points too though. Back a couple hundred years ago upper society used daughters to make political alliances and to ensure they would be taken care of. That was not the case with lower classes but we all think that it was. You also make a good point about them marrying young, a 17 year old girl marrying a 20 year old boy was the norm and acceptable. The other point you made about lifespans is a good one. Today many feel they have lots of time before they need to settle down and have children, which is why many 37+ woman are single or having their first child. Back even 100 years ago the lifespan was much lower and woman died in childbirth. Lower classes were farmers and wanted lots of children to work the land so they needed to start young. Children were your only chance at old age security so you had to ensure you'd have adult children.

As a parent I can attest that kids today are coddeled (how do you spell that?) by helicopter parents and are not forced to learn how to make good decisions. At 18 both boys and girls are still relatively immature compared to even my parent's generation. (They are approx 60)

There is a scientific study on woman and hormones - although I can't remember the name of it off hand. Basically it found that girls know who they are until age 12 then hormones kick in giving them a ride in insecurity, mood swings, etc and they don't know themselves again until their mid 20s. In the past people didn't care if women knew themselves or what they wanted out of life. Their purpose was to shoot out kids. Today we want our daughters to have an identity, to be strong, and have self worth. Society's value of woman has changed.

 

In the past they had way more things that killed them. A simple cut would become infected and they would die because they didn't have antibiotics. They worked hard dangerous jobs on farms and factories. Just research the children who worked in the industrial age in England. Most died young from lung infections. They died of TB, the fevers, flu. Not to mention the plagues like small pox, black plague, typhoid, collera, and so many more.

I think you are thinking of a very small period in history between WWII and 1980. Before then woman died in childbirth and children died in infancy regularly. Modern hospitals only came about in the mid 1900s and then only in urban areas. In rural areas a country doctor making house calls was the norm even in the 1950s.

I get your environmentalist concern for the length of life but still it is only theory since those of us who grew up with plastic and processed foods are still in our 40s & 50s.... which historically speaking is a very long life.

 

Freedom of speech is a self-correcting system. The LAST thing we need is legislation banning this, or outlawing that.

If Lemex sends me a PM, and he calls me an 'oatmeal-faced baboon with the writing skill of a toaster oven' I would probably be offended. So, I would end our friendship and ignore him until he apologizes. Even though he had the freedom to say that, he now has to live with the consequence of losing me as a friend.

If there is a person in any group in society, they should be automatically outcast if they say things that offend enough of the group.

Joan Rivers is an entertainer. Her money comes from TV shows, movies, etc. If she is rude enough to be deemed unprofitable, no one will hire her and she will be faced with negative consequences.

Just look at Michael Richards or Mel Gibson, they paid a hefty price both financially and reputation-wise for their freedom of speech.

It all just kind of works itself out...

~ J. J.

 

However, the system does not work when you have people who intend to provoke a reaction, and especially when they can hide behind anonymity. There is then no accountability, no real consequences to their words and actions.

 

Well, yes, there may be some sticky situations where it's difficult to get away or remove the offense. But e-mail can be filtered, forum members can be banned, texts can be reported and Facebook friends can be blocked and un-friended.

Also, don't forget that children were smart, happy, mentally healthy individuals before comuters and the internet. I have three kids and if I EVER felt that the computer or cell phone was allowing my child to be insulted or harassed, I would throw it in the garbage. Go to school, come home and eat a happy dinner with your family, and then play board games or go for a drive or a walk.

 

Exactly. These are remedies for the fact that freedom of speech is not self-regulating in all circumstances. They are real world solutions for the shortcomings of an ideal world concept.

 

Agreed. I view it as a thing that was done cause it was needed, you lived shorter life its just logical you would start everything earlier, but most importantly i dont think those men that married a young wife saw them like a pedophile sees, they most probably saw a young healthy woman who was full of life and who would give him many children and that is a big difference.

Freedom of speech is a nice thing to have but i agree you are free to use it but their are always consequences, I'm a strong believer in "Live and Let Live" meaning i dont care what you do with your life and you should not care what i do with mine. I think that is one of the main problems in society today, so what if someone is fat if they dont mind why should i care, who gave the right to people run lives of other people?

I for example love to smoke, i dont smoke in a small closed place if their are none smokers in the room i go outside and respect that they dont smoke, just when i come back that person tells me i shouldnt smoke, that always pisses me off why do you care if i smoke am the one who will get cancer and if i dont mind and accept that you dont want to smoke and be harmed by it why cant you accept that i enjoy this and dont want to stop.

Or how often you hear people talk of that one girl that slept with every guy and say "she probably cracked more eggs with her butt than with a frying pan" yes thats freedom of speech but that dont mean you have the right to say it.

 

The other side of freedom of speech is that you can use it to make a difference.

Not all people are petty and self-absorbed. Be the difference. Be the example.

 

...or stay in your writing hole and let your writing speak for you. That's what I want to do.