I know what you're saying, I just think it would be more interesting if we had all this in perspective. If we had truthful context to his outburst. It wouldn't make the outburst any more acceptable, but it would put more of a human touch to it, as sad and troubled as the humanity obviously is. Gibson clearly has problems and I'd rather look at him as a person who has gotten to this point as a result of whatever series of events rather than just an evil fuck who said this fucked up shit and we should stop seeing his movies end of story.
While the full context of those conversations may be interesting to read or hear or in general have more information about, I do actually think the context is irrelevant. I don't think there is ANY justification for the things he said on tape. If Oksana did equally terrible things, then they are BOTH terrible people, that's all. Regardless of what prompted Mel to communicate in that way, he is indefensibly wrong. This is why I don't really see the overall value of putting it in context, and I rather feel that that is a potentially dangerous way of looking at it. My feelings toward Mel wouldn't soften even if Oksana was threatening to blackmail him or extort money for him or any other awful thing you can think of. I wouldn't go "aww, shucks, well I guess she deserved that." All I would think is "she's awful too" but I'd still feel exactly the same way about Mel. There is no justification for the bigoted comments he made, the threats he made, and everything else he did or said.
edit: My point is this: Regardless of whatever information may or may not come to light in the future, let's not lose sight of the fact that what Mel said and did is completely unacceptable regardless of the context. Because it is - completely unacceptable.
I'm listening to the second one and yeah it's just so bad I can't believe it. The Christian Bale thing doesn't even compare. Bale's thing was a classic temper tantrum that wasn't even that bad, or at least not that irregular (to me). But Gibson is just pure sustained rage over like 10 minutes. At times he sounds like he's brutally murdering someone.
I just hope he can have the humility to admit he lost it and he's sorry. Maybe just a little statement that no woman deserves to be spoken to like that. If Oksanka is making him unhappy, just divorce her..
edit: And yeah it is totally unacceptable but it's so heniously horrible that it makes you wonder what could have possibly happened in his life to make him this angry. It's clearly referencing issues far deeper than any relationship between him and Oksanka, as bad as it could have been. There's something deeper inside him that brings this out.
I spoke kind of soon because I didn't think it kept going and it wasn't too truly horrible at the point I was at, just worse than people like my Dad or other guys I know who I've seen blow up about things. But yeah... christ. I feel bad for the guy.
I just said that the recordings were not fair to Gibson, which is true.
The were his words, which he chose to say, so no it isn’t. Your argument is stupid.
Presumably if it turns out he did hit her, you’ll be saying “I’m not saying it was ok of him, but maybe she shouldn’t have given him so much lip. Context!!1”
I’m not even exaggerating, I can imagine a third of the people in this thread saying something along those lines.
I think this Okstanka woman pulled Gibson into a trap with the phone calls.
Oh noes, she forced him to go on long, racist, threatening diatribes in which he couldn’t even come up with much of substance she had done to deserve them! That poor man, how dare she use her Professor X-like mental abilities to make him say things which reflected poorly on his character!
Why do I feel like you’re implying the exact opposite, then? Look, no one’s actions take place in a vacuum, they are ultimately the result of heredity, environment, and random chance. At some point you have to judge people by their current state of being, the contributing factors being relevant insofar only as they have some bearing on how said state might be changed. If Mel Gibson is a shithead because he had a shitty life, guess what? Still a shithead.
I’m not even saying I would judge him that harshly based on these tapes if it turns out there was no actual physical violence involved. I’m just tired of people making silly excuses like “he was angry”.
I'm glad exes weren't recording me during some heated calls. I know I've said the same types of things he has, minus the raping by a pack of n words. But I'm not Mel Gibson, just some guy. So is Mel Gibson really not just some regular guy? We've all gotten mad at some point in our lives and spewed some vile shit. I just find it uncomfortable sometimes that we now live in an era where anything someone says or does can be heard or seen by everyone. Now if Mel did in fact hit this woman, he should be charged and deal with the consequences. Until then, I don't think his verbal rants are anything too shocking. War Apocalypto.
"Personally, I think this particular awful thing is ok because its an awful thing that I also do"
No, I don't know what is typical of their arguments- no one does but them. But I know what a typical argument sounds like, and that's not it. Maybe it's true and she was calm and nice all the time and Mel just flies off the handle with no corresponding escalation on her part, but as I explained before, I doubt it.
I've already said how I suspect that this is typical of their arguments just because of the dynamic shown, but heres the other thing:
Even if this was a NON typical argument, with Oksana being much more reasonable and calm than she would be normally, Mels still flying off the handle and esculating it every chance he gets.
So even when she doesent try to argue and attempts to reason like a normal person, he still abuses her.
Did anyone see that Mel Gibson interview with that guy who had a Jewish sounding last name?
They were talking about the movie, and the interviewer was praising it, and then went on to ask whether or not he thought people would be put off seeing it because of Mel's elleged remarks.
Mel changed totally, leaning forward and asking "What remarks?" with a weird smile on his face. The interviewer said "The remarks you were elleged to have made some time ago" and Mel responded "Do you have a dog in this fight?" with weird, smiling anger.
I understand Mel felt the need to be defensive maybe, but that's just a pricky thing to say and he said it in a pricky way.
