I was staying at the Beverly Hills Hilton in 2004 during Oscars week. I was in the business center on the Internet (this was the dark ages before ubiquitous hotel WiFi and personal devices.)
Someone comes in, and then a few minutes later says in a completely unmistakable voice
“Excuse me, do you know how to print this?”
I immediately jumped into parental IT support mode, it was a pretty easy thing to do, he said, Thanks, and (this is the awkward thing) continued to stay in there on the computer while I had to do the whole “pretend to be normal around Sean freaking Connery” for the next 20 minutes. I couldn’t even bring up the courage to mention my childhood favorite, Darby O’Gill and the Little People …
PS the reason I was there was to film an episode of Jeopardy, and I told Alex what had transpired (he loves those skits) and he was pretty pumped, he asked if I’d pop him in the mouth and tell him “that’s from Trebek” if I saw him again.
RIP Sean Connery, a great actor!
How did Sean Connery shave?
...same as the rest of us, ctrl-s
The second trilogy after Embrace, Extinguish, Extend
Soon on your local library!!
... and, finally, backstage maintenance worker at the King’s Theatre in Edinburgh. The rest is history.-
A 20th century icon.-
There isn't a single person in history that can meet this standard of 'goodness'. Not you, nor I, nor anyone. So yeah, let's acknowledge people for all that they are, good and bad, but let's not reduce people to a two dimensional caricature of themselves based purely on what is now considered unacceptable.
"Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future" -- Winston Churchill
Well, to be fair, people where aghast at his position towards women when he took it as a position. Not just in modern times.
Watch some of his interviews -- he seems to think he is coming off as manly and possessive, but the female journalists interviewing him usually come off as insulted, scared, and overall disrespectful towards his misogynist attitudes. Barbara Walters saw right through his image, which is why that interview was one of the ones to go so lopsided.
He was judged plenty when he was 'modern', too. Since the judgement came about when he was young, I don't think it's too great a leap to discuss now around his death.
This isn't a case where his behavior was normalized by his time of existence : he was a misogynist during the hay-day of the first wave of Womens' Rights, he was well known to be one, and his antics and interviews were broadcast around the world.
He decided to go 'against the grain' during one of the most important civil rights movements in the United States so that he could keep his macho demeanor. His comments in no way encapsulated a standard male response, he was deliberately pushing the buttons of people to strengthen and embolden his image as a playboy misogynist.
RIP Sean, I loved you as an actor. You were amazing in a lot of ways, and not-so-amazing in some others, but that is to be human.
'To ignore either righteous or the condemning would be to ignore history and humanity itself.'
Also interesting to use a quote from a man responsible for starving millions of innocents in a debate about morality, but that's neither here nor there.
Not people? I'd hate to be referred to as 'an innocent'.
To address the main point, history is full of this. I mean, try quoting Mother Theresa and see what people will say then.
We _could_ try to cleanse history of all memorable quotes written or spoken by people who have don't have a clean track record in morality (whatever that actually is at a certain point in time) but I don't think we'd be left with all too much to learn from.
To go further into my own thought process, I'm much more in line with non-dual tantric attitudes to this than I am with what we commonly call morals these days.
>To address the main point, history is full of this.
I agree, but I do feel it is relevant to acknowledge the portions of someone's legacy that aren't clean. The quote in isolation is a fair and fine one, I suppose. I would show more restraint in bringing up the cursory comment on Churchill if the context of the thread was something else entirely.
For sure. I think this gets complicated, especially in the middle of heated discussions or on the internet, when this stuff is brought up ad-hominem. Or close enough. It's why I don't want to bring anger into this discussion and create another pro/anti divide, because we're all going to see it different ways.
I challenge anyone to come up with a person who was a squeaky clean legacy. I contend that it is impossible, because the goalposts for 'cleanliness' change as the times do.
If a world famous celebrity uses the megaphone of a televised interview to double down on and expand on views that it’s ok to slap women, that is a huge, dramatic event. That’s not just some small “we all make mistakes” transgression to be forgiven while we remember that person at his best. It is a huge, intentional literal broadcast of a very harmful belief, that we should not minimize or ignore or even set aside to remember other things about them, due to its level of severity and the sustained commitment to it over years that he displayed.
