I'm not saying he deserves harassment, but he got was was coming to him /s
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Well, Ricky Gervais tweeted me and now his fanbase is attacking me.
- Thread starter Masterspeed
- Start date
- Status
There are lessons here to be learned about publicly talking shit about people (celebrities are people btw).
Gervais is funny as hell at times and quite obnoxious at other times.
True, but he's not responsible for his followers actions.
Gervais is funny as hell at times and quite obnoxious at other times.
True, but he's not responsible for his followers actions.
OP makes a snide comment about a celebrity on social media and gets personally called out with a fairly restrained reply, then makes an indignant thread about it on a forum.
Honestly he could've trashed you a lot harder. I genuinely hope fans aren't harassing you too bad though, that probably sucks.
Honestly he could've trashed you a lot harder. I genuinely hope fans aren't harassing you too bad though, that probably sucks.
Lean into it. I too have grown to really dislike Ricky Gervais. I was never a huge fan though he was at least a little funny but he just seems like a huge asshole. I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering he was a regular on O & A.
Again, this is like turning to your friend in a concert and saying a snide comment in a volume appropriate for only that person to hear, only for the bands front runner to make an announcement that everyone in attendance should attack that person for their joke.
And its a super benign comment, one that's pretty flattering to Ricky. You can say a lot worse about a guy who's career is a farce and has no talent.
Yes he is, because he knows what will happen.
I don't see in the OP where he "sends an army". Calling him out isn't sending an army.
You are absolutely responsible for your followers when you know they do this shit, I hate seeing people act like everybody is brain dead and doesn't know what they're doing
If you are aware that you have hundreds of people who will do everything they can to ruin the lives of everyone you are even remotely snide to - and Gervais would have to be a stone-cold idiot to not have observed this by now - and you not only continue to do it, but ACTIVELY SEEK OUT people who are talking about you so you can sic your fan base on them, it doesn't matter whether or not you're "responsible" for them. You are complicit. You are 100% culpable.
Yeah, people seem to easily forget that this a direct pipeline to celebrities. If you were to shit talk another member on this forum you wouldn't be surprised if they lash back
So you don't think anyone with a lot of followers should respond to people?
It is because it was a comment that wasn't meant to reach anyone's ears but the followers of OP and the person he was responding to, yet Ricky felt the need to draw all of his followers attention to it knowing what would happen.
People with a lot of followers should not respond to every tweet that has their name in it, no.
I didn't say every. Can they never respond to a negative tweet?
Dude shouldn't be trolling through Twitter like a fiend looking for something to be offended by, in fact I think he's complained about people who are "perpetually offended" like that before but I guess it's okay when he does it
Firstly, how media monitoring software works has nothing to do with my comment. My comment was strickly focused on how shitty a lot of people on twitter are especially when it comes to fandom and how easily you can be attacked for saying something someone does not like on twitter. Threads have been made out of this on this very forum.
Secondly, i never said op deserved to be harassed by Ricky's fan. Sarcasm or not, op talked shit about Ricky Gervais and he no doubt saw it and replied just like he's done many times before. He's made a career out of talking about people on twitter in his comedy specials.
Yes you are right, the modus operandi of these services is to tailor your experience to things that relate to you, not excluding people who tag you in stuff and heck you don't have to be tagged for Facebook to suggest friends you may know or foods, music and video you may like. Google alerts literally crawls the internet for specific words you tell it to alert you of.
This would count as "every". They should not respond to every negative tweet that any random person says about (not at) them.
Considering Gervais is on record as saying his "humour" is not his opinion (hence jokes about dead babies, Aids and Nelson Mandela being a terrorist) I'm surprised he got so precious over some random saying something and then hung around to stoke the fire.
He loves a bit of freedom of speech.
He loves a bit of freedom of speech.
It isn't benign. It's incredibly rude.
Also, why do you keep saying the post is like talking to your friend? I mean, there is something called DM, you know? Chat in facebook or something? Surely chatting in DM is equivalent of turning to your friend when no one can hear (which was your example).
Twitter is public, and the post is public. At least in facebook you can make your posts "friends only"; that could've been an option.