Listen, these tapes are horrible, they are well beyond anything a rational, caring human being should ever do. However, we do not know the extent of the relationship before this and we do not know the extent of Mel's mental health. I mean, if the guy has actual health issues, and shes goading him into exploding, thats not really a reason for any of us to give a shit.
I know some bi-polar people who are absolutely awesome on their meds and horrible, shitty human beings off them. Which one should I consider the real person? Mel is obviously troubled in some way, and if hes mentally unstable, and drugs/theropy can help him, do we consider these outbursts the real mel, or the symptoms of a disease?
Also, yes verbal abuse is wrong, but she is an Ex, and they likely had a horrible break up and now hes fighting for his daughter and shes the enemy. Im sure he absolutely hates her. Im sure shes done some horrible things to him too. This is likely not "man yells at perfectly adoring wife", this is probably one side of a very heated argument. Ive said it before and Ill say it again, aside from a couple threats, this wouldnt be a big deal if it wasnt a very strong possibility that he hit her.
Then again theres always the very real chance that mel is not sick, that she did not do anything, and this is simply the result of a massive asshole trying to control a women through fear. Either way, Braveheart and Maverick are fantastic movies, and I wont stop liking them.
Listen, these tapes are horrible, they are well beyond anything a rational, caring human being should ever do. However, we do not know the extent of the relationship before this and we do not know the extent of Mel's mental health. I mean, if the guy has actual health issues, and shes goading him into exploding, thats not really a reason for any of us to give a shit.
I know some bi-polar people who are absolutely awesome on their meds and horrible, shitty human beings off them. Which one should I consider the real person? Mel is obviously troubled in some way, and if hes mentally unstable, and drugs/theropy can help him, do we consider these outbursts the real mel, or the symptoms of a disease?
Also, yes verbal abuse is wrong, but she is an Ex, and they likely had a horrible break up and now hes fighting for his daughter and shes the enemy. Im sure he absolutely hates her. Im sure shes done some horrible things to him too. This is likely not "man yells at perfectly adoring wife", this is probably one side of a very heated argument. Ive said it before and Ill say it again, aside from a couple threats, this wouldnt be a big deal if it wasnt a very strong possibility that he hit her.
Then again theres always the very real chance that mel is not sick, that she did not do anything, and this is simply the result of a massive asshole trying to control a women through fear. Either way, Braveheart and Maverick are fantastic movies, and I wont stop liking them.
While it would certainly be tragic if Mel Gibson has some kind of severe, personality-altering brain disorder, I think he's been visible enough for enough years for everyone in the human race to see him as a high-functioning whatever-he-is.
I'd say he still has a responsibility not to threaten violence. Or promote racism. I mean, hell, it's not like a number of his movies aren't aggressively revisionist and bigoted, right? A person with severe, behavior-impairing brain disorders generally doesn't have the wherewithal to produce, direct, and act in movies of the scope of The Passion and The Patriot.
Sure, if someone has an IQ of 45 (which is below the legal or medical definition of "retardation" as far as I recall), and they have a severe mental impairment, one might be a little more relaxed in proscribing judgment. Mel clearly doesn't fit that profile. He is an intelligent, high-functioning human being, so I have absolutely no qualms judging him in the absence of context and regardless of any brain disorders he may have. There is nothing that will convince me he is justified for the comments he made, and I think it's silly to even allow for the possibility. The things he said are wholly indefensible.
Many of the comments he made do not need context beyond the argument they took place in.
I feel like alot of the defense being given to Mel at this point is the result of dissonance from Mel Gibson fans.
But I'm not judging you, as I am a fan of Mel Gibson's work.
Braveheart is one of my favourite films, and I love Apocalypto.
But Mel Gibson is clearly a cunt.
See? No dissonance needed there.
Oh I love a good number of his films. I think Braveheart is overlong and slightly overrated, but I did enjoy it immensely. Like I said earlier in the thread, I even liked The Patriot despite it being blatant revisionist history. Maverick is always a good time. Lethal Weapon 2 is excellent. I really enjoyed his version of Hamlet over the much-lauded Kenneth Branagh piece of crap version that everyone seems to have a hardon for.
And so on.
I don't see this as dissonance. I can understand the mentality of boycotting the work of someone you dislike, I guess. I know a number of homosexuals discard the entire Ender's Game series because Orson Scott Card is a self-admitted (hell, he's a self-promoting) homophobe. And I can respect that. But in a discussion on whether or not Ender's Game is, say, a good book, Card's homophobia is irrelevant. And in a discussion on whether or not Mel Gibson is a good actor, or Maverick or whatever is a good film, I'd say Mel Gibson's insanity is irrelevant.
If you're discussing the man, of course, it's fine to talk about his obvious behavioral issues. But I can't help but feel that it is unimportant - as indefensible as his off-set behavior is - when discussing the works alone. What I think about Maverick, or Lethal Weapon 2, or Braveheart, or whatever isn't influenced whatsoever by what I think of Mel Gibson as a person.
Is that dissonance? Whatever. I just think the art is separate from the artist. I guess it's the cousin of the "death of the author" philosophy I subscribe to.
Well, the Gibson version is costumed/staged much further in the past than the Branagh version, so maybe it meets some people's ideas of what Shakespeare plays are *supposed* to look like (i.e. people in tights poncing about the place making faces and being generally weird for no apparent reason).
