>>447210
That's the first time I've somehow managed to click 'Submit' instead of the textbox.

Alec Baldwin shot two people on set today with a prop gun that accidentally contained live rounds, although the story may change as more details emerge. Any media lads around to explain how this could possibly happen?

Could be a Crow situation, or something deeply dark like a deliberate loading of live rounds by an unhinged disgruntled crew member.

The weird bit is why Baldwin would be pointing let alone shooting a prop gun at a director or cinematographer, that doesn't sound normal.

>>447212

>The weird bit is why Baldwin would be pointing let alone shooting a prop gun at a director or cinematographer, that doesn't sound normal.

Just realised he was probably shooting at the camera. That makes sense.

>>447212
>a deliberate loading of live rounds by an unhinged disgruntled crew member
That was something you could do in Hitman Blood Money, and it always struck me as a bit unrealistic. If someone really did this, I'd have to reevaluate Hitman's realism.

Prop guns aren't safe when fired in succession. You have the initial blank round that is stopped by material which means everything is fine, the next shot will however pepper debris from the stopper and round at high velocity. This is why you see those big yellow metal stoppers on rifles when the army is doing exercises because they need something big and safe to do job even if they're firing blanks.

Probably a fuckup by the armourer followed by the director deciding to disregard safe distance because they wanted to pull off a good shot.

>>447211
It was Agent 47 who swapped out the bullets.

The BBC website describes Alec Baldwin as being best known for 30 Rock and playing Donald Trump on Saturday Night Live. That really pulls back the curtain on who writes for the BBC website. This is a man who won an Oscar for a film he was only in for seven minutes. And I've seen Glengarry Glen Ross; the other scenes are markedly less exciting and good. Alec Baldwin is so good, he had that leaked phone call of him yelling at his daughter and he didn't get cancelled for it in any way. A true legend of cinema.

>>447219
>This is a man who won an Oscar for a film he was only in for seven minutes

Do you have the right Baldwin?

>>447219
He was fucking good as Jack Donaghy, though.

Sorry, it had to be done

>>447216

>Probably a fuckup by the armourer

The buck always stops with the armourer. Even if someone else did something malicious or negligent, the armourer has ultimate responsibility for the safety of weapons on set.

Apparently the character he was playing is haunted by an accidental shooting he committed in the past.

I've heard of method acting, but this is ridiculous!

(A good day to you Sir!)

I'd post a frame from In Bruges but I can't be bothered to find a particularly appropriate one.

>>447225
No, in the movie it's his character's grandson that shot someone accidentally.

>>447228
Spoilsport.

>>447229
That would be an ecumenical matter.

>>447220
Son of a bitch. I really thought he did win the Oscar. In the end, it went to Gene Hackman for Unforgiven, and someone was nominated for Glengarry Glen Ross, but it was Al bloody Pacino. What a rip-off.

Let's all watch the excellent scene anyway. Fucking Gene Hackman and fucking Al Pacino, making me look silly.

Alec Baldwin be hunting down the on-set armourer like:

I'm wildly speculating that the cause of the accident might have been the chamber or the barrel exploding when a blank was fired, and the people hit were standing at the side and got hit by shrapnel.

>>447238
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set
Seeing that it was a live round, and that they'd replaced all of the prop crew and some of the film crew with scabs that day.

He was not in costume. Definitely him fucking around somehow. Maybe one of his famous tantrums.

>The affidavit identified the armorer on set as Hannah Gutierrez, also identified as Hannah Gutierrez Reed in a set call sheet for the film reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Armorers are in charge of handling the safety and use of prop guns on a set. They are also tasked with ensuring there are no projectiles in the prop firearms among other safety precautions, said people familiar with the job.

>Ms. Gutierrez Reed had arranged the guns on the cart, the affidavit said. After the incident, she took the gun back and removed a spent casing before handing it to sheriff’s deputies who had arrived at the scene, the affidavit said. Ms. Gutierrez Reed, 24 years old, didn’t respond to a request for comment.