I think it’s very specious and very disingenuous to try to bring in any type of “let he who is sinless cast the first stone” or “let’s remember the good with the bad because he is only human” type of defense. That is just not acceptable in a case like this.
It took Connery to die for you to bring this topic up. I would expect you cared about this before the news, and not just in light of it.
Most people who display this type of direct misogyny don’t happen to also be world-famous movie stars using a national television broadcast to amplify the message.
So obviously because of the harm it propagates and the precedent it sets, Connery’s behavior should be railed against with much more effort than transgressions with far less widespread impact - but of course regular people committing the same transgression absolutely deserve for their behavior to be used to highlight moral reprehensibility (assuming they refuse to apologize or retract those views like Connery).
Science says plant feel & can hear esp. whilst being eaten by insect or are cut.
It's also proven that plants communicate with one another, and can share nutrients with one another, even warn nearby plants to get ready for attacks.
A book called The Hidden Life of Trees is not an obvious bestseller but it’s easy to see the popular appeal of German forester Peter Wohlleben’s claims – they are so anthropomorphic. Certainly, a walk in the park feels different when you imagine the network of roots crackling with sappy chat beneath your feet. We don’t know the half of what’s going on underground and beneath the bark, he says: “We have been looking at nature for the last 100 years like [it is] a machine.”
"The man who thinks trees talk to each other"
Building off othe dendritic consciousness structures, my own suspicion isn't that trees have brains, but that trees are components of a larger brain-analogue --- forests or ecosystems.
Please don't mistake this as some apology for slavery, wife beating, antisemitism or whatever. It isn't; people did reprehensible things in the past. Just realize that it's extremely unlikely that our current norms are the objectively correct ones that will be forever unchanged.
Firstly, and beside the point, the term itself is wonderfully (though I suspect accidentally) ambiguous and self-defeating, as one can read it as “the culture of a cancelling” (as intended) or “this will cancel culure” (a possible side-effect).
Anyway... yes, cancel culture... I criticised it here once previously and amongst the various responses, most contrarian, was one that stuck with me: paraphrasing, it read “you’ve always told us to vote with our feet and now you’re complaining about cancel culture?”
Clearly this responder considered “cancel culture” to be the latest term for “boycot”, but I don’t think that’s accurate. I cannot (yet?) justify even to myself what utterly subtle distinction must exist between the two, but until I do and probably even thereafter I will accept that they do have a point.
That said, that doesn't mean it's always moral. For example, I don't feel comfortable saying at my place of work (software engineer) that women are biologically different than men and this probably has a large impact on why the field isn't 50/50 men/women.
I think this is a perfectly reasonable position, yet there's no way I could say this at work. I'd lose my job, just like James Damore.
So, I don't think that what is being done is wrong in the political sense, but I do think unfair cancellations are unethical. I think it's fine to "cancel" people/businesses/organizations that cause or allow unfair cancellations to take place. I already quietly decline to do business with and lobby against companies that adopt "woke" postures.
I'm part of a silent majority that votes with their wallet, I suppose.
I think the point that was trying to be made was that, this is something people should know about before they decided to unreservedly push this man as a saviour or as a hero, and that giving this knowledge to people allows them to decide how they feel about it, whether they are comfortable with it, and ultimately, be aware of it.
'Cancelling' public artists and figures is always about three things:
1) Reducing the effect, or putting into context, their platform. In other words: allowing people to be aware about the ideas creators hold -- there's almost always some kind of bleed-over -- and if that person tends to go on a soapbox, allowing people to be able to discern whether they want to listen based on this new fact that could be extremely relevant. For example, it would change your mind whether someone was talking about the nature of consent, based on whether they were known for being abusive and acting non-consensually with other people, no? That seems like a hugely important fact to know.
2) Allowing us to be aware and put into context the people that we, as a society, hold up -- people who for all intents and purposes can 'do no wrong'. And deciding whether or not we still want to consume those works, and hold them up on that pedestal, with that information.