Of course, the Branagh version gets rid of that so that you are seeing *people* rather than *characters*. But that's just me. I think that the Gibson version was a criminal perversion of the Bard's work (not that I have any strong feelings on the matter, mind you).
-- Casey (mikken@neo.rr.com), May 02, 2003.
I can't really fathom someone that thinks the Zeffirreli/Gibson version perverts the work while Branagh's is somehow more faithful. The idea of it is painful.
Oh I love a good number of his films. I think Braveheart is overlong and slightly overrated, but I did enjoy it immensely. Like I said earlier in the thread, I even liked The Patriot despite it being blatant revisionist history. Maverick is always a good time. Lethal Weapon 2 is excellent. I really enjoyed his version of Hamlet over the much-lauded Kenneth Branagh piece of crap version that everyone seems to have a hardon for.
I thought all of those were terrible to sit through. Well, swap Lethal Weapon 2 for Braveheart. Because I really like Danny Glover. You know what a good Mel Gibson movie is? Conspiracy Theory.
Wait a second... Lethal Weapon franchise, Conspiracy Theory. The only recent movies I like of his are where he's playing someone with severe mental disorder.
Many of the comments he made do not need context beyond the argument they took place in.
I feel like alot of the defense being given to Mel at this point is the result of dissonance from Mel Gibson fans.
But I'm not judging you, as I am a fan of Mel Gibson's work.
Braveheart is one of my favourite films, and I love Apocalypto.
But Mel Gibson is clearly a cunt.
See? No dissonance needed there.
Oh I love a good number of his films. I think Braveheart is overlong and slightly overrated, but I did enjoy it immensely. Like I said earlier in the thread, I even liked The Patriot despite it being blatant revisionist history. Maverick is always a good time. Lethal Weapon 2 is excellent. I really enjoyed his version of Hamlet over the much-lauded Kenneth Branagh piece of crap version that everyone seems to have a hardon for.
And so on.
I don't see this as dissonance. I can understand the mentality of boycotting the work of someone you dislike, I guess. I know a number of homosexuals discard the entire Ender's Game series because Orson Scott Card is a self-admitted (hell, he's a self-promoting) homophobe. And I can respect that. But in a discussion on whether or not Ender's Game is, say, a good book, Card's homophobia is irrelevant. And in a discussion on whether or not Mel Gibson is a good actor, or Maverick or whatever is a good film, I'd say Mel Gibson's insanity is irrelevant.
If you're discussing the man, of course, it's fine to talk about his obvious behavioral issues. But I can't help but feel that it is unimportant - as indefensible as his off-set behavior is - when discussing the works alone. What I think about Maverick, or Lethal Weapon 2, or Braveheart, or whatever isn't influenced whatsoever by what I think of Mel Gibson as a person.
Is that dissonance? Whatever. I just think the art is separate from the artist. I guess it's the cousin of the "death of the author" philosophy I subscribe to.
Yeah, sorry. I wasn't very clear there. I agreed with you fully, and saying "I'm not judging you" was directed towards Mel Gibson fans.
I meant that the dissonance was from people trying to defend his behaviour.
I'm just agreeing with you in that, while I thoroughly enjoy alot of Mel's work. I still think he's a prick. And that this is a perfectly reasonable stance to take. I'm not supporting verbal abuse by enjoying Braveheart. Neither am I discrediting his entire career by thinking he is a mentally unstable, angry angry bastard.
Oh I love a good number of his films. I think Braveheart is overlong and slightly overrated, but I did enjoy it immensely. Like I said earlier in the thread, I even liked The Patriot despite it being blatant revisionist history. Maverick is always a good time. Lethal Weapon 2 is excellent. I really enjoyed his version of Hamlet over the much-lauded Kenneth Branagh piece of crap version that everyone seems to have a hardon for.
I thought all of those were terrible to sit through. Well, swap Lethal Weapon 2 for Braveheart. Because I really like Danny Glover. You know what a good Mel Gibson movie is? Conspiracy Theory.
Wait a second... Lethal Weapon franchise, Conspiracy Theory. The only recent movies I like of his are where he's playing someone with severe mental disorder.
Actually, I admit I liked Conspiracy Theory. You really didn't like Maverick, though? If nothing else, Jodie Foster was looking mighty hot in the film.
Many of the comments he made do not need context beyond the argument they took place in.
I feel like alot of the defense being given to Mel at this point is the result of dissonance from Mel Gibson fans.
But I'm not judging you, as I am a fan of Mel Gibson's work.
Braveheart is one of my favourite films, and I love Apocalypto.
But Mel Gibson is clearly a cunt.
See? No dissonance needed there.
Oh I love a good number of his films. I think Braveheart is overlong and slightly overrated, but I did enjoy it immensely. Like I said earlier in the thread, I even liked The Patriot despite it being blatant revisionist history. Maverick is always a good time. Lethal Weapon 2 is excellent. I really enjoyed his version of Hamlet over the much-lauded Kenneth Branagh piece of crap version that everyone seems to have a hardon for.
And so on.