>Ms. Gutierrez Reed had recently completed her first film as head armorer on “The Old Way” starring Nicolas Cage, according to a podcast interview she gave last month. She said in the interview with the “Voices of the West” podcast that she almost didn’t take the job because she was nervous, but the filming ended up going well. Ms. Gutierrez Reed is the daughter of the famous armorer and movie gun consultant Thell Reed, who she said trained her. When reached on a cellphone of Mr. Reed’s, a man who answered said he didn’t know about the accident and wasn’t there.

>Professionals on movie sets are trained to follow heightened safety protocols around weapons, said Stephen Lighthill, president of the American Society of Cinematographers. “What it means is that somebody was tired, somebody didn’t follow protocol, someone didn’t hire the right person,” said Mr. Lighthill, speaking generally. “It’s not an accident, it’s a preventable incident. We’re all well schooled in how to avoid those problems,” he said.

>Particularly on independent and lower budget films, such as “Rust,” it isn’t uncommon for there to be labor unrest or for production crews to be expected to work long hours with few breaks, say film production workers. The Covid-19 pandemic has put even more pressure on film crews. Many have shrunk in size as part of the effort to curb the potential spread of the virus, according to production workers. Earlier this month, the production workers union, IATSE, reached a new, tentative contract agreement with studios and streaming services for better pay and healthier working conditions.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alec-baldwin-expresses-anguish-and-shock-about-death-on-set-of-rust-11634919666

So apparently the gun was loaded with live rounds. This thought occured to me yesterday given how two people had been shot by one discharge, which seemed impossible if it had been a situation like The Crow where some debris had remained in the barrel, but I didn't mention it because it seemed so absurd. How the hell you don't notice you're loading actual bullets and not blanks?

Also these Alec Baldwin memes are shite.

>>447239
>>447257
In film production, "live round" means anything capable of being fired. Blanks are "live" until they're used. The gun had been declared "cold" (unloaded).

There's also some dispute about the replacement crew, with some suggesting that they were from a different union local branch.

>>447258
Can you source this claim of yours that 'live round' means 'any round' on film sets, while meaning 'not blank' literally everywhere else?

>>447259
Yes.

>>447260
Ah OK so you've just made it up.

>>447261
It's literally in one of the articles that's been linked. I'm not doing your homework for you.

>>447262
I've read them, and it isn't.

>>447263
No you haven't.

>>447264
More lies.

Playing the spoilsport: it's in the LA times article:
>A source close to the union said Local 44 does not know what projectile was in the gun and clarified that “live” is an industry term that refers to a gun loaded with some material such as a blank ready for filming.

>A stunt double for Alec Baldwin reportedly fired two rounds of live ammunition days before the Hollywood actor fatallyshot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, according to a report.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/alec-baldwin-prop-gun-misfire-rust-b1943248.html

This is very silly.

>>447281
I read somewhere that the incident with the stunt double was the third in a week. Seems like it was a miracle they managed to go that long without killing someone.

I recently mentioned the episode of The IT Crowd where Roy's girlfriend lost her family in a fire at Sea World and I feel basically how he did then about this shooting. Just don't put real bullets in the gun, how do you muck that up? It's like baking a cake and realising you've got no bicarbonate of soda so you replace it with cyanide; it's white and powdery, who's going to know the difference?

>>447290
They didn't.

>>447290

Again "live ammo" means something different to hollywood than it does to most people. It almost certainly means blanks. This is still a massive, horrible mistake in a lot of ways - performers being told guns are cold (unloaded) while actually loaded with blanks, blanks being aimed at people in general, barrels presumably not being checked for debris between shots - these are all huge fuck ups. But I don't think anyone is reporting that actual shooty gun ammo was just knocking about on set and in guns for filming.

>>447292

I'm pretty sure at this point everyone in the media has understood it and decided to keep repeating the phrase "live rounds" because they know most of the audience don't and it's more shocking that way.

