Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sean Connery has died

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 261 posts

Re: Sean Connery has died

#231

Post by ljm »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #216
ljm wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but your response is far more uncharitable as you're making the case that I didn't read it and need a summary that isn't really that close to what you actually said. I thought we were having a conversation. 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 co…

Your response here is very poor. In the present discussion the correct analogy with Connery’s behavior would not be that the rapist served the sentence, but that they served the sentence and after they got released, went on a nationally televised news program and stated unequivocally that they did not regret what they did and in fact believed that their victim “wouldn’t shut up” which in some sense meant the victim b…

You're way off base, unless you can tell me that Connery was convicted for domestic abuse, went to prison, and _then_ made his comments to Playboy and Vanity Fair and so on that he was right to do that.

> 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?

Re: Sean Connery has died

#232

Post by unabst »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #203
unabst wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s obviously a quick PR filler piece 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 ver…

>Today it's still okay by most for a woman to hit a man. 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…

Which is all sexist, but accepted. Which again is interesting.

> might hit harder next time

Pre-crime?

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."

Re: Sean Connery has died

#233

Post by [deleted] »

ljm wrote: post #211
lotsofpulp wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Today it's still okay by most for a woman to hit a man. 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…

But that's not a true context is it? It's the sexist one that says women are weaker and must be harmless. A woman can absolutely threaten a man with violence. We see it every day in all of the broken marriages, divorce settlements, and situations where children become weapons. The whole situation with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard is one where the traditional roles are reversed. The truth is that a human being is capab…

[deleted]

Re: Sean Connery has died

#234

Post by lotsofpulp »

ljm wrote: post #211
lotsofpulp wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Today it's still okay by most for a woman to hit a man. 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…

But that's not a true context is it? It's the sexist one that says women are weaker and must be harmless. A woman can absolutely threaten a man with violence. We see it every day in all of the broken marriages, divorce settlements, and situations where children become weapons. The whole situation with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard is one where the traditional roles are reversed. The truth is that a human being is capab…

It’s not sexist to say a woman (in general) is physically weaker than a man, it’s a fact due to biology.

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.

Re: Sean Connery has died

#235

Post by antepodius »

klyrs wrote: post #164
jowsie wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that once I'm dead, people can say or think whatever they like about me. I won't care, I'll be dead.

Indeed. Be honest with me until I'm on my deathbed -- at that point, please follow Fitzgerald; there's little point in changing a dying person's mind and I'll probably be in plenty of anguish already. But once I'm dead? Whatever, I'm dead. Don't delude yourself for my sake! 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…

No, there was a sizeable contingent who said that all lives have value and celebrating a man's death was demeaning.

Re: Sean Connery has died

#236

Post by Barrin92 »

globular-toast wrote: post #133
pmoriarty wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assault is abuse. It doesn't matter whether you assault someone with an open or closed hand.

It's not that simple. I was smacked as a child because I was a little shit and deserved it. It wasn't abuse. It worked and taught me to respect my parents.

Not only is that actually abuse, it's also illegal in most of the developed world for that very reason. That some people have internalised their childhood abuse and rationalised it as 'it worked', because they don't want to recognise that their parents treated them wrong doesn't change that. In fact it actually proves an important point, that it is important to always speak up against abuse, because a lot of people who have been abused often in an attempt to not deal with it rationalise it away.

Re: Sean Connery has died

#237

Post by throw_Connery »

pachico wrote: post #217
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget he was also an unapologetic advocate of spousal abuse, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mzXkbJwrN38

Why was this downvoted?

I will assume this is an honest un-loaded question, but would be most comfortable giving an honest answer in a throwaway.

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.

Re: Sean Connery has died

#238

Post by fao_ »

ljm wrote: post #229
fao_ wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and need a summary that isn't really that close to what you actually said. 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 di…

You're rewriting it outside of the concept of reformation. So no, they're not compatible retellings. Your tl;dr is basically the same post with 'reform' taken out of it. Even without that, it's patronising to assume I didn't read what you had to say such that you had to reword it while also being sarcastic about it. I don't feel that you're responding to me in good faith. More to that, I still feel like you're respon…

> 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.

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.

Re: Sean Connery has died

#239

Post by arghwhat »

devin wrote: post #161
arghwhat wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would he send XOFF to his terminal to when he wanted to s(h)ave...

The joke is Sean Connery would pronounce "save" as "shave".

And the follow-up joke is that Ctrl-s in a terminal emulator doesn't save anything but instead sends XOFF, which temporarily blocks further output.

Re: Sean Connery has died

#240

Post by fuzzfactor »

pmoriarty wrote: post #114
secondcoming wrote: post #34

I'll always remember him for Zardoz

I would rate Zardoz to be the best movie that Connery was in. 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.

Zardoz seemed so futuristic when it came out, without being entirely serious.

Looking back to when it was made in 1974, that's a lot closer to 1939 than it is to 2020.

Post reply on HN