I don't see this as dissonance. I can understand the mentality of boycotting the work of someone you dislike, I guess. I know a number of homosexuals discard the entire Ender's Game series because Orson Scott Card is a self-admitted (hell, he's a self-promoting) homophobe. And I can respect that. But in a discussion on whether or not Ender's Game is, say, a good book, Card's homophobia is irrelevant. And in a discussion on whether or not Mel Gibson is a good actor, or Maverick or whatever is a good film, I'd say Mel Gibson's insanity is irrelevant.
If you're discussing the man, of course, it's fine to talk about his obvious behavioral issues. But I can't help but feel that it is unimportant - as indefensible as his off-set behavior is - when discussing the works alone. What I think about Maverick, or Lethal Weapon 2, or Braveheart, or whatever isn't influenced whatsoever by what I think of Mel Gibson as a person.
Is that dissonance? Whatever. I just think the art is separate from the artist. I guess it's the cousin of the "death of the author" philosophy I subscribe to.
Yeah, sorry. I wasn't very clear there. I agreed with you fully, and saying "I'm not judging you" was directed towards Mel Gibson fans.
I meant that the dissonance was from people trying to defend his behaviour.
I'm just agreeing with you in that, while I thoroughly enjoy alot of Mel's work. I still think he's a prick. And that this is a perfectly reasonable stance to take. I'm not supporting verbal abuse by enjoying Braveheart. Neither am I discrediting his entire career by thinking he is a mentally unstable, angry angry bastard.
Oh I love a good number of his films. I think Braveheart is overlong and slightly overrated, but I did enjoy it immensely. Like I said earlier in the thread, I even liked The Patriot despite it being blatant revisionist history. Maverick is always a good time. Lethal Weapon 2 is excellent. I really enjoyed his version of Hamlet over the much-lauded Kenneth Branagh piece of crap version that everyone seems to have a hardon for.
I thought all of those were terrible to sit through. Well, swap Lethal Weapon 2 for Braveheart. Because I really like Danny Glover. You know what a good Mel Gibson movie is? Conspiracy Theory.
Wait a second... Lethal Weapon franchise, Conspiracy Theory. The only recent movies I like of his are where he's playing someone with severe mental disorder.
Actually, I admit I liked Conspiracy Theory. You really didn't like Maverick, though? If nothing else, Jodie Foster was looking mighty hot in the film.
Jodie Foster looks mighty hot in a lot of things. And my distaste for certain genres just spoils things for me. Like every gangster film ever.
My Dad used to talk to my Mom like Mel was in those calls, though Mel honestly was probably a worse just because he kept going and going.
I hope your dad is in jail or in therapy.
I'm not saying Mel is in the right at all, he obviously has issues, but I wouldn't be surprised if this girl was actively trying to get money out of him at every chance she got.
I really despise this mentality.
Do you have anything whatsoever to support this view beyond your reflexive distrust of the woman being verbally abused on that tape?
Point is, though, we all get mad, some more mad then others, but it's private for a reason. If everyone knew everything, nobody would like anyone.
Abuse shouldn't be private.
People who tolerate abuse and automatically assume that the victims of abuse have some angle to play are silly geese.
I can't get the idea out of my head that someone thinks it's unfair to secretly record a person who is threatening to murder them.
Dude, what? Mel Gibson is fucking crazy. What are you? Because what you're posting here is rock hard stupid.
Sometimes recorded statements are the only way to show people what goes on inside the home, too. Most abusers are very charismatic and well liked in the community outside the home and generally people don't want to believe they might say such horrible things.
It's called "Exhibit A" in the "please don't let this horrible shit near me or my child" case.
I can't get the idea out of my head that someone thinks it's unfair to secretly record a person who is threatening to murder them.
Dude, what? Mel Gibson is fucking crazy. What are you? Because what you're posting here is rock hard stupid.
Sometimes recorded statements are the only way to show people what goes on inside the home, too. Most abusers are very charismatic and well liked in the community outside the home and generally people don't want to believe they might say such horrible things.
It's called "Exhibit A" in the "please don't let this horrible shit near me or my child" case.
I'm glad exes weren't recording me during some heated calls. I know I've said the same types of things he has, minus the raping by a pack of n words. But I'm not Mel Gibson, just some guy. So is Mel Gibson really not just some regular guy? We've all gotten mad at some point in our lives and spewed some vile shit. I just find it uncomfortable sometimes that we now live in an era where anything someone says or does can be heard or seen by everyone. Now if Mel did in fact hit this woman, he should be charged and deal with the consequences. Until then, I don't think his verbal rants are anything too shocking. War Apocalypto.
I'm going to be judgmental and say that if you talked to your exes in a similar way that Mel Gibson spoke on that recording, you're well and truly a silly goose.
Why the hell would you ever speak to someone like that? It's verbal/emotional abuse. It's seriously not cool.
Yeah, I have never spoken to anyway with anywhere near that level of venom. Never even close. I don't even speak to inanimate objects that way.
Seriously, a rant like that requires that you be both A) a profoundly silly goose, and pretty fucking unhinged.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Yeah, I have anger issues, and Ive maybe reached 1% of the level he has. Ive done the heavy breathing thing before, and hearing it from Mel makes me want to throw up realzing Ive been that unhinged.