>>447292
This. There just isn't any use for real ammo on a film set so they don't use it.

This reminds me of one of the cardinal rules of gun safety: All guns are loaded until proven otherwise.

>>447290

Given that the prop master was replaced at the last minute with a scab, anything could have happened. The insurers would have made sure that the original bloke was fully qualified and checked all the safety plans before they signed off the production, but his non-union substitute could have just been some blagger with no idea.

It's unthinkable from a British perspective that there would be guns and ammunition just lying about, but the sheer ubiquity of firearms in the US opens up the possibility for all sorts of horrible coincidences. When you've got so many people walking around with guns on their person, it becomes a real possibility that someone might just happen to be carrying the same model of gun as the prop, or have a couple of rounds of the same calibre ammunition in their pocket.

The yanks just have a casual attitude to firearms that is unthinkable anywhere else in the developed world. Highly unlikely accidents become a statistical inevitability in a country with more guns than people.

>>447302
>some blagger with no idea
The armourer is a young lass whose dad was apparently a very well-known Hollywood armourer, and who apparently taught her the tricks of the trade growing up.

>>447303

There were previous concerns raised about the 24-year-old armorer who was hired on Alec Baldwin’s film Rust, with two production sources telling The Daily Beast that filming on the set of her last movie was briefly stopped after she allegedly gave a gun to an 11-year-old actress without checking it properly.

“She was a bit careless with the guns, waving it around every now and again,” said a source, who worked alongside armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed on the upcoming Nicolas Cage film, The Old Way. “There were a couple times she was loading the blanks and doing it in a fashion that we thought was unsafe.”

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/inexperienced-armorer-tight-budget-walk-164719078.html

>>447303
She's innocent. Baldwin is a monster, lock him up.

>>447304
I shouldn't have looked her up. Twitter is full of right-wing Americans conflating the fact that she's got dyed hair and a TikTok account with her incompetence.

>>447306

Sometimes appearance based assumptions are pretty accurate though. She definitely doesn't look like the kind of person I'd trust with a gun, and it seems as if that assumption is correct, in the same way people are correct when they assume I smoke weed. I have no idea why they would possibly think that about me, but there we are, I just look like I do. And I do.

>>447308

People make deliberate choices about how they present themselves to the world. You're entitled to make judgements based on those choices.

It's your right as a free-born Englishman to turn up at a job interview in your dressing gown, but you don't get any sympathy if they tell you to piss off.

>>447309

What if they choose to be black.

>>447310

Then they'd have been shot by the police on their way to the film set.

>>447303
I'd fire off a few blanks in her. Not live rounds, if I could choose.

We've reached the point where the media are too impatient to wait for evidence and are trying to find a scapegoat for this.

>>447313
Such a hot take.

>>447314
And yet entirely correct. Although oddly, the TV news is barely saying anything. Online news (and presumably newspapers too if you're willing to actually pay to read bollocks) have plenty of information about exactly what happened, but I guess television news is too tightly regulated to say anything more incriminating than, "Maybe she just tripped and fell on the bullet? Anything is possible."

>>447309
I landed a job after turning up for a job interview wearing nothing but a t-shirt. Deal with it.

>>447317

Right you are, chipshoplad.

>>447316
It's not exactly new for the media to create a scapegoat rather than wait for the full version of events.

>>447318
Stick to battering your sausage, m7.

>>447313

As I said in >>447223, the buck always stops with the armourer. It's literally the case that they have one job and that job is to stop something like this from happening. Even if (hypothetically) someone intentionally tampered with a weapon with the intent of murdering someone on set, the armourer fucked up by failing to keep proper custody of the weapons and failing to inspect them properly. Someone else might also be to blame, but if something goes wrong with a weapon on set then by definition the armourer fucked up.

>>447308
>>447309
That's all well and good, it's everyone's right to make judgements about the people they meet based on the information they're given. However, I do still think those biases should be subject to scrutiny, e.g.
>she doesn't look like the kind of person I'd trust with a gun
Why? because she's a cute 24-year-old alt girl who likes to wiggle her tits about on TikTok? None of those things say anything about her aptitude with guns, or any other tool for that matter.

