this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
1480 points (96.7% liked)

Don’t You Know Who I Am?

3772 readers
1 users here now

Posts of people not realising the person they’re talking to, is the person they’re talking about.

Acceptable examples include:

Discussions on any topic are encouraged but arguements are not welcome in this community. Participate in good faith - don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.

The posts here are not original content, the poster is not OP and doesn’t necessarily agree with or condone the views in the post. The poster is not looking to argue with you about the content in the post.

Rules:

This community follows the rules of the lemmy.world instance and the lemmy.org code of conduct. I’ve summarised them here:

  1. Be civil, remember the human.
  2. No insulting or harassing other members. That includes name calling.
  3. Censor any identifying info of private individuals in the posts. This includes surnames and social media handles.
  4. Respect differences of opinion. Civil discussion/debate is fine, arguing is not. Criticise ideas, not people.
  5. Keep unrequested/unstructured critique to a minimum. If you wish to discuss how this community is run please comment on the stickied post so all meta conversations are in one place.
  6. Remember we have all chosen to be here voluntarily. Respect the spent time and effort people have spent creating posts in order to share something they find amusing with you.
  7. Swearing in general is fine, swearing to insult another commenter isn’t.
  8. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia or any other type of bigotry.
  9. No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.

Please report comments that break site or community rules to the mods. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before being banned from this community.

PLEASE READ LEMMY.ORG’S CITIZEN CODE OF CONDUCT: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html

PLEASE READ LEMMY.WORLD’S CODE OF CONDUCT: https://lemmy.world/legal

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 year ago (3 children)

An architect designs a bridge. The materials include a number of steel beams that dont actually meet the support requirements for the bridge's expected traffic. The bridge collapses.

This guy, to the survivors of the collapse: Have you ever even taken a bridge safety course?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This analogy is flawed. The engineer would be a gunsmith. The bridge collapsing would be the gun catastrophically failing. A bridge is not deliberately designed to inflict damage on animals (mostly humans) the way a gun is.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I wasn't aiming at crafting the perfect analogy. I wanted to capture the absurdity and fucking asininity of the responders comment.

The point is that it's not up to either the bridge's users (the actors in the film) to "take a safety course" - it's up to the bridge designers/builders (the film set's armorer if we're talking about direct blame or the executive film staff if were talking about corner cutting or poor funding) to make sure the bridge (the prop gun) is safe to use.

If Baldwin is culpable for corner cutting as an executive staff member (and for example, hiring a shitty armorer to save on costs), so be it. I don't give a shit about him. But being mad at someone for not checking a gun when the responsibility lies on a hired expert and this is just how Hollywood operates and in a century of filmmaking there have been a handful of freak accidents?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

That’s pretty much what this sounds like to me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here's a more applicable example.

Two carnival clowns are having a faux sword fight. One clown hits the other clown, only to find out that his sword is razor sharp. The second clown is impaled and dies.

Do you think we would give the clown the benefit of the doubt?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is there a clown armorer in the clown troupe who was supposed to diligently do his job and check that the swords are fake?

I'm not against making the clowns take a class about pressing their thumbs to the blade or trying to slice a piece of paper in half (checking that the bullets in the gun are crimped and, therefore, blank), but if the clown industry's SOP is to always have a clown armorer on staff and one of the clown armorer's main jobs is to make sure that all the swords are plastic, then who's to blame here? Who even stored a real metal sword with the fake plastic clown swords? This is a massive failure in clown procedure.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

All of what you said can be true and yet, we would probably convict the clown anyway. The clown is poor, "stupid", and disposable. Alec Baldwin is protected by his class, wealth, and fame. There are two standards of justice here and Baldwin will be given the benefit of the doubt because of his power.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not so sure we'd convict the clown - but I also wouldn't argue that the wealthy and famous don't have their own lane when it comes to legal matters. Even if we didn't convict the clown, Baldwin's own road to vindication and absolution would be much, much easier.

And for the record: I don't care about him in the slightest. If he got life in prison over this, all I'd care about is whether it was a just verdict and sentence.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I agree. I don't know for sure if we'd convict the clown. I also don't care about Baldwin. And finally, I also think his privilege protects him.