3) If they are still alive, ensuring that they remain accountable for actions or beliefs that have harmed or will harm people. Ensuring people who are vulnerable and likely to interact with them, can be aware and avoid being harmed. This gives the public figure a choice: They can either push back against it and dig their heels in deeper, or they can take responsibility, grow as a person, and maybe even cast off or recant whatever made them act in such a way or believe such things. It allows them to introspect into what they've done, and gives them the opportunity to decide to become a better person. A wonderful example of this is Dan Harmon, who acted inappropriately towards staff under him, and did not realise it at the time because of his emotional state. He introspected to figure out why that happened, apologised in full, and has presumably taken steps and made himself more aware so he will not repeat those actions. In addition, staff around him can be more aware, and can more openly and safely broach the issue with him now if he does relapse, because of how he responded. What better can we ask for?!
It's not about destroying people, or encouraging people to see them as some monster, it's fundamentally about allowing people to choose how they want to interact with that person -- even in a parasocial way. It's about allowing choice, and allowing people to act with discretion, more than anything else.
Arguably, this encourages people to see them less as a two dimensional caricature. My reaction to this information was that this person was obviously very complex, and had both good ideas and bad ideas.
Interestingly enough, I always percieve people (like you) who so vehemently argue against spreading information like this, and allowing people to choose how they view public figures and interact with content that they have produced, as arguing this from fear. From the fear that acts that you have done will catch up with you. This might not be true, but it does make me wonder.
I agree to an extent, but I think it is too easy to take a nasty turn in this age of information overload. It's very easy to cherry pick salacious details and run with them, knowing that people will take it at face value.
I'm absolutely not accusing anyone here of doing that, and in part I'm not responding to the parent in as much as I'm also venting my exasperation about how we talk about people on the internet these days.
Even if Connery did publicly retract or apologise, for example, how many people would try to seek that out if all they saw was the original video in isolation? Once a criminal, always a criminal? Or can we imagine that people may change even without making a public song and dance about it?
These are the questions I ask myself.
See: Dan Harmon's apology which so easily disproves this :) In the case of Connery, it would have been easy for him to push his PR people to publicly denounce the video, do a few interviews, and donate some token sum of a couple of thousand to the relevant charities. I remember (But unfortunately can't cite) some other people who have then gone on to be advocates for these causes as a form of penance. As a celebrity, pretty much anything like this is newsworthy, if not, he doesn't have good PR people and should fire them and hire new ones, because they aren't effective enough for his purposes :P
> Or can we imagine that people may change even without making a public song and dance about it?
I mean, he stated it publicly in the first place, so obviously he thought at the time that that public statement on that was worth his salt. Assuming he had reformed and then gone on to improve his perspectives, it seems unlikely that from then on he would be unaware of the harm that that video, still in perpetuity, could cause and want to undo that to some extent.
Reforming isn't possible on a personal level, because we (and I'm sorry for this so heavily memed statement) live in a community. On a fundamental level our public statements take on a life of their own, and because we made them, we should have responsibility for them. From then on, that statement can do untold harm or benefit. Such is the way of living in a community, where your actions will affect other people. Part of reforming yourself is attempting to undo the damage that you have caused in the past. And so part of that reformation would inherently have to be, retracting or attempting to undo the damage caused by those public statements.
A different way to put this would be: Is it possible to reform yourself and not try to undo the damage of your past actions in some way? Are you truly reformed if you wave your hand and do not take responsibility for them?
It's interesting that you went to that place when the TL;DR of my post is:
Can you really become a better person if you haven't attempted to undo harm you caused? If you have changed, part of that change is acknowledging that you harmed people, and how those actions were harmful. You can't acknowledge that you have harmed people, and then handwave that harm by ignoring it, and still say you are a changed person.
It's inherent to self-improvement that you would want to undo the harm that you have caused, if you understand it.
And if you don't, then can you be said to have improved?
I don't know who you're arguing with, but it's not with me or what I wrote.
But let's address it: let's say that someone raped another person. The rapist serves a prison sentence for his crime and he comes out of prison as a rehabilitated man. Are you saying he has to go to his victim to specifically make amends to them? And if he doesn't, he's still a rapist? That, in my opinion, is one of the most toxic parts of the 12 step process in the US, where you make your victims responsible for your penance by requiring them to accept your apology, which by its very nature involves bringing up that trauma _again_.