Do we have to live in a world where we only trust people that are solemn? Solemnity is pointless.

This is discounting that it probably is her fault, per >>447321

>>447321
I would rather say the buck stops with the person who shot it, given that it's negligence on their part to be flailing a firearm around sparking it off at people regardless of what it contains. It wasn't even in filming.

>>447324

>It wasn't even in filming

Where did you get this from?

>>447328
His clothing. It's a western. Yes this is from the day - not necessarily afterwards but there's photos of him wearing the same thing after the incident that I can't post.

>>447324

If you legally own a rifle on a Firearms Certificate, you are liable to prosecution if someone breaks into your house, steals your rifle and shoots someone with it. The burden of proof is on you to show that you took all reasonable precautions to safeguard your firearms against misuse. The police will come to your house, they will have a look around and they will expect to see a gun safe that has been cut open with an angle grinder; if they don't see that, then you've got some serious explaining to do.

It is the armourer's job to keep weapons under lock and key unless they're being used. It's their job to load only as many blank rounds as are needed for a scene and to check that the weapon is in a safe condition before it is handed over to anyone else. It's their job to ensure that everyone who handles a weapon knows exactly what they're doing and to take it back the moment they're finished with it. It's their job to make sure that anyone who can't be trusted with a weapon doesn't get to touch one.

Unless the story is "Alec Baldwin punched a 24-year-old woman in the face, grabbed a gun out of her hands and started shooting" then the armourer fucked up. If that was the case, I imagine we would have heard about it by now. In any other scenario, the armourer failed in their most basic responsibility.

>>447323

>Why? because she's a cute 24-year-old alt girl who likes to wiggle her tits about on TikTok?

She has chosen not to present herself in a manner that would generally be recognised as signifying "serious professional". It doesn't prove that she's incompetent, but it does demonstrate that she's making less effort than she could to demonstrate that she's competent. That's her business, but it implies a certain lack of judgement and/or commitment.

My electrician always turns up in a spotless van, wearing clean and modern workwear and with a cart full of neatly organised tools. None of that has any actual impact on the quality of his work, but it all screams "I am making the effort to do things properly".

>>447330
>She has chosen not to present herself in a manner that would generally be recognised as signifying "serious professional". It doesn't prove that she's incompetent, but it does demonstrate that she's making less effort than she could to demonstrate that she's competent. That's her business, but it implies a certain lack of judgement and/or commitment.
Alright granddad.

>>447330
How should she look to look like a professional? Trouser suit with shoulder pads? Hair like Thatcher?

>>447329

"The warrant notes that Baldwin's blood-stained costume as well as the weapon were taken as evidence. "

>>447330

>She has chosen not to present herself in a manner that would generally be recognised as signifying "serious professional".

In what context? Your cubicle farm, or a Los Angeles film set?

>>447332
I would say something like Sarah Connor towards the end of Terminator 2.

>>447330
Where does the picture that looks like a Tinder profile come from? Does it come from LinkedIn? Or does it come from Tinder? Or, most likely of all, does it come from a newspaper that didn't care where it came from as long as it sells papers?

>>447331>>447332>>447335

You lot are incredibly sensitive. Otherlad made a pretty straightforward statement that people generally dress in order to present a certain image of themselves. It's not a marker of true competence, but can be an indication of someone's self-image and/or how they want to be seen by others.

What's probably more relevant here is that the picture looks like it's just a bathroom selfie taken out of context. She may well have been wearing a shapeless boilersuit or a baggy high-vis tabard that day and still fucked up.

>>447332

Less skin, more Cordura.

