I mean it has nothing to do with taking things literally or jumping to conclusions? "You shouldn't take things literally" is a response to, like, a joke, whereas in this situation it was a flatout fabrication.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson hits out at 'snowflake generation' for 'looking for a reason to be offended (Update: The Rock Says Interview Never Happened)
- Thread starter Deleted member 835
- Start date
- Status
I mean it has nothing to do with taking things literally or jumping to conclusions? "You shouldn't take things literally" is a response to, like, a joke, whereas in this situation it was a flatout fabrication.
I don't think people are more fragile. They're just less willing to accept status quo limitations, behaviors and beliefs.
"You can hate him if you want, but" is a dismissal of valid criticism, full stop. If that's not what you mean then you're doing a poor job of explaining it.
But sure, yeah, throw my push back into the pile of "outrage", I guess.
Except MY initial statement was in response to someone saying that he apologized via Instagram, something that is factually not true. You came in and, deciding to ignore all context as to what a genuine/nongenuine apology means, interject with "but he technically did apologize at some point", which serves literally NO purpose but to run defense for Hart and dismiss those arguing his apologies aren't genuine. That's the actual effect your pedantic posts are achieving.
Sort of seems like using "People jumped to conclusions" to describe "People believed a news article" is a real bad way of looking at things my friend. But I'll keep an eye out next time y'all agree with some article that gets posted here on Era and make sure to point out you're just jumping to conclusions
That's fair. I just assumed it had been vetted before I saw the thread when it was around 12 pages long. After all, bullshit doesn't usually stick around for that many posts without someone really checking the source. UK Daily Star's website is lol.
Also, National Inquirer fabricates whole stories and interviews too and folks eat it up. People are weird. IDK.
I mean I would have recognized the freaking National Inquirer lol. But yeah not familiar with that shady source.
You saying he "never" apologized means you know, never. Not a certain circumstance. Just straight up never. No matter how poorly executed, badly explained, genuine or not (and only time will tell about genuine) he apologized. Its just a fact. we can talk about how garbage it was all we want, but facts are facts. He never went on record to rescind the apologies either. Now him being egotistical douche about it? Yea it makes his apologies seem frivalous, but he didnt rescind them. And they happened.
So where is this interview where he says this? The Independent doesn't cite a source and the video above the story seems totally unrelated. It's bullshit, and it's now on them to provide a source or video otherwise they should take this down and issue an apology.
People were going off the information that was available. Nothing gross about that.
Oh, the Independent does cite a source. The Daily fucking Star. Shitheap of a rag.
It said it was in The Daily Star, which tells you all you need to know given its reputation for making shit up.
The Daily Star has been on a bit on an "anti-snowflake" crusade recently, and their target demographic are exactly the sorts of people who'll believe anything of that nature.
Outrage culture. Jumping to condemn people before hearing their side of the story.
Yea that's what I mean. We'd instantly disregard Inquirer, but new (to us)sources quoted by okay-ish sources (Independent) created just enough confusion for this to slip by. It's just disappointing that none of us really looked at that source site (including The Independent). 2 minutes on that site and it's clearly a trash outlet. Why didn't UKEra correct this instantly? lol
User Warned: Antagonizing other members. "Hive-mind" rhetoric.
Lmao I can imagine so many of y'all itching to post too. Funny thing is something he didnt say triggered y'all in the same sense as the article implied. Hand clap Era!
He rescinded them with his followup statements, whether he wanted to or not. Without question.
It's also clearly written with agenda, like it's clear where the writer stands on this issue. "He laid the smackdown on PC softies", "He spoke out after a flood of snowflake stories hit the headlines." Sounds like one of those Youtubers.
Ugh. Fucking tabloid shitrag. I hope he sues them for libel and defamation, but he's probably too nice a guy to do that.
Ask yourself, what exactly does being pedantic about this actually do for the topic at hand.
Like actually, 100%, what do you accomplish at the end of the day by being extremely pedantic (and again, ignoring all context) about this topic.
I'll tell you what you accomplish, you essentially add to the growing "but he apologized" camp who want to sweep this under the rug, and who, ACTUALLY IRONICALLY, have become snowflakes about being confronted by people who are, RIGHTFULLY, upset about how Hart has treated all this, because his frivolous attitude, as a public figure, shapes how many people will treat this kind of thing in the future, something that only serves to harm the very people complaining in the first place.
Ok you're just a troll then, fair enough. Guess it's time to ignore.
No jumping to conclusions happens every day of the week and is old as time. You do so every day; it's how your brain is designed to work. This was disappointment with someone people are already disappointed with, based on what they believed was a true story, quoted in a semi-respected source.
Unfortunately our libel laws are not conducive to actual justice, even you're rich enough to drag it through the courts. They won't bother though, they'll print a stamp sized correction on page 58 next week which no one will read, but that's apparently enough to cover their backs.
I am not going to believe the interview did not happen unless he sues them because to completely make up a story like that does not come without ramifications
I just can't accept this dismissal. While the fake story warranted criticism, the chorus of "fuck offs" is just too extreme of a reaction and it's exhausting. No one will come out and admit they jumped the gun. Why not show maturity and some humility?
Everyone wants to hold everyone else accountable but never themselves.
Many people jumped to agree with fake statements lol
I'm glad he didn't say this then
It's almost as if people immediately jumped to being outraged or something
I'm shocked though, I really expected more from a news outlet that runs front pages like these
Do you feel Era posters should apologize for offering a low threshold of tolerance for bigotry, hate, chauvinism, and dehumanization of women and minority groups?
Not every "opinion" is actually worth the pixels it ends up printed on.
Yes, that's what happens when people rush to post threads without checking the sources. The Independent failed, but we were the final arbiter here. Anyone could have read further, but everyone assumed it was true because the first source is relatively decent. We failed.It's almost as if people immediately jumped to being outraged or something
I'm shocked though, I really expected more from a news outlet that runs front pages like these
Perhaps you will be the person to finally provide an actual example, and not just be person #100 making a generalized statement and never following up on it.
So, point to an example.
We're talking about the tabloid that once ran with the front-page headline "ELECTRIC SUPER-ANTS INVADE UK".
I say we continue
The Rock should go fuck himself. He always was a shitty person.
To be fair, some people did provide examples, but they pretty much all consisted of defending transphobia, sexual harassment and sexism.. one of which got banned.
Now you know why the retreat back to their hole after throwing out a shitpost.
Indeed. In these days of extra scrutiny when it comes to news sources, it's a sad thing to see the growing trend of jumping on any story in order to satisfy users own confirmation bias.
Glad to see this wasn't real. Still funny to see people come out of the woodwork to agree with these false statements, and to prove a lot of our points that y'all assume everything is some form of outrage (of course without being able to provide concrete examples or to even define where the line is for what they consider outrage).
It's interesting that some posters here think dislike of The Rock just started 10 hours ago. People have a long list of reasons why they dislike The Rock. This was just going to add to the list.
People's lack of awareness of issues others have does not translate to "sudden outrage". It just means you were under-informed.
- Status