Author Topic: Roger Ebert Tweets Chastisement After Drunk Driving Death  (Read 14587 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

afbluebelle

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5361
  • Saving the world one squirrelbot at a time
Re: Roger Ebert Tweets Chastisement After Drunk Driving Death
« Reply #285 on: June 24, 2011, 03:33:41 PM »
[So i'm clear, you don't think it would be rude if he'd tweeted "live stupid, die stupid"?

I think it would be rude, but it's not something I would be surprised to read. Tweets are not personal communications. Would they have been upset if someone had written an editorial that said the same thing in 100 times as many words?

But the conversation is about whether his words were rude, not whether they were surprising, right? To borrow my favorite Top Chef expression, this is Etiquette Hell, not Does It Surprise You That Someone Said This Hell. 

And we've said many times on here that the way you say something is, for etiquette purposes, as important as what you say.

So I dont understand how your comments - that they're lucky he didn't post "live stupid die stupid" or that someone could have written a long editorial with the same basic message - is relevant to the actual question of the rudeness of Mr. ebert's tweet.  It doesn't matter if its surprising. And an editorial - with a different tone and medium than Ebert's tweet - is not at all comparable.

Thank you.  You have said what I was trying to explain and failing horribly at. I've read so many phrases used in this thread that, if it had been any other thread, would have been locked in a second.  I know I've seen people get upset at the phrase "the truth hurts" or "the truth isn't pretty", and it should be the same way across the board for all things. I know I would get the ban hammer for spurting off that phrase as an answer to other people's threads pertaining to their lives. 

I'm not upset about the subject at hand, I have just been trying to write my posts on the thread topic.  And I've never been told that my opinion and arguments aren't valid and are interesting/baseless assumptions so many times in my life, even though I have provided reasons and articles and a back story to why I think this. 

My inner (r-word) is having a field day with this one.
-Love is Evol: Christopher Titus-

ydpubs

  • Has a fine singing voice.
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3371
  • Reading the threads here makes me hungry.
Re: Roger Ebert Tweets Chastisement After Drunk Driving Death
« Reply #286 on: June 24, 2011, 04:01:41 PM »
I see the "interesting assumption" being used in cases where really, you have no idea what could be going on with the person. You don't know them or what is going on in their lives. Like a person has gained weight or has a fair amount of weight in their belly and someone says: When are you due?

I had this discussion of speculation vs. assumption in another thread.

Assuming any celebrity dying in a car crash was due to drugs or alcohol is just that, assuming, jumping to a conclusion. You don't know anything at all about the situation because maybe the celebrity in question has no history of using drugs or alcohol.

In the case of a person with a proven history of reckless behavior and actions and drug/booze abuse; it's not out of line or outrageous to think drugs or booze was involved.
No matter where you go, there you are...

Twik

  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 28458
Re: Roger Ebert Tweets Chastisement After Drunk Driving Death
« Reply #287 on: June 24, 2011, 05:42:39 PM »
Well, my opinion is that a tweet by a celebrity is a mass-market communication, not a personal message. A personal message to that effect directly to the mourners would have been rude, because it would have been clearly aimed *at them personally*. A public message, containing an important safety warning? No, not rude, unless it specifically attacked Mr. Dunn. The tweet did not.
My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

Brentwood

  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 26486
Re: Roger Ebert Tweets Chastisement After Drunk Driving Death
« Reply #288 on: June 24, 2011, 05:51:47 PM »
I'm also still wondering how it "wasn't Ebert's place to comment."

Is it ours, then? Anyone's? Newsworthy events are open to comment, whether any individual likes any given comment or not.

ydpubs

  • Has a fine singing voice.
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3371
  • Reading the threads here makes me hungry.
Re: Roger Ebert Tweets Chastisement After Drunk Driving Death
« Reply #289 on: June 24, 2011, 05:59:35 PM »
I'm also still wondering how it "wasn't Ebert's place to comment."

Is it ours, then? Anyone's? Newsworthy events are open to comment, whether any individual likes any given comment or not.

I don't get that either.

Who has the "right" to comment then? Who decides when the time is "right?"
No matter where you go, there you are...

nolechica

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6171
Re: Roger Ebert Tweets Chastisement After Drunk Driving Death
« Reply #290 on: June 25, 2011, 11:43:29 PM »
I'm also still wondering how it "wasn't Ebert's place to comment."

Is it ours, then? Anyone's? Newsworthy events are open to comment, whether any individual likes any given comment or not.

Seriously and Twitter etiquette is different than regular due to the restrictions. You can use twitlonger, but most people won't read unless it's worth the time.