There are plenty of young, attractive women who are well-respected in the firearms community. If you do an image search on their name, you get a lot of pictures of them doing gun-related things in the kind of clothes that gun nerds wear. If you look up their Instagram profiles, there's a normal amount of silliness mixed in with lots of Serious Gun Stuff. It's not rocket science.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=lena+miculek
https://www.instagram.com/lena_miculek/

>>447338

It can equally be a marker that they're more concerned with looking right for the job than being good at it. People who excel in certain arenas don't need to spend much time making sure they look the part; their reputation precedes them and their work speaks for itself.

You're also ignoring the point raised by >>447335 which is that film crews don't wear uniforms, they just wear their normal clothes.

>>447339

God forbid someone not dress like the American equivalent of a horse girl.

>>447340
>It can equally be a marker that they're more concerned with looking right for the job than being good at it. People who excel in certain arenas don't need to spend much time making sure they look the part; their reputation precedes them and their work speaks for itself.

That can be true enough in some cases, but I'm not sure that applies to this lass, for obvious reasons.

>>447340
>People who excel in certain arenas don't need to spend much time making sure they look the part

Yes whereas in this case we're talking about someone who walked straight into a high-up job with zero prior experience on the basis of her Dad knowing the employers.

>>447340

>People who excel in certain arenas don't need to spend much time making sure they look the part

I look the part, because I buy all my clothes at Screwfix. Where I go to buy screws. And fixings. And my clothes.

I've never gone clothes shopping at a gun shop, but I don't imagine that they have a big line in crop tops.

I've used the word clothes too many times and now it seems wrong.

>>447344

Yes.

>>447345

No we're not. We've been talking about the abstract concept for a while now. Not her, obviously she fucked up, just someone who dresses like her, who works on a film crew and if that says anything meaningful about their proficiency at their job.
Most of the pictures I can find of film crews are people in jeans and T-shirts or flannel but I have known a fair few who work in the props department and they definitely lean towards goth/metal/alternative. What other subculture grew up making fantasy swords and armour in their spare time? I won't pretend I'm deeply familiar with the industry but from what little I have seen, it makes sense that there'd be "alternative" people involved there.

>>447347

That's weird because apparently Lena Miculek dresses the way women in the business should dress (at least, according to one of the posters here) and she wears crop tops too.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTnU7SzJuM5/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CU-LFu4AxFZ/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CUzsPH4ryJp/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CUvYMSYAQVu/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CT5MU5XJppT/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CSb3gasgo2B/

Also the obvious point I missed which is that this is America we're talking about, weapons manufacturers blatantly do sell branded women's clothing too.

Latest theory is that someone failed to clear a prop round properly and chambered a blank with it, effectively creating a jerry-rigged conventional live round.

For revolvers, prop rounds tipped with a bullet are used to maintain the appearance of a loaded gun. If the bullet becomes separated from the casing, and you put a blank behind it, then you've basically got a loaded gun that is going to discharge an actual projectile when fired and you've got a Brandon Lee waiting to happen.

>>447350
That's not weird unless you're being obtuse. There are plenty of pictures of Lena dressed like she knows what she's doing, but no-one's produced any of this lass. Trawling through Lena's instagram and posting some links proving that she sometimes dresses like a normal person isn't pertinent, it's like trying to prove a deacon doesn't go to church by posting picture of him in a field.

>(at least, according to one of the posters here)
That's right, we're a bunch of right arseholes and you're "just visiting" and completely separate from us, but you must enjoy the mean things we say or why would you keep coming back? If you go to such lengths to defend criticism of a demographic, people on gs (online in general) are just going to end up criticising that demographic more simply to piss you off. I doubt you would have gone to these lengths if it had been a man being talked about, because slagging off men happens on here all the time and people say nothing.

>>447575
>I doubt you would have gone to these lengths if it had been a man being talked about, because slagging off men happens on here all the time and people say nothing.

How to let everyone know you're an chronic masturbator without saying you're an chronic masturbator.

>>447575

He's probably still seething about that rape otherlad got away with.

>>447576

It's things like this that make the double standard all the more obvious.

There's a double standard because women are inherently better than men.