And what even does it mean to 'undo harm'? What's done is done, for better or worse.
Aha, so this:
> Such is the way of living in a community, where your actions will affect other people. Part of reforming yourself is attempting to undo the damage that you have caused in the past. And so part of that reformation would inherently have to be, retracting or attempting to undo the damage caused by those public statements.
> A different way to put this would be: Is it possible to reform yourself and not try to undo the damage of your past actions in some way? Are you truly reformed if you wave your hand and do not take responsibility for them?
is not at all similar to this:
> Can you really become a better person if you haven't attempted to undo harm you caused? If you have changed, part of that change is acknowledging that you harmed people, and how those actions were harmful. You can't acknowledge that you have harmed people, and then handwave that harm by ignoring it, and still say you are a changed person.
> It's inherent to self-improvement that you would want to undo the harm that you have caused, if you understand it.
> And if you don't, then can you be said to have improved?
Because to me they are relatively close retellings of the other.
I don't feel that you're responding to me in good faith. More to that, I still feel like you're responding to your imagined version of my response, and not the actual one. It feels to me like you're creating an argument when I was merely disagreeing and presenting my reason why. I don't really understand how the tone of this chat became so aggressive through you.
Our peers here on HN can decide that, one way or another.
My sentiments to you exactly. You hyperfocused on the term "reformation" when it was very clear from the context and the previous 5 - 6 paragraphs I had written on the subject, that it was intended as a substitute for "self improvement", "self betterment", "taking accountability for one's actions". You decided to somehow interpret it as an authoritarian argument, and deliberately twisted my argument into something that you could then argue against. It was utterly fascinating and simultaneously irritating to witness how deft you were at doing it, hence the sarcasm.
The argument was literally just about how everything you do in public happens to affect the people it reaches. And people should be accountable for the effects of their actions in that public (or private) space.
If someone did that, they deserve to have those words brought up and used to identify their poor character, regardless of whether they “served their time.”
Just as in Connery’s behavior - he doubled down on saying (extremely publicly) that he was ok with women being slapped and gave some extremely contrived misogynistic reasoning about what they could do to deserve it. Connery didn’t just say that and then later apologize or clear the record. He said it once, then years later said it again in response to a direct interview question about that exact topic, and doubled down on not changing his mind, and then never in the rest of his life did he explicitly apologize or retract it.
That is such a forceful application of misogyny that it goes beyond an unfortunate character flaw we should overlook and instead is borderline a defining characteristic of his legacy.
> poor character, regardless of whether they “served their time.”
This is where I tune out, because that is a whole damn can of worms you've opened up.
I respect that you think Sean Connery's a cunt and shouldn't be celebrated because he's said some things that go against what you stand for, but beyond that we're done here.
Agree to disagree?
The thing is, people already know that. Bringing those things up is really just being a downer.. peeing in the punchbowl.
Honest mistakes, sure. Character flaws, ok. Blatant endorsement of spousal abuse on a major news program with no retraction or apology ever? Get real.
Rarely, if ever, is it so clear cut. And if anything, it's quite a juvenile (and pervasively Western) value system.
I find it particularly exhausting and the world is as it is because there isn't enough compassion going around to even consider how we might approach our problems with kinder, less vengeful, hearts.
And the opposite edge of the same sword are stories of Keanu being such an amazing human being etc. All the while no one knows or seems to even care who they truly are. We demonize and idolize for a sense of moral righteousness and to strengthen our world view. It's far from compassion, has little to do with them, and it's juvenile.
Bad behavior is not an argument against good behavior. Bad character is not an argument against good character. They're not mutually exclusive, and it's a false dichotomy.
Let the police arrest the criminals. But speech should be free. We've all said dumb sh_t. We've all believed dumb sh_t. We've all done dumb sh_t.
To paraphrase George Carlin, we're all born guilty.
Let's celebrate the good parts and forgive the bad parts of a person's life at it's end, just as we would want others to do for us. Leave chewing over their failings to those pale few who derive nourishment from it.