My thing is, as angry as I did, Im never remotely mean to the people around me, Im usually just mad at things or situations, I have no idea how you could be so hateful to someone who your talking to. So its not just anger issues Mel has, he really has some socipathic issues about how he sees people.
Though, these Mel clips have opened my eyes, not that Ive ever been remotely close to him, but the fact I can sort of even draw small similarities have made me vow to never let my anger control me like that again. SO yay Mel, way to make other people look at their lives due to your bat-shit-insanery.
as for closet gay, I didnt get that. I did get dude with ED who cant satisfy a woman vibes.
I can't get the idea out of my head that someone thinks it's unfair to secretly record a person who is threatening to murder them.
Dude, what? Mel Gibson is fucking crazy. What are you? Because what you're posting here is rock hard stupid.
Sometimes recorded statements are the only way to show people what goes on inside the home, too. Most abusers are very charismatic and well liked in the community outside the home and generally people don't want to believe they might say such horrible things.
It's called "Exhibit A" in the "please don't let this horrible shit near me or my child" case.
This is all only based off the calls though. I haven't really been following the "story" or whatever. Has he beaten her?
I don't know. What's the number of teeth that you have to knock out before you go from "tuning her up" to "beating"?
3. The answer is 3 teeth.
Someone needs to make a PSA with the Tootsie Roll owl so we can keep this stuff straight.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm glad exes weren't recording me during some heated calls. I know I've said the same types of things he has, minus the raping by a pack of n words. But I'm not Mel Gibson, just some guy. So is Mel Gibson really not just some regular guy? We've all gotten mad at some point in our lives and spewed some vile shit. I just find it uncomfortable sometimes that we now live in an era where anything someone says or does can be heard or seen by everyone. Now if Mel did in fact hit this woman, he should be charged and deal with the consequences. Until then, I don't think his verbal rants are anything too shocking. War Apocalypto.
I'm going to be judgmental and say that if you talked to your exes in a similar way that Mel Gibson spoke on that recording, you're well and truly a silly goose.
Why the hell would you ever speak to someone like that? It's verbal/emotional abuse. It's seriously not cool.
Yeah, I have never spoken to anyway with anywhere near that level of venom. Never even close. I don't even speak to inanimate objects that way.
Seriously, a rant like that requires that you be both A) a profoundly silly goose, and pretty fucking unhinged.
Yea I haven't heard all of the tapes but from what I have heard I can say I've never come close to speaking that way to someone.
Also I don't know how he can say that she deserved to be punched...unless she was attacking him with a baseball bat.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
So just to clear something up - did he actually physically attack her? While she was holding a baby? Or was that just a rumor?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
She mentions it in one of the taped conversations, though he never really clearly confirms or denies it. Granted, I can only make out about half of what he's saying, so...
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that she's manipulating this for personal gain.
His antics are still beyond acceptable, but I would not be surprised to find out she was an active participant in a codependent abusive relationship. Having known a fair share of mutually abusive couples, I wouldn't bat an eye if we later found out she attacked him and his "you deserved [a punch in the face]" was because she was clawing at his eyes at that moment.
Getting help in a situation like that is hard enough, I can't imagine how much harder it is when millions of people are listening in and there's an entire industry dedicated to making money off of publicizing your failure. Charlie Sheen and Tom Sizemore both got to avoid the scrutiny because there was no tape to speak of.
Whoopi Goldberg doesn't get to absolve Mel's racism just because she's black, or because Mel's been over her house. What an asshole she is in that clip. At least she didn't pull out the "well I'm right because I'm black" card.
I think she's trying to argue that she knows him better than people who have just seen his movies and heard the clips, which is true. Doesn't mean those people are going to be convinced on her say-so, though. I mean, they're saying he's a racist because he has clearly said racist things (racists are self-defined like that); she's saying he's not a racist because he's acted in a non-racist way while she's known him. So pretty much all that's been proven is that he says racist things on occasion.
Which, if sincere, pretty much defines him as a racist in my book. You don't have to be spouting racist drivel 24/7 to be a racist.
(racist)
I'm kind of the opinion that you have to believe the racist things you're saying in order to actually be a racist. Just whipping out insults doesn't define someone as anything other than an asshole in my book.
But then of course how do you actually prove whether someone holds racist views? Well, you don't and I don't think it matters because either way they're being a rather large asshole.
Whoopi Goldberg doesn't get to absolve Mel's racism just because she's black, or because Mel's been over her house. What an asshole she is in that clip. At least she didn't pull out the "well I'm right because I'm black" card.
I think she's trying to argue that she knows him better than people who have just seen his movies and heard the clips, which is true. Doesn't mean those people are going to be convinced on her say-so, though. I mean, they're saying he's a racist because he has clearly said racist things (racists are self-defined like that); she's saying he's not a racist because he's acted in a non-racist way while she's known him. So pretty much all that's been proven is that he says racist things on occasion.
Which, if sincere, pretty much defines him as a racist in my book. You don't have to be spouting racist drivel 24/7 to be a racist.
(racist)
I'm kind of the opinion that you have to believe the racist things you're saying in order to actually be a racist. Just whipping out insults doesn't define someone as anything other than an asshole in my book.
But then of course how do you actually prove whether someone holds racist views? Well, you don't and I don't think it matters because either way they're being a rather large asshole.