>>447578
Name one man who has been given the same level of scrutiny on this website as, for a recent example, Patsy Stevenson.

>>447580

Jeremy Corbyn

>>447575
>There are plenty of pictures of Lena dressed like she knows what she's doing, but no-one's produced any of this lass
Right, absence of evidence being evidence of absence and all that you thick twat.

>>447581
Fair point. I should have said squarely because of their gender but I'll concede that one.

>>447583

>I should have said squarely because of their gender

But that's something you're inferring and is the core of your argument. If the people you're arguing with also believed the criticism given was purely given on the basis of gender, then there wouldn't be an argument, would there?

>>447582
No mate, but perhaps remember you're in the equivalent to a pub debate. Unless anyone's actually going to interview her and gauge her competence, we're just pretty much gossiping as we can never prove anything either way, so marginal factors like it being easy to find evidence that Lena seems to take her role seriously vs the other girl come to the fore because it's just supposition that doesn't need to be stated as such.

>>447580
Andy Murray. And the 'scrutiny' on Patsy was only due to you resisting the notion that she could be scrutinised, thus turning it into a whole 'thing' whereas if you hadn't piped up, it would have just passed as normal like the 'Andy Murray is lying' post a bit above the Patsy one. Notice how no-one came in saying "How dare you" and as such no argument occurred, but because you came in with bums blazing about Patsy it dragged on, and more egos got involved and looked for more evidence because of *you* or the people like you, not her or the fact she's a woman.

Do you understand that if you/whoever it was that drew ire with that had just remained silent, it would have passed, just like the scrutiny of Andy Murray further up? Much like the scrutiny of men we express, it's just that you don't pick up on that because men are better than women and don't need protecting by big strong transfembots like yourself.

>>447583
None of the criticism revolved around her gender, just the nature of her story and the way it couldn't be proven and could only be suspected. She said as much herself that she didn't think anything of it until a mate got suspicious, so if it wasn't clear to her, why would it be immediately clear and not a curiosity to others?

I'm just going to wrap my wedding band in my shoelaces and leave them under my car, so I can get PR. Unfortunately I don't have a vagina so no-one will get angry when I'm accused of angling for PR.

>>447587
>you

Not got to grips with the anonymous posting yet, lad? I have often pointed out that this place has "longstanding issues" with women but the moment you lads start with the overzealous woman bashing or the inevitable bickering that follows I'm well shot of it because it's all so tedious. The only exception to this was the recent rape talk because the acceptance of sexual assault being okay as it wasn't full-on rape went too far for me.

Some of you lads have unhealthy attitudes towards women and I will continue to call this out from time to time, but fucked if I'm going to get involved in the minutiae this inevitably descends into.

>>447589

Can you at least tell us under what circumstances we are allowed to criticise women?

>>447589
>you
>anonymous posting
>I have often pointed out

I've got the hang enough to have sometimes pretended to raise the same issues just to start an argument, though admittedly there's an element of hypocrisy in there it does make things seem a bit less serious.

>I have often pointed out that this place has "longstanding issues" with women
Yes, you have. And never in a constructive, helpful, or aspirational way. Only ever as an attack or a distraction, and what happens each time? You create an argument. You never tread diplomatically, nor do any of your ilk, and it's like you're primed to ignore any negativity that isn't directed towards your chosen charge.

You're proof that a perfectly good message can be tainted by those who champion it being obnoxious. The people on this board have lots of problems on aggregate, but the moment you say that their stance on women eclipses those other issues, you're acting in bad faith and more importantly, misunderstanding the symptom. And if you misunderstand the symptoms, your treatment will never work - as patently proven by you feeling like the arguments *you* start are 'tedious'. Knowing that, I hope you hang around to get further frustrated. Meanwhile I'll start posting with the insinuation that I'm just like you, and drive the point home that any palatable message can be tainted by the messengers being antagonistic or entitled.

