Re: The Alec Baldwin Left Hook

moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 4/28/2024 6:19 AM, trotsky wrote:

On 4/27/24 2:02 PM, moviePig wrote:

On 4/27/2024 1:45 PM, trotsky wrote:

On 4/27/24 11:01 AM, moviePig wrote:

On 4/27/2024 4:19 AM, trotsky wrote:

On 4/26/24 2:03 PM, moviePig wrote:

On 4/26/2024 1:30 PM, trotsky wrote:

On 4/26/24 11:25 AM, moviePig wrote:

On 4/26/2024 4:40 AM, trotsky wrote:

On 4/25/24 1:53 PM, moviePig wrote:

On 4/25/2024 12:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 23, 2024 at 2:49:02 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk"
<anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>

moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

   On 4/23/2024 1:04 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:

   BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>

   For once I'm on Alec's side. This girl deserved a
Baldwin Shot to the jaw.

>
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1782537868654592000/pu/vid/avc1/320x568/fUPEunTyWUNbP57L.mp4?tag=12
   https://apple.news/A9M48T4LsTYOCvCmG3eY14Q
   "The agitator, who hosts a show on social media called
Crackhead Barney &
   Friends and is known for ambush interviews"
>
https://www.bowiecreators.com/project/crackhead-barney-and-friends-nyc-interview-fds-festival-performance-lausanne
   "shooting and killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on
the RUST movie
   set in 2021 using a gun he did not know was loaded."
   Nice to know they've made that determination.
   "This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten, or
   redistributed."

   There's dissonance in a law that forbids him from
striking her but says
   nothing about her emphatically asking for it.

The article says he hit her phone, not her.
>
But then the article also says he didn’t know the gun was
loaded.

>
Do you realize how much of an obnoxious, stupid, blithering,
idiot scumbag you
have to be to make Alec Baldwin seem sympathetic; to create a
video that makes
me feel sorry for Alec Baldwin? 'Cause usually when I watch
an Alec Baldwin
video, the emotions I'm accustomed to feeling are irritation,
revulsion,
scorn. I didn't think it was possible for someone to do or
say anything that
would make me side with Alec Baldwin, but here we are.
>
In any interaction with Alec Baldwin, you automatically get
the benefit of the
doubt because you are not Alec Baldwin and he is. In order to
squander that
advantage, you have to go out of your way to be as unpleasant
as humanly
possible. And she managed to do it in less than a minute. I
mean, really,
quite an achievement.

>
It was almost reminiscent of BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE's finale,
where Michael Moore hounds gun-advocate Charlton Heston around
his own home. Later we learned that Heston was dealing with
Alzheimer's, but even on its own the scene undercuts any
humane aspect to Moore's message.

>
>
I mean really, you can convolute the fuck out of things but to
whine about a fuckhead who smiles about people being required
to pry the gun out of his "cold dead hands" (or skeletal bones,
as the case may now be) vs the granddaddy of mass shootings is
out of whack even by your standards.  How do you put two and
two together and keep coming up with fifty million?

>
The point is that Moore's visible torture of a decrepit old man
evoked an instinctive viewer-response that transcended
policy/politics.  It was a simple failure of technique, costly
to his persuasiveness.

>
>
Speak for yourself.  Just because you are sympathetic to an
asshole doesn't mean the bulk of the audience was.  The reviewers
weren't either.  The NRA transformed themselves into a bunch of
sick fucks, and Heston was the head asshole before he did us the
favor of dying. Fuck you for even thinking that and being in full
dipshit mode.  I used to hang out with a guy who owned guys and I
remember watching this thing they showed kids with a character
called Eddie Eagle, teaching kids about gun safety.  The NRA had
merit then, that was back in the early 90s.  Then they reinvented
themselves into a lobbying organization so the gun industry could
profit by selling more and more guns.  They are scum.  If you
don't get this I feel sorry for you.

>
I suppose this becomes a matter of how one feels about torture.

>
>
It's not that hard to make a distinction between harassment and
torture.   Try harder.  I know you know what the words actually
mean so stop fucking around.

>
The distinction is a matter of degree.  What's the same is the motive.

>
>
And you're claiming that to be what?  Because what I'm hearing is
your thoughts are so fucked up and twisted that you think Chuck
Heston's treatment was more heinous than the massacre at Columbine.

>
Without any material (and, even then, likely dubious) aim, torture and
harassment are merely about delighting in causing someone pain.

>
>
So what you're saying is the guy who belongs to the "pull yourself up by
the bootstraps" party was in a lot of emotional pain there?  Is this
some sort of exercise in disingenuousness?  Hell, no gun was pulled from
his cold dead hands, why didn't he brandish one at MM?  Let me guess: he
was just a doddering old fool at that point and just lucked out by being
President of the biggest lobbying organization in the history of
Washington.  Makes sense.

>
What I'm saying is that, if there's nothing to gain from torture, you're
left with merely the question of whether to cheer for it.

 You won’t know if there’s nothing to gain from torture until you try.