I've known plenty of racists, and they are fine with making exceptions for "the good ones". So Mel not coming off as racist to Whoopi doesn't mean much of anything.
As for the people questioning her motives and actions on the tape, I think others are over reacting to that. It's not defending Mel...
How do I want to say this...
Lets say in the upcoming custody hearings for their child. Maybe we should be thinking that Child services or "The State" should be the best answer of who gets the child. We know he shouldn't get custody, but neither should she.
I'm glad exes weren't recording me during some heated calls. I know I've said the same types of things he has, minus the raping by a pack of n words. But I'm not Mel Gibson, just some guy. So is Mel Gibson really not just some regular guy? We've all gotten mad at some point in our lives and spewed some vile shit. I just find it uncomfortable sometimes that we now live in an era where anything someone says or does can be heard or seen by everyone. Now if Mel did in fact hit this woman, he should be charged and deal with the consequences. Until then, I don't think his verbal rants are anything too shocking. War Apocalypto.
I'm going to be judgmental and say that if you talked to your exes in a similar way that Mel Gibson spoke on that recording, you're well and truly a silly goose.
Why the hell would you ever speak to someone like that? It's verbal/emotional abuse. It's seriously not cool.
Yeah, I have never spoken to anyway with anywhere near that level of venom. Never even close. I don't even speak to inanimate objects that way.
Seriously, a rant like that requires that you be both A) a profoundly silly goose, and pretty fucking unhinged.
I believe I once spoke to the final boss of FF3 like that.
Also, one time, my friend spoiled the end of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, so I called her a "mud-blooded cunt-bucket." But there was context to it.
I'm glad exes weren't recording me during some heated calls. I know I've said the same types of things he has, minus the raping by a pack of n words. But I'm not Mel Gibson, just some guy. So is Mel Gibson really not just some regular guy? We've all gotten mad at some point in our lives and spewed some vile shit. I just find it uncomfortable sometimes that we now live in an era where anything someone says or does can be heard or seen by everyone. Now if Mel did in fact hit this woman, he should be charged and deal with the consequences. Until then, I don't think his verbal rants are anything too shocking. War Apocalypto.
I'm going to be judgmental and say that if you talked to your exes in a similar way that Mel Gibson spoke on that recording, you're well and truly a silly goose.
Why the hell would you ever speak to someone like that? It's verbal/emotional abuse. It's seriously not cool.
Yeah, I have never spoken to anyway with anywhere near that level of venom. Never even close. I don't even speak to inanimate objects that way.
Seriously, a rant like that requires that you be both A) a profoundly silly goose, and pretty fucking unhinged.
I believe I once spoke to the final boss of FF3 like that.
Also, one time, my friend spoiled the end of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, so I called her a "mud-blooded cunt-bucket." But there was context to it.
So long as you didn't tell her that she deserved to be raped by a pack of squibs, you've still got a couple of points on Mel.
Whoopi Goldberg doesn't get to absolve Mel's racism just because she's black, or because Mel's been over her house. What an asshole she is in that clip. At least she didn't pull out the "well I'm right because I'm black" card.
I think she's trying to argue that she knows him better than people who have just seen his movies and heard the clips, which is true. Doesn't mean those people are going to be convinced on her say-so, though. I mean, they're saying he's a racist because he has clearly said racist things (racists are self-defined like that); she's saying he's not a racist because he's acted in a non-racist way while she's known him. So pretty much all that's been proven is that he says racist things on occasion.
Which, if sincere, pretty much defines him as a racist in my book. You don't have to be spouting racist drivel 24/7 to be a racist.
(racist)
I'm kind of the opinion that you have to believe the racist things you're saying in order to actually be a racist. Just whipping out insults doesn't define someone as anything other than an asshole in my book.
But then of course how do you actually prove whether someone holds racist views? Well, you don't and I don't think it matters because either way they're being a rather large asshole.
I've known plenty of racists, and they are fine with making exceptions for "the good ones". So Mel not coming off as racist to Whoopi doesn't mean much of anything.
Oh I couldn't care less what Whoopi believes about him. My point is whether he's truly a racist or not isn't something you can determine from insults he threw around but that question is rather irrelevant anyways since racist or not, he's an incredible asshole.
Posts
While the full context of those conversations may be interesting to read or hear or in general have more information about, I do actually think the context is irrelevant. I don't think there is ANY justification for the things he said on tape. If Oksana did equally terrible things, then they are BOTH terrible people, that's all. Regardless of what prompted Mel to communicate in that way, he is indefensibly wrong. This is why I don't really see the overall value of putting it in context, and I rather feel that that is a potentially dangerous way of looking at it. My feelings toward Mel wouldn't soften even if Oksana was threatening to blackmail him or extort money for him or any other awful thing you can think of. I wouldn't go "aww, shucks, well I guess she deserved that." All I would think is "she's awful too" but I'd still feel exactly the same way about Mel. There is no justification for the bigoted comments he made, the threats he made, and everything else he did or said.
edit: My point is this: Regardless of whatever information may or may not come to light in the future, let's not lose sight of the fact that what Mel said and did is completely unacceptable regardless of the context. Because it is - completely unacceptable.
