A Wank, Two Nuns and a Dick Walked Into a Bar

Posted on by

And a lazy blogger. You’d think they would have seen it.

I couldn’t  get it up ( so to speak) to post about the latest Richard Armitage Tweet, delete repeat episode. I did engage in some commenting though, as did others – so you might want to read about it here and here  and in the comments on those sites.

Sigh. I did see this though, and from a favorite site, posted on Twitter:

Screen Shot 2016-02-25 at 1.48.16 PM

Here is another example, and we’ve seen so many, where the mere acts of analyzing, criticizing or judging Richard Armitage ( having an opinion?) is uncivilized behavior, and the writer seems to assume that such action is, by itself, cyberbullying and intended to harm. (And an infringement of civil rights?) Where I come from, the right to express an opinion is a fundamental right. It’s Richard Armitage’s right, and it’s mine, as well.

 

 

 

 

 

23 thoughts on “A Wank, Two Nuns and a Dick Walked Into a Bar”

  1. There’s a self-deception involved in that entire argument anyway: to criticize “those who judge” as if one is not judging oneself is disingenuous. One is simply judging favorably as opposed to negatively. If no one “judged” or “analyzed” Armitage, there would be no discussion of him at all. The fact that he seems to attract or require interpretation is what keeps us talking. Otherwise we could all just stare happily at our screens and not say a word (presumably) beyond cooing to each other. So what they’re saying is, essentially, every fan should judge everything Richard Armitage does at all times positively. Even if that were desirable, it’s unlikely to happen.

    Quoting Jesus of Nazareth as a univocal, unnuanced supporter of toleration is kind of a dubious proposition anyway. He said plenty of horrid things as well, let the dead bury their dead; I have come to bring strife between a man and his father; and so on. Jesus was not very tolerant of those who disagreed with him or with whom he disagreed.

    And telling people to be tolerant after you’ve stated why you don’t believe their statements should be tolerated is a bit, well. Toleration is always for the people whose opinions we can’t stand; we don’t have to work at tolerating people we agree with.

    Like

    Reply

    • The writer mimicked some of Richard Armitage’s preaching, and yeah, Jesus isn’t going to persuade me. I never understood the face value of that “judge not” quote, because I’m quite willing to be judged – that is – people can have opinions of me , hopefully based on fact. But was it you or did I find it myself or check it afterwards – anyway, I learned that the quote itself is often misused or misinterpreted. It is deemed to have something to do with hypocritical behavior. Perhaps it is appropriate in this case, considering the posture of the writer who quoted it.

      Like

      Reply

      • yeah, it was me (the post on Neusner’s book, A Rabbi Talks to Jesus, the segment on the Sermon on the Mount). Here I’m just interpreting the way they are — as if the statement were a decontextualized aphorism.

        Like

        Reply

  3. The bit I don’t understand is, why are they delighted to say “privet”? Are they non-native English speakers and meant to say “private”? If so why would they be delighted to say private? Or is it a greeting in another language? Maybe they just like privet hedges and hope Richard shares their enthusiasm…

    Like

    Reply

  4. I just think the whole tweeting thing keeps getting out of hand.

    He’s damned for what he does say and then damned for what he doesn’t, or what he deletes.

    He is what he is, in the same way as we are what we are.

    I can see why some people prefer the days when he just sent out his Christmas thoughts – all social media has it’s plus and minus points, it seems.

    Like

    Reply

  8. To be honest, I thought they were addressing the long-tired issue of rants over the little stuff, not genuine criticism. Words like tolerance and respect are in there, and I appreciated them. The fine line between opinions and out-and-out poo-slinging fests at other fans and over Richard’s comments, etc. is getting thinner. In my opinion.

    Like

    Reply

      • I see what is underneath. An expression of frustration. I have people tell me privately how fearful they are to even say a few things expressing themselves because they fear such derision and criticism. These are they people I spoke of, in my recent post. And they just leave, or maybe become someone else. Either way, they move on. I just don’t think that one should have to be equipped with a thick skin to be a part of this fandom, those who are critical of other fans’ criticism.

        Like

        Reply

  9. Pingback: 2015 at “me + richard armitage” in review, part two | Me + Richard Armitage

  10. Pingback: Richard Armitage and the tweets he didn’t delete | Me + Richard Armitage

  11. Pingback: Q: When will Richard Armitage’s fandom reject his victimhood narrative? A: When Richard Armitage stops feeding it to us | Me + Richard Armitage

Leave a comment