Mel Gibson "article" in the indo

super_furry

MysticMonk wrote: »

Fcuck the Indo..a load of marxist claptrap.

I just hope that my quite brilliant adblocker results in no increase in advertising revenue for Independent Newspapers whenever I have the misfortune of ending up on the website of those rags.

Hideous journalism, in the hideous pseudo-profession of journalism in the most hideous of newspaper companies. It will be a great day for democracy in Ireland when the in-bred rightwing, anti-Irish, anti-republican anglocentric sycophants and dullards who run it are all made unemployed.

That day is not too far off at all, buíochas le Dia.

Hande hoche!

I dislike the Indo as much as the next man, still find it amusing that's accused of being both Marxist and Right wing.

suicide_circus

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

I just hope that my quite brilliant adblocker results in no increase in advertising revenue for Independent Newspapers whenever I have the misfortune of ending up on the website of those rags.

Hideous journalism, in the hideous pseudo-profession of journalism in the most hideous of newspaper companies. It will be a great day for democracy in Ireland when the in-bred rightwing, anti-Irish, anti-republican anglocentric sycophants and dullards who run it are all made unemployed.

That day is not too far off at all, buíochas le Dia.

I look forward to your republican utopia

DredFX

Deleted User wrote: »

It will be a great day for democracy in Ireland when the in-bred rightwing, anti-Irish, anti-republican anglocentric sycophants and dullards who run it are all made unemployed.

Tiocfaidh ár lá

Prune Tracy

Deleted User wrote: »

I just hope that my quite brilliant adblocker results in no increase in advertising revenue for Independent Newspapers whenever I have the misfortune of ending up on the website of those rags.

Hideous journalism, in the hideous pseudo-profession of journalism in the most hideous of newspaper companies. It will be a great day for democracy in Ireland when the in-bred rightwing, anti-Irish, anti-republican anglocentric sycophants and dullards who run it are all made unemployed.

That day is not too far off at all, buíochas le Dia.

A criticism of a man who was abusive to his partner and racially abusive prompts the above response?

SEPT 23 1989

thank you Mel

Hector Savage

I kind of agree with the article ... but at the same time, It's Mel F*cking Gibson like ... LEGEND !!!

Hector Savage

Jsysus!!!

Ficheall

super_furry wrote: »

I find this more offensive than anything else mentioned in the thread.

Grayson

Ficheall wrote: »

I find this more offensive than anything else mentioned in the thread.

Don't like hispanics?

Ficheall

Grayson wrote: »

Don't like hispanics?

No, I'm a fan of The Princess Bride.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Hector Savage wrote: »

Jsysus!!!

If it wasn't for the fact that he has actually done physical harm to this woman (and uses the threat of violence again in that recording) I would nearly give him a pass, as an angry alcoholic with a type of personality disorder. But the fact he has admitted to hitting her in the past puts the whole thing firmly over the 'no coming back from it' line. Gibson has had to fund many of his own projects over the past decade as no one would work or finance him, but it seems like he has been welcomed back into the Hollywood fold now once again, which I don't think is right.

I agree with the poster who mentioned the article is poorly researched because it omits Mark Wahlberg's past crimes, which were so violent he ended up serving jail time.

Ultimately, both Gibson and Wahlberg have proven to be box office winners over and over and over again, and that's all that Hollywood really cares about.

Hande hoche!

Grayson wrote: »

Don't like hispanics?

Now I fancy a taco bowl.

blue note

brainfreeze wrote: »

I always wonder with these type of articles, how to the writers pick their targets? There is nothing wrong with a moral outrage hit piece every now again, however the article starts with:



Mark Wahlberg has done far worse things than Mel Gibson. What makes Mel Gibson special and Mark Wahlberg normal? Why did she choose one over the other?

Mel Gibson has said racist things, Mark Wahlberg has committed racial violence, even blinding a man for simply being Vietnamese.

Why is Mark, the far more violent man, more forgivable than Mel?

Answer: The Journalist doesn't know enough about either subject. Her gaps on Gibson are even acknowledged in the article - she probably has no idea about Wahlberg. This is not journalism, this is a badly researched rant created to capitalize on your emotions. This is the standard of a blog post.

Fair enough she should have done her research, but the point is kind of the same isn't it? That there's essentially an willingness to ignore some incidents and be outraged by others. And the severity of each is largely irrelevant.

Outlaw Pete

His ex sounded like a right head wrecker. As she was aware the calls were being recorded we are unlikely to know what she was generally like. Anyway, she lost a fair chunk of change cause she didn't stick to the terms of the settlement with regards to keeping her trap shut.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/08/11/mel-gibson-baby-mama-oksana-grigorieva-settlement-domestic-violence/

PeterParker957

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

His ex sounded like a right head wrecker. As she was aware the calls were being recorded we are unlikely to know what she was generally like. Anyway, she lost a fair chunk of change cause she didn't stick to the terms of the settlement with regards to keeping her trap shut.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/08/11/mel-gibson-baby-mama-oksana-grigorieva-settlement-domestic-violence/

Same with that Amber Heard sort. Absolutely bad s**t crazy. I'd be no Johnny Depp fan myself but Jesus I'd side with him on that one.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

His ex sounded like a right head wrecker. As she was aware the calls were being recorded we are unlikely to know what she was generally like. Anyway, she lost a fair chunk of change cause she didn't stick to the terms of the settlement with regards to keeping her trap shut.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/08/11/mel-gibson-baby-mama-oksana-grigorieva-settlement-domestic-violence/

Woah! She would have got $15 million if she simply did nothing. She must be ridiculously stupid.