I just hope he can have the humility to admit he lost it and he's sorry. Maybe just a little statement that no woman deserves to be spoken to like that. If Oksanka is making him unhappy, just divorce her..
edit: And yeah it is totally unacceptable but it's so heniously horrible that it makes you wonder what could have possibly happened in his life to make him this angry. It's clearly referencing issues far deeper than any relationship between him and Oksanka, as bad as it could have been. There's something deeper inside him that brings this out.
When you get to the third and fourth is when your jaw drops.
Presumably if it turns out he did hit her, you’ll be saying “I’m not saying it was ok of him, but maybe she shouldn’t have given him so much lip. Context!!1”
I’m not even exaggerating, I can imagine a third of the people in this thread saying something along those lines.
Oh noes, she forced him to go on long, racist, threatening diatribes in which he couldn’t even come up with much of substance she had done to deserve them! That poor man, how dare she use her Professor X-like mental abilities to make him say things which reflected poorly on his character!
Why do I feel like you’re implying the exact opposite, then? Look, no one’s actions take place in a vacuum, they are ultimately the result of heredity, environment, and random chance. At some point you have to judge people by their current state of being, the contributing factors being relevant insofar only as they have some bearing on how said state might be changed. If Mel Gibson is a shithead because he had a shitty life, guess what? Still a shithead.
I’m not even saying I would judge him that harshly based on these tapes if it turns out there was no actual physical violence involved. I’m just tired of people making silly excuses like “he was angry”.
"Personally, I think this particular awful thing is ok because its an awful thing that I also do"
I've already said how I suspect that this is typical of their arguments just because of the dynamic shown, but heres the other thing:
Even if this was a NON typical argument, with Oksana being much more reasonable and calm than she would be normally, Mels still flying off the handle and esculating it every chance he gets.
So even when she doesent try to argue and attempts to reason like a normal person, he still abuses her.
They were talking about the movie, and the interviewer was praising it, and then went on to ask whether or not he thought people would be put off seeing it because of Mel's elleged remarks.
Mel changed totally, leaning forward and asking "What remarks?" with a weird smile on his face. The interviewer said "The remarks you were elleged to have made some time ago" and Mel responded "Do you have a dog in this fight?" with weird, smiling anger.
I understand Mel felt the need to be defensive maybe, but that's just a pricky thing to say and he said it in a pricky way.
I know some bi-polar people who are absolutely awesome on their meds and horrible, shitty human beings off them. Which one should I consider the real person? Mel is obviously troubled in some way, and if hes mentally unstable, and drugs/theropy can help him, do we consider these outbursts the real mel, or the symptoms of a disease?
Also, yes verbal abuse is wrong, but she is an Ex, and they likely had a horrible break up and now hes fighting for his daughter and shes the enemy. Im sure he absolutely hates her. Im sure shes done some horrible things to him too. This is likely not "man yells at perfectly adoring wife", this is probably one side of a very heated argument. Ive said it before and Ill say it again, aside from a couple threats, this wouldnt be a big deal if it wasnt a very strong possibility that he hit her.
Then again theres always the very real chance that mel is not sick, that she did not do anything, and this is simply the result of a massive asshole trying to control a women through fear. Either way, Braveheart and Maverick are fantastic movies, and I wont stop liking them.
While it would certainly be tragic if Mel Gibson has some kind of severe, personality-altering brain disorder, I think he's been visible enough for enough years for everyone in the human race to see him as a high-functioning whatever-he-is.
I'd say he still has a responsibility not to threaten violence. Or promote racism. I mean, hell, it's not like a number of his movies aren't aggressively revisionist and bigoted, right? A person with severe, behavior-impairing brain disorders generally doesn't have the wherewithal to produce, direct, and act in movies of the scope of The Passion and The Patriot.
Sure, if someone has an IQ of 45 (which is below the legal or medical definition of "retardation" as far as I recall), and they have a severe mental impairment, one might be a little more relaxed in proscribing judgment. Mel clearly doesn't fit that profile. He is an intelligent, high-functioning human being, so I have absolutely no qualms judging him in the absence of context and regardless of any brain disorders he may have. There is nothing that will convince me he is justified for the comments he made, and I think it's silly to even allow for the possibility. The things he said are wholly indefensible.
Agreed.
Many of the comments he made do not need context beyond the argument they took place in.
I feel like alot of the defense being given to Mel at this point is the result of dissonance from Mel Gibson fans.
But I'm not judging you, as I am a fan of Mel Gibson's work.
Braveheart is one of my favourite films, and I love Apocalypto.
But Mel Gibson is clearly a cunt.
See? No dissonance needed there.
Oh I love a good number of his films. I think Braveheart is overlong and slightly overrated, but I did enjoy it immensely. Like I said earlier in the thread, I even liked The Patriot despite it being blatant revisionist history. Maverick is always a good time. Lethal Weapon 2 is excellent. I really enjoyed his version of Hamlet over the much-lauded Kenneth Branagh piece of crap version that everyone seems to have a hardon for.
And so on.
I don't see this as dissonance. I can understand the mentality of boycotting the work of someone you dislike, I guess. I know a number of homosexuals discard the entire Ender's Game series because Orson Scott Card is a self-admitted (hell, he's a self-promoting) homophobe. And I can respect that. But in a discussion on whether or not Ender's Game is, say, a good book, Card's homophobia is irrelevant. And in a discussion on whether or not Mel Gibson is a good actor, or Maverick or whatever is a good film, I'd say Mel Gibson's insanity is irrelevant.