Its a public forum so nope, make public statements than stand by them and deal with those consequences.
If by "a volume appropriate for only that person to hear", you mean "using a megaphone", sure. And if by "bands front runner" you mean someone in attendance.
We hold celebrities, the rich and powerful, to harder standards in their public life because their voices reach a greater number of people with a greater degree of influence. Trump tweeting bullshit and playing it off as "just a joke" is not the same thing as you or I tweeting some bullshit and saying "just a joke".
Why should twitter callouts handled any differently, when the people involved control, either explicitly or implicitly, the eyes and hearts of millions? They shouldn't.
Why should twitter callouts handled any differently, when the people involved control, either explicitly or implicitly, the eyes and hearts of millions? They shouldn't.
Unless OP secretly has thousands of followers, on something as large as Twitter Ricky would have had to deliberately search this tweet out. Technically, in the example I gave the person is also speaking in public, but it's on such a small scale that calling them out is unwarranted. This is very easy to understand.
I'm sure he just has an alert set up for mentions of his name.
Huh? I'm asking you if they can ever respond to a negative tweet if they have a lot of followers. No one responds to everyone who mentions them and I have no idea what you're saying with that.
"Attacking". Geez, some of you have such a backwards way of viewing so many things.
You're still not replying to 90% of my post.
If the intention was to not be public, why post on a public forum. There are countless options to DM people today. And also pinning the tweet, is that what you do when you say something just to a friend? "I talked shit about someone to my friend today on the bus, and it was such a burn that I left a note there. It's for no-one to see but my friend though".
This is very easy to understand; I don't get your problem.
Please pay attention to the fact that the OP did not tag Gervais or otherwise notify him that he was being talked about. In your dumb perversion of the metaphor, that would be "using a megaphone."
OP did not @ Ricky, therefore the tweet in the OP is so inconsequential that Ricky should not have responded to it. It is appropriate to respond to criticism from other celebrities/public figures or to particularly mean comments, but he should not respond to ones like in the OP considering his influence.
Counter question: Has Ricky Gervais ever made an effort to tell his fans not to bombard these people?
He knows they are doing it and he is doing this often on twitter as he is using it for content for his act.
You know that Twitter is public right? If you don't want anyone else to hear and possibly respond to what you say, use direct messages.
User Warned: Personal attacks against another member
Fishing for avatar qoute huh?
All these "should" and none of them is about the person that started it all by talking shit about the entire life's work and career of another person. Fucking lol.
Taking after OP I see. Anyone with a public profile is free game for shit talk huh?
Attacking? He's responding not attacking. Gervaise didn't start this.
I can't stand Gervaise, but I don't get the OP's point. If I talk shit about someone on a public forum, they are full within their rights to respond in kind.
OP's tweet poses no threat to Ricky in any universe, Ricky's tweet could cause OP to get death threats. That's the difference.
He didn't really "reply" though. A reply would have been a simple @.
He posted an entirely new tweet with a link to the OP's tweet. The only reason you'd do this IS to sic your fans on someone.
Lol, how are we determining the cutoff for what's acceptable and what isn't, then? If the problem is knowing your mob of followers will harass people and you're responsible for their actions, I don't see a morally consistent position here.
Not sure.
This is strange. I mean if you're as famous as him then you would know you are familiar to millions of people around the world, and by extension be aware that like anything or anyone else in the universe that you are not universally loved (and that's okay). To search for yourself on Twitter and take pot shots at non celebrities who don't worship you knowing your goons are going to follow is just kind of sad. For such a big atheist he sure fancies himself an insecure god.
Coincidentally, Ricky's unfunny response proves OP's point by assuming he's some militant Christian.
Stay off twitter or don't attack people on there if your feelings get hurt so quickly. It's not someone's responsibility what other people do. I've seen this on gaf and era where people love to make someone responsible for what other people do. Basically what children do.
On the topic, OP's statement is pretty funny.
The problem is knowing your mob of followers will harrass some totally insignificant person if you respond to them and choosing to do so anyway. How is that hard to understand?
So setting your fan base on someone because they criticised your act in a (public) conversation with a friend is cool now, right?
- Status