And, does anybody remember when bin Laden died? Was it inappropriate to speak ill of him on that day? Nope, that was roundly celebrated with back-slapping and champagne on the very day it happened, by democrats and republicans alike
I mean, you can still say that someone was an asshole about a few things but you still loved them. Other people can say they didn't love him at all and have nothing positive to say. They're intimate feelings.
It's not the same as going to someone who is grieving and celebrating and saying, don't forget that he did X, Y and Z though! Where X, Y and Z are hideous things. It's not a place to start trying to change people's minds about someone.
That'll happen all by itself over time, as we can see with people such as Mother Theresa and Jimmy Saville.
My parents were similar in having one public appearance, but being abusive to me in private. I cut contact so I don't imagine or expect to be at any family funeral, so I can't say how I'd react. But I know they would be appreciated by others in a way that I could never be.
As it stands, I'm quite happy being ludicrous and unreasonable if that's what you think it is. I just can't (and won't) see the world the same way as you and likeminded others.
In the absence of that, perhaps a modern interpretation would be useful, so here is Bill Burr (famous world-class comedian) on a similar subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ
So it's because of him you have to bad mouth him. It must be hard.
Sean denounced domestic abuse afterwards. Does he get points for that?
And that’s just the vitriolic response I’m getting as a commenter on an internet forum. You can start to see the ways in which abuse and rape victims, for example, are dismissed, blamed, insulted and ignored.
As for the article you linked, it’s very specious to suggest that is a defense or mitigates Connery’s endorsement on national television of slapping women. It’s obviously a quick PR filler piece to run interference on his choice to decline that Holyrood interview knowing he would be grilled on his abuse comments, purely and obviously self-serving and obviously not any type of sincere apology or retraction of his earlier remarks.
It would have been trivially easy for him to make a press release specifically apologizing for and retracting the earlier remarks. Any little Scottish press article where he doesn’t even explicitly apologize and retract is just simply not something relevant to consider at all.
I'll note you seem remarkably dismissive of any viewpoint that isn't full agreement, and even the parent's reply isn't good enough to meet your standard.
All I can say is that if you wanted to rake someone over the coals rather than have what seems to be a pretty mature discussion, I don't think you'll find what you want from this. Otherwise, there's a lot to unpack in what I think is quite a philosophical conversation.
Now that you've made up your mind, anything to the contrary is a conspiracy.
Did you actually listen to what Sean said? He starts by saying it's wrong to hit women. He knows it's wrong. What he's saying is if a woman doesn't know when to shut up, they could get themselves slapped and it wasn't beneath him either. He's justifying physical retaliation to verbal abuse. That's very different from straight DV. In fact, maybe he doesn't want any women to be slapped. Maybe they do it to themselves just as he made you publicly shame him?
Which brings us to another nuanced topic. Is public shaming non-violent?
Of course, maybe he hit first or just uses that as an excuse, who knows. His first wife's autobiography has some dirt, but then again, was it PR filler to sell her book? Or maybe he never hit anyone in his life, but just said something he believed which just happened to no longer be in fashion.
My only point is, demonizing or idolizing is all absurd. It's an act that only gets easier when nuance is removed and positions are deemed absolute. Because ultimately that's what it is. Removal of all nuance.
Today it's still okay by most for a woman to hit a man. Tomorrow will men get the justice they deserve? Also my 2yo hits me and I have video evidence. Should I hold on to it?
If someone needs help, let's help them. Public shaming helps no one.
> supposedly enlightened and fair minded Hacker News
I almost spilled my coffee.
The context here is that a woman can't threaten a man with violence due to being unable to injure or harm the man (I'm excluding stinging for a few seconds from a slap).
Whereas a woman is always at a great disadvantage for defending herself against a man, so if a man hits her, even if it's just a slap, it indicates that he is willing to hit her, and might hit her harder next time causing damage. This context makes the difference between a woman slapping a man versus a man slapping a woman. A similar situation is if a very small child slapped an adult.
Note that my statement isn't comparing women to small children, but to illustrate the role of differences in displays of physical power between two people.
None of the above is me endorsing any sort of violence or physical retribution, but I'm trying to explain most people wouldn't be okay with a woman hitting a man in a way that injures him or causes long term intimidation, but why a slap in a sitcom is accepted.