If you're discussing the man, of course, it's fine to talk about his obvious behavioral issues. But I can't help but feel that it is unimportant - as indefensible as his off-set behavior is - when discussing the works alone. What I think about Maverick, or Lethal Weapon 2, or Braveheart, or whatever isn't influenced whatsoever by what I think of Mel Gibson as a person.
Is that dissonance? Whatever. I just think the art is separate from the artist. I guess it's the cousin of the "death of the author" philosophy I subscribe to.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00An38
I can't really fathom someone that thinks the Zeffirreli/Gibson version perverts the work while Branagh's is somehow more faithful. The idea of it is painful.
I thought all of those were terrible to sit through. Well, swap Lethal Weapon 2 for Braveheart. Because I really like Danny Glover. You know what a good Mel Gibson movie is? Conspiracy Theory.
Wait a second... Lethal Weapon franchise, Conspiracy Theory. The only recent movies I like of his are where he's playing someone with severe mental disorder.
Yeah, sorry. I wasn't very clear there. I agreed with you fully, and saying "I'm not judging you" was directed towards Mel Gibson fans.
I meant that the dissonance was from people trying to defend his behaviour.
I'm just agreeing with you in that, while I thoroughly enjoy alot of Mel's work. I still think he's a prick. And that this is a perfectly reasonable stance to take. I'm not supporting verbal abuse by enjoying Braveheart. Neither am I discrediting his entire career by thinking he is a mentally unstable, angry angry bastard.
Actually, I admit I liked Conspiracy Theory. You really didn't like Maverick, though? If nothing else, Jodie Foster was looking mighty hot in the film.
Ahhhh okay, I get you.
Jodie Foster looks mighty hot in a lot of things. And my distaste for certain genres just spoils things for me. Like every gangster film ever.
I really despise this mentality.
Do you have anything whatsoever to support this view beyond your reflexive distrust of the woman being verbally abused on that tape?
Abuse shouldn't be private.
People who tolerate abuse and automatically assume that the victims of abuse have some angle to play are silly geese.
I don't know. What's the number of teeth that you have to knock out before you go from "tuning her up" to "beating"?
3. The answer is 3 teeth.
Yeah, I have never spoken to anyway with anywhere near that level of venom. Never even close. I don't even speak to inanimate objects that way.
Seriously, a rant like that requires that you be both A) a profoundly silly goose, and
My thing is, as angry as I did, Im never remotely mean to the people around me, Im usually just mad at things or situations, I have no idea how you could be so hateful to someone who your talking to. So its not just anger issues Mel has, he really has some socipathic issues about how he sees people.
Though, these Mel clips have opened my eyes, not that Ive ever been remotely close to him, but the fact I can sort of even draw small similarities have made me vow to never let my anger control me like that again. SO yay Mel, way to make other people look at their lives due to your bat-shit-insanery.
as for closet gay, I didnt get that. I did get dude with ED who cant satisfy a woman vibes.
Someone needs to make a PSA with the Tootsie Roll owl so we can keep this stuff straight.
Yea I haven't heard all of the tapes but from what I have heard I can say I've never come close to speaking that way to someone.
Also I don't know how he can say that she deserved to be punched...unless she was attacking him with a baseball bat.
Her dentist thinks Mel did... at least enough to testify in court.
His antics are still beyond acceptable, but I would not be surprised to find out she was an active participant in a codependent abusive relationship. Having known a fair share of mutually abusive couples, I wouldn't bat an eye if we later found out she attacked him and his "you deserved [a punch in the face]" was because she was clawing at his eyes at that moment.
Getting help in a situation like that is hard enough, I can't imagine how much harder it is when millions of people are listening in and there's an entire industry dedicated to making money off of publicizing your failure. Charlie Sheen and Tom Sizemore both got to avoid the scrutiny because there was no tape to speak of.
I'm kind of the opinion that you have to believe the racist things you're saying in order to actually be a racist. Just whipping out insults doesn't define someone as anything other than an asshole in my book.
But then of course how do you actually prove whether someone holds racist views? Well, you don't and I don't think it matters because either way they're being a rather large asshole.
I think that's just you.
I also wonder how fast he is pacing around because at some points dude is breathing like he just sprinted a mile.
I've known plenty of racists, and they are fine with making exceptions for "the good ones". So Mel not coming off as racist to Whoopi doesn't mean much of anything.
As for the people questioning her motives and actions on the tape, I think others are over reacting to that. It's not defending Mel...
How do I want to say this...
Lets say in the upcoming custody hearings for their child. Maybe we should be thinking that Child services or "The State" should be the best answer of who gets the child. We know he shouldn't get custody, but neither should she.
Also, one time, my friend spoiled the end of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, so I called her a "mud-blooded cunt-bucket." But there was context to it.
So long as you didn't tell her that she deserved to be raped by a pack of squibs, you've still got a couple of points on Mel.
Oh I couldn't care less what Whoopi believes about him. My point is whether he's truly a racist or not isn't something you can determine from insults he threw around but that question is rather irrelevant anyways since racist or not, he's an incredible asshole.