>>447590
You're allowed to criticise them as much as you want, I'm not Postmaster General, but don't be surprised if something that's clearly an unhealthy attitude to have towards women gets called out. For example, if you think it's fine for a lad to sexually assault a lass because he restrained himself from raping her then this will be called out and there were at least three, possibly four, other posters also calling this out.

An exasperated post because your girlfriend has bought 20 cushions for your bed or poured washing up liquid into a Kilner jar for aesthetical purposes is fine, but that's clearly not what we're on about. It's also noticeable that this place can go from being dead quiet to a flurry of activity when the opportunity to have a pop at women comes along.

It's not controversial to point out that certain posters here have unhealthy attitudes towards women, it's to be expected from an online community such as this, but to deny these posters exist would be to deny that water is wet or the sky is blue.

>>447591
>as patently proven by you feeling like the arguments *you* start are 'tedious

I've just said, I don't get involved at all. I don't start them, I don't post in them with the exception of the rape discussion, I stay well clear as I do with most cunt-offs on here. I just call you out as cunts after the event.

Many of you do have that "pfft, bloody women, eh?" attitude a lot of middle aged twats blokes carry about with them. If one of you is a rapist I'd like to meet you so I can slit you open and play with your organs, but I only glanced at that thread and found the subject too grim to engage with, so perhaps I've gotten the wrong end of the stick.

>>447593
>It's also noticeable that this place can go from being dead quiet to a flurry of activity when the opportunity to have a pop at women comes along.
This thread taking the piss out of a man for being directly involved in a killing and posting multiple memes making light of his trauma was fine - but the moment someone says Greta's face looks like a Bo Selecta mask, or that a woman doesn't look professional, or that Andy Murray is on a PR bender (wait, strike that last one) that's not what sparks the activity, it's the concern trolling that follows by saying these people are above reproach or mockery because of their demographic.

>>447593
Nothing to be said about your lack of constructive direction with this? Or the relative scrutiny applied to criticism of women vs men?

>>447594
This is another aspect of the problem, this moral licensing that makes complete knobs think it's fine to post these wank fantasies about gorily killing rapists and playing with their blood. Like great, you're really in the right here. It's not even stated in a creative way, you're just acting like a piece of shit who happens not to be a rapist.

>>447595
Can you not see the difference between taking the piss out of Baldwin for something he did and taking the piss out of Greta simply for existing?

That said, the people jumping to Greta's defence were those crusty hippies who are hypersensitive to anything they see as an attack on the environmental movement rather than white knights.

>>447596

>taking the piss out of Baldwin for something he did

It's not been proven Balwin did anything wrong.

Stop victim blaming, it's disgusting.

>>447594

Do you think you live in a comic book?

>>447596
Nail on the head, 'something he did'. I'm assuming >>447597 is so on the nose because it's also highlighting the issue with what you've said.

>>447594
Same thing with 'bloody french' or 'bloody northerners' or 'bloody man city supporters'. It's all a bit twatty but in good humour for those who understand that simply saying something does not mean it's a true reflection of how one feels. There was an interesting episode of Freakonomics the other week which classified 'loose' and 'tight' cultures and looked at trends between them. One of the things with loose cultures as the US is that on aggregate, people who look differently aren't treated very differently, eg compare Japan and tattoos. But on the flip side, people who *acted* differently were criticised as consistency of personality seems to be a point of pride over there. It might be a stretch, but what with the American cultural dominance of the internet, that might explain why people have such a large problem with the idea that ones views as stated may not actually be a thorough reflection of the views held, as such. In that I can make a joke about something horrible without actually wanting something horrible to happen. That's all just musing though, it was a very interesting episode nonetheless.

>>447595
I don't want to be in the right, I'm really unwell and I'm struggling to control what I say.

>>447598
I'm unsure what's happening anymore.

>>447592
Every website in existence gets a flurry of activity in response to, "So, women, huh?" It's an entire business model. It's a discussion everyone can contribute to, because we all know at least one woman. To discuss government policies, you need to know government policies, and not everyone cares enough to do that, but observations about how men are different from women are universal and always have been.