The truth is that a human being is capable of untold destruction in many forms, and history proves it over and over again. It can be physical, emotional, torturous...you can't make good and evil out of it.
I’m just saying that I only see society accepting women hitting a man in the context of a rare slap in sitcoms or movies in the heat of the moment, but I wouldn’t take that to mean society accepts women harming men long term or whatever Depp / Heard thing you’re referring to.
> might hit harder next time
I am not sure if you saw Mr. Connery's interview, but this is far closer to what he was saying than any straight up endorsement of domestic violence:
"None of the above is me endorsing any sort of violence or physical retribution, but I'm trying to explain most people wouldn't be okay with a man hitting a woman in a way that injures her or causes long term intimidation, but why a slap in a sitcom is accepted."
This is an absurd response. Just look at the article - it is emphatically not a retraction or apology. You can’t just claim I’ve become close-minded and therefore dismiss anything else that’s said. That’s just your own close-mindedness.
> “ He starts by saying it's wrong to hit women. He knows it's wrong. What he's saying is if a woman doesn't know when to shut up, they could get themselves slapped and it wasn't beneath him either. He's justifying physical retaliation to verbal abuse.“
This is not what he said at all. This is an attempt by you to whitewash it and cover it with things that are exposing your own misogyny. Framing any behavior Connery ascribed to these hypothetical women that could “cause” him to slap them as “abuse” perpetrated by the women is directly misogynistic by you!
I shudder that I even have to point this out to you - that your own comments here are pretty morally contemptible but you very blindly and very wrongly appear to think you’re representing some sort of higher plane of discourse where you don’t reduce people to binary good or bad characterizations.
> “ Today it's still okay by most for a woman to hit a man. Tomorrow will men get the justice they deserve? Also my 2yo hits me and I have video evidence. Should I hold on to it?”
What point do you think you’re making here? This is borderline incoherent? Are you claiming a two year old hitting you is somehow the same as a world famous movie star going on national TV and saying he thinks it’s ok to slap women? Because there’s no other rhetorical flair to your comment that could make any sense.
> “ If someone needs help, let's help them. Public shaming helps no one.”
This sounds like a true defender of abusers. You sincerely ought to be ashamed of yourself for the position you’re describing.
And if you'd asked me whether I am a defender of abusers, I could have writted how I am not. Yet, you've already made assumptions to the contrary.
> your own close-mindedness.
What I said could also be interpreted as open-minded. You just don't appreciate the context in which it was practiced.
To only be able to see things in specific ways to the detriment of others and yourself is close-mindedness, similar to what you have demonstrated with your views.
> If someone needs help, let's help them. Public shaming helps no one.
Take Bill Cosby, since he's been found guilty of acts, not just speech. Do you think Cosby needs any shaming beyond the facts?
If you're going around spewing hate regarding someone who has already shamed themselves by their own actions, what exactly does anyone need you for? And what exactly are you doing?
Sean Connery is the same. What he said embarassed him enough. People already hated him enough for it and punished him at the time.
If you want to help DV victims then let's help DV victims. Shaming a dead Bond does little for your cause, just as shaming Dr. Huxtable will do little or nothing to protect anyone that needs help now. No DV perp is going to read what you wrote and change their ways.
First, I think Connery was pretty clearly saying that slapping a woman isn't always abuse, not saying that it is abuse and abuse is okay. Besides being literally false if narrowly interpreted, this violates the HN guideline, "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
Second, because it's an attempt to side-load a hot-button topic into a non-political thread, and HN frowns on that. (Note that the hot-button topic is "Were Connery's comments acceptable", which was contentious at the time he made them and still is today; it is not, as OP's phrasing might suggest, "Is spousal abuse acceptable" which almost no one agrees with)
Third, discussion of this Connery interview has been ubiquitous online today (it has been mentioned in every article, Reddit thread, FB post, etc about Sean Connery I have seen today) and I suspect lot of people come to HN to get away with that.
Fourth, there is indeed a long, long tradition of people who dislike a celebrity using the occasion of their death to launch one last attack on them, and other people who liked the celebrity indignantly complaining that that's a bad thing to do.