Related to that, the Howard Stern Show pops up time and time again in controversies. Such as that, the George Takei grabbing dicks comment, plenty of Donald Trump clips talking about sex, and there must be other examples that I just can't remember off the top of my head right now. If you have anything to to hide, don't appear on that show lol.

HandsomeBob

The person who wrote the article doesn't do herself any favours by sneering at the calibre of actors such as Andrew Garfield.

It is what it is with Mel. He was/is an abusive alcoholic who crossed the line and paid for it for being blackballed and ostracized. That's why comparisons to the likes of Polanski, Allen and Weinstein do not work; they were indulged, while Mel was (rightfully) condemned.

He paid for his actions and now has the right to get his career back. You have the right to not partake in that, but I also have the right to do so without being labelled as an apologist or enabler or whatever other bollox that helps fill the page.

Prune Tracy

Jeez I'm not comfortable with this "His ex brought it on herself", "siding" with him stuff.

No problem with criticism of both in the relationship but nothing mitigates or justifies domestic abuse. I understand men feel under siege at the moment but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Mel Gibson clearly has emotional problems (it's documented that he has suffered depression) but it's up to him to get help if it's causing him to hurt others.

eviltwin

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Woah! She would have got $15 million if she simply did nothing. She must be ridiculously stupid.

Related to that, the Howard Stern Show pops up time and time again in controversies. Such as that, the George Takei grabbing dicks comment, plenty of Donald Trump clips talking about sex, and there must be other examples that I just can't remember off the top of my head right now. If you have anything to to hide, don't appear on that show lol.

Maybe she felt exposing him for his domestic violence was more important.

PeterParker957

eviltwin wrote: »

Maybe she felt exposing him for his domestic violence was more important.

I'd say she more likely thought 15 million would be chicken feed if she got a media career.

Prune Tracy

HandsomeBob wrote: »

The person who wrote the article doesn't do herself any favours by sneering at the calibre of actors such as Andrew Garfield.

It is what it is with Mel. He was/is an abusive alcoholic who crossed the line and paid for it for being blackballed and ostracized. That's why comparisons to the likes of Polanski, Allen and Weinstein do not work; they were indulged, while Mel was (rightfully) condemned.

He paid for his actions and now has the right to get his career back. You have the right to not partake in that, but I also have the right to do so without being labelled as an apologist or enabler or whatever other bollox that helps fill the page.

Yeah that Andrew Garfield comment was totally unnecessary.

Not sure Gibson has "the right" to get his career back though? But if he does get it back, he gets it back. Hopefully with a new leaf turned over. I've no issue with people enjoying his work. So much art is made by horrendous people, I'm just uncomfortable with the downplaying going on here though.

Prune Tracy

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I'd say she more likely thought 15 million would be chicken feed if she got a media career.

On what do you base this?

PeterParker957

Prune Tracy wrote: »

On what do you base this?

It's an opinion, why must it be "based" on anything ?

Why else would someone give up 15m ?

Insect Overlord

Prune Tracy wrote: »

Not sure Gibson has "the right" to get his career back though? But if he does get it back, he gets it back. Hopefully with a new leaf turned over. I've no issue with people enjoying his work. So much art is made by horrendous people, I'm just uncomfortable with the downplaying going on here though.

Are people supposed to go on paying for their sins until the day they die? I'm no Christian myself, but I like the idea that someone can eventually be forgiven when they've made appropriate penance. The trend of constant reference to people's mistakes/crimes is reminding me a bit of certain episodes of Black Mirror.

Prune Tracy

PeterParker957 wrote: »

It's an opinion, why must it be "based" on anything ?

Why else would someone give up 15m ?

It's not an opinion - it's speculation, which is usually based on some evidence.

As said, to expose his behaviour - why wouldn't it be that? It's less of a leap than your conclusion.

I understand your empathy for men in the face of crazy demonisation of men at the moment - I share your views there. But jeez, I'm not gonna be going down the road of then demonising women and downplaying domestic abuse against one - particularly when I'm a woman!

jonon9

Prune Tracy

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Are people supposed to go on paying for their sins until the day they die?

I'm not sure why you're asking me that when I didn't allude to any such thing in my post you quoted.

I just said I don't believe he has a "right" to get his career back. Unfortunately none of us has a right to any such thing.

But yes, I generally don't have a problem with it once a person is genuinely remorseful (sometimes remorse is more for themselves than for the person they wronged - e.g. Tom Humphries) and has paid their dues. It depends though - for really horrific crimes like war crimes and child murder... not sure there.

Back to this case though, no issue with his career resurging (as I said, lots of great art that I enjoy is made by terrible folk) but no need for downplaying what he did either, as some are doing here, with an unpleasant vibe of "Oh stop whining women".