I agree that nobody would post a picture of a bloke's dating profile to say he's bad at his job, but that's because that's gay, eww, yuck.

>>447600
It's okay mate. We're just fucking around. Is this something that's been happening a while? Do you have a support network in place? If not then you can find a link to the .gs discord in /e/ and pop in if you want to vent, otherwise there's also /emo/. Don't be a stranger, there's help out there and you sound like you could be feeling better.

>>447587
You being drunk this early doesn't make your absence of evidence, evidence.

>>447607
Good thing it wasn't presented as evidence, just as a conversation topic. Take a day off m8. And have a pint.

>>447599
Maybe it's a feeling I should distrust, but practically every public figure hits me as giving you the "something they did" justification for mocking them. If public figures don't want to be mocked, they've usually got the option of stepping back as public figures. "Being a public figure" is something you do, with some exceptional circumstances where it happens by accident.
(This as a general feeling, and not specific to any one case. Once including other factors, some figures are still mocked too much, others not enough.)

>>447609
>stepping back as public figures
Nobody said "stepping back" until a year or two ago. Then Prince Harry and Meghan Markle said it, and now everyone's saying it. They've got to you, man.

>>447610
It's dangerously likely that's what was kicking about in my subconscious. An obvious counterargument to "just stop being a public figure" seemed to be that once you're a public figure, it's hard to fuck off back to a normal life because people will want to know: whatever happened to Robot Jones? So you get "stepping back", or "not quite disappearing, but possibly reducing appearances in the hopes that you'll forget a little bit."

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2021-11-03/rust-shooting-armorer-hannah-gutierrez-reed-lawyers

>Attorneys for “Rust” armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed have suggested that someone intentionally smuggled live rounds of ammunition into a box of dummy rounds before cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was shot and killed.

Good thing whiteknightlad is a lawyer too.

More importantly, I don't understand how they can argue this considering that several safety contraventions had taken place previously, and another article claims it's not her fault because the gun was left alone for 2 hours. I mean poor girl, this must be horrible, but it seems like it's soundly her fault. Is it just that no-one has sabotaged a gun to this effect in decades? Was this a murder plot? That would be both salacious and exonerating tbf.

>>447622

It wouldn't be exonerating, she didn't check the weapon was cold.

>>447622
It's not "whiteknighting" to try to throw up all kinds of doubt as a defense lawyer, you big internet weirdo. Go outside and get some fresh air before your brain leaks out of your lugholes.

>A lawsuit against Alec Baldwin alleges that a film script did not require him to fire a gun when he fatally shot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

>Script supervisor Mamie Mitchell - who called police after the shooting on the New Mexico film set - filed the suit. Her lawyer accused the actor of "playing Russian roulette" when he fired the gun without checking it.

>Ms Mitchell's lawsuit claims that the script called for three tight camera shots - one of Mr Baldwin's eyes, another of a bloodstain on his shoulder and a third of his torso "as he reached his hand down to the holster and removed the gun". There was nothing in the script about the gun being discharged by defendant Baldwin or by any other person," it says.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59328040

>>447930

Strikes me as irrelevant. Actors should be able to improvise, the gun should never have been loaded.

>>447931
Improvise by aiming a gun at someone and pulling the trigger?

>>447931

That's batshit logic, especially if you've been following this case even a little bit, you'd know how tight on set gun protocols are supposed to be.

Not saying it's Baldwins fault, but your reasoning as to why it isn't might be the weirdest take I've seen for a while.

>>447934

Actually I'll admit total ignorance, here. I haven't been following the case at all, but my (lacking) understanding of on-set protocol is that the kind of (live?) ammunition used should never even be present, let alone loaded into a gun for filming purposes.

If that's not the case I'll gladly withdraw my hot take.

>>447932

In a scene where it sounds like someone is being threatened with a gun, or will be shot, maybe.

>>447935
Don't get them started on "live" ammo again. They will start gaslighting you.