I was curious because arguably behaving differently according to their gender (i.e. not hitting a woman back) is what would be sexist, (albeit a widely accepted form) but as it is it ('my word is final or I hit you'?) just seems bad regardless of whether the other person's a man or a woman...
The only gender specific and slightly sexist part of that video is assuming only girls could behave like that (you know the whole "its the periods") but i personally think its not the case its just a type of person.
It doesn't matter whether you assault someone with an open or closed hand.
Before, slapping a child was not abuse, now it is. But that doesnt mean before the abuse of children did not exist, just that a slap was not considered abuse if it was justified.
Personally i think moral abuse can be far far worse than physical... in part because people have harder times to take the decision to leave.
Im not even defending sean connery's point here, just trying to make some sense in why he could be something else than THE BIG EVIL for having this opinion at that time.
If you respect people who beat you, it should be despite them beating you, not because of it.
Also, it's been shown that people who were abused as children are more likely to go on to abuse their own children.
If you aren’t realizing that your comment is sincerely amplifying misogyny, you need a sensitivity training course or something of the sort.
"If some is already verbally abusing you, its fine to resort to light violence if nothing else works".
Its actually a point that i disagree personally, because i would just go away. But if you cant understand that verbal abuse can be far far worse than physical, you are probably the one that needs a sensitivity training more than me.. Or you just need to live life a little more until you meet some really narcisisstic and abusive partner (whichever his gender) which will harass you and make you seriously consider violence.
I am sickened to see this mental gymnastics and attempt to whitewash what he actually said. It’s absolutely misogynistic to try to reinvent the meaning of what he said so as to obfuscate the fact that gender played a dominant role in his suggestion and that it was specifically in reference to slapping women.
Well maybe we have not seen the same video then. i quote:
"Some women wont leave it alone. They want to have the last word and wheb you give them the last word their are not happy with it and they want to say it again. And they will try to get you into a provocative situation."
Its the litteral definition of gaslighting your partner. Its a litteral case of verbal abuse.
Sure he talks about women but only because the interviewer asks about the provocative idea of "slapping a women", but its the same situation with a guy in a bar that tries to provoke you and it gets physical..
If anyone is sexist here its the interviewer framing the situation as "omg man slapping a woman" to make him look bad, when its just "person who is verbally abused slapping the abuser to make it stop".
Once again i wouldnt personally react like he advocated but he is kilometers away from a spousal abuser. If anything the video ends by saying he never had any trouble with his wife..
Jesus you guys really would really say anything to make him look bad. How else would you even be able to convey "gaslighting" or "abuse" with words at that time.
Gaslighting was called gaslighting or trying to make someone think they're crazy.
Abuse was called abuse.
Even trying to provoke someone isn't gaslighting. But that isn't what he said. He just said "and get into a really provocative situation". He also said he hadn't changed his mind from when he said "If a woman is a bitch, or hysterical, or bloody-minded continually, then I’d do it."
Reacting to verbal abuse with physical abuse usually just escalates the situation. So it would be bad advice even if he meant what you think he did.
Its just not "spousal abuse" like OP said trying to make hime look like evil. Its just light escalation that he say he doesnt want to do on the first place. Its not the end of the world even if its bad. Its just like the end of world in this thread because its about hitting a woman.
He would say yeah "i would puch a guy who harrass me in a bar if he doesnt stop" and no one would bat an eye.
Even light escalation would be counterproductive. Turning a conflict physical isn't light escalation anyway.
There seems to be some unwritten rule that you're only allowed to say good things about people when they die. And I think that rule needs to end. Let's be honest and recognize that people are complex even when they die.
Spousal abuse is wrong and people who think it's OK should be called out for that.
It seems to always happen in forums, as here, where some people complain that it's somehow 'too soon' to mention something negative, but it doesn't happen in obituaries, which commonly don't just stick to superficial 'good' aspects of someone's life or career.
In the case of Connery, for example, all of the following, and more, refer to his statements on slapping/abuse:
Let's chalk it to improvement over time. It is not cool not classy anymore. But it is also good to remember that it used to be acceptable thing to say for cool guy, so that we don't idealize past.
It’s the same with book “burnings”: because now the author has an unpopular opinion. It’s ridiculous.
Look, consensual people can engage in degrading stuff, but we don’t come down on that because we believe that’s a private matter between consenting adults.
Also, art and person are related, both in good and bad. Ones opinions and feelings affects ones art.
I love the film series, but man, misogyny is deeply rooted in the franchise's foundations. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/10/james-bond-miso...
edit: interesting, went from +2 to -1 in a minute. Going to take this time to point out Hacker News's routine degradation of women as well now that it's on full display again.
They even had jokes that approved that sort of thinking.
Changing makes us better. Virtue signaling does not. Assuming we're monotonously moving towards tolerance and treating people better is also extremely arrogant. The comments to this post demonstrates that with great clarity. Sean Connery isn't even cold and already people line up to piss on his grave.
Next time someone in your family dies, are you going to list their moral shortcomings? The "but" right after listing their accomplishments and good sides? "BUT...he didn't like Asian people, spoke ill of jews and objectified women and stared at Mrs Jenkins daughers tits whenever he could. He ate red meat and belonged to a religion that terrorized much of the world for a thousand years".
Of course not.
But then again, Sean Connery isn't a person to any of us. He is just a symbol of something it is okay to hate. So pissing on his grave is somehow permissible.
What annoys me isn't that people get upset about his views. What upsets me is that people have the absolutely disgusting idea that pissing on his grave makes them better. It doesn't. It just means they are a different kind of asshole.
But that is in no way remotely comparable to a huge worldwide movie star openly endorsing spousal abuse on a major television news program and never retracting it or apologizing.
Obviously we should criticize that extreme of an act far far more than tacit sexism passively accepted by eg an out of touch grandparent or something. You are trying to equate the two but they are not similar at all.
There’s no logical requirement for people to apply this criticism uniformly eg to every racist extended family member in order to be unhypocritical when leveling the criticism against a big media figure.
Also loved his performances in The Name Of The Rose, and 70's weirdo films Robin And Marian and Zardoz.
Not a fan of newer Bond films after Roger Moore's which I thought took it too seriously and lacked comedy.
I grew up with the Bond films so they're very much background to me, almost hard to notice in a way. Any recommendations?
* The Man Who Would Be King
* The Offense
* Last Crusade
* The Untouchables
* The Wind and the Lion
He wasn't as bad of an actor as people say (compared to the greats), but he didn't take a lot of challenging roles. I wish he'd played more villains/anti heroes.
Dragonheart - I loved his voice in that. I think I realized for the first time, what a voice can do. The angry, bitter dragon turning to the wise advisor.
And someone else mentioned 'The Rock'
And there are some memorable quotes:
I like the "It's impossible. But doable." and the "I'm never late. If I'm late it's because I'm dead."
Example: "shtirred: filter requiresh a function and a lisht ash input!" - http://connerylang.org/
"I was thinking of Maui"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_P-2 says it first flew on April 27, 1945, so it must have time-travelled to be able to attack Indiana Jones in 1938.
They say imitation and parody are the sincerest forms of flattery, in his honor here is one of the many great SNL Celebrity Jeopardy skits with Darrell Hammond playing Sean Connery:
- You Only Live Twice (1967)
- Never Say Never Again (1983)
- Goldfinger (1964)
At the same time I felt that Sean's lines were jusy too predictable, that took away a lot from the performance.
Minnie Driver had a cameo in "Goldeneye", and Madonna had a small role in one of the Brosnan flicks. Richard Branson also appeared in one of the Brosnan films.
Other than that, it's mostly production folks:
This isn’t really surprising though, Connery stopped associating himself with bond many years ago, so it’s was unlikely he would ever agree to do a cameo.
It's widely panned as schlocky B-grade scifi, but it's actually pretty interesting and more profound than most A-grade films that garner much higher critical acclaim.
Sure, there's plenty of cheese in that film, but it doesn't make it any less great... more great, in my view.
Looking back to when it was made in 1974, that's a lot closer to 1939 than it is to 2020.
If by "leather fetish suit" you mean "diaper", sure.
"There is nothing like a challenge to bring out the best in man" - Sean Connery.
What a great actor.
"I am both shaken, and stirred."
On the other hand Connery defined Bond.
De mortis nil nisi bonum...
Might explain why he fit the role so well.