Alec Baldwin accidentally kills crew member with prop gun

That a point of complete disagreement between us. I consider your approach of "posts in a vacuum" (or blank slate threads) naive, wrong and extremely exploitable. Because political manipulation is all about deniability. And bad faith in terms of subtext, intent and functional messages precisely requires such a lack of global, systemic analysis. Take the simple example of bad faith around "racist jokes" and "anti-racist jokes", which are often narratively similar (except one is an ironical, caricatural illustration of racialist beliefs, and the other delivers its implicit categories straight). I mean, bad faith defenses like "I was just joking, jeez" or bad faith attacks like "see they make racist jokes too". Reality (intents, effects) is revealed by widening the context beyond a joke's utterance : who speaks, to whom (with what shared or legitimately assumed background beliefs), with the history of having supported which views, etc. The meaning is revealed by such analysis, and obfuscated by anti-intellectual prevention of such analysis.

Outside the simple case of jokes and "jokes", discourses and postures usually make sense in a context. Both a personal context (who speaks with what underlying worldviews) and a social context (which movement views are being echoes there). Disagreements are always explained by seeking upstream the point where opposing opinions branch out, and, depending on that point, further discussions can be deemed worthwhile or sterile. When you realize that the disagreement in anchored in a specific (and specifically defensive, antagonistic) ideological current, you can assume that the discussion is fake : it's a pure propaganda endeavor, an exercise in rationalization and selective filtering. It's time to bail out. And the sooner this is assessed, the better.

And this can be assessed through a person's own history (Corax has a history of far right framing, be it when it comes to the apology of ultra-capitalistic anti-heroes in movies or when it comes to borderline incel-ish terrors of hollywoodian castration) or through outside narratives that get parroted or shoehorned into the discussions. Such as this one, where an accident on the set is framed around specific gun fetishism with the main underlying idea of displacing the maximum of responsibility on the gun handler (the "real one" to whom nothing happens because he follows the rules, versus the "fake one" who doesn't count because he does it unthinkably wrong and nobody would) and severing him as much as possible from outside supervision (the role of the expert who hands him the gun, or the role of the expert who'd dare intrude to legislate, same thing : "lemme alone with my gun, I'm the one who knows, does, assumes the consequences"). A focus, in the context of that accident, that would make no sense without the outside stakes, debates and conflicts about the representation of gun ownership.

Because the matter, here is not Baldwin (beyond the mere target of opportunity). It's the importation and exportation of a general discourse that simply uses the accident as a narrative to control and exploit. The building of the NRA imagery of gun ownership and responsibility. If you don't take this worldview in account, you miss the point, because the point isn't where it's claimed to be. It's not about filming and security. It's about gun laws, and, more precisely, the perspective on individuality that one side of the debate requires.

In addition, there's of course some blame shifting (using a prop to go fire live bullets is just a nice hobby, simply requiring a bit of religious-level security and vigilance from everybody around in order for everyone to survive it), and little details like equaling "mistakes" such as the trust in a technician doing his job and "mistakes" such as deliberately gunning down a suspect. Again, perspectives that only make sense insofar as they are articulated to broader (intense) political views. And because these views are what give them sense, the discussion is moot. The opinions on the accident are predetermined by the political ideology they must serve. Arguing at the event's level is utterly pointless. The "discussion" is a scam.

If you take each statement in isolation (from the "system" of the poster or from the "system" of the cultural environment), you simply miss what is being told and why it is being told. You skip both the message and the falsehood of the "discussion". You waste your time and other people's in sterile exchange, while, well, pages after pages are being painted by specific propaganda's color. And you're played.

That's for this specific case. But it applies a lot, everywhere. Taking statements "in a vacuum" is a sure way to secure a hide-and-seek playground for militants, and to get mislead about intents and mindsets. Both for a moderator and a random forumer.

But again, it's a choice. For both.

__________________
Get working on your custom lists, people !

Not to interrupt, but the various comparisons to gun handling and driving made me think of when I'd have my parents in the car... backing out of the driveway or at an intersection... they'd say, "It's all clear - you can go."

And I'd reply, "Thank you for your assistance, but it isn't necessary. I won't go until I've visually confirmed it's okay to go - not on anyone else's say so who is not behind the wheel."

So, I guess that's similar to the first rule of gun safety - even if someone else tells you it's okay (the gun is empty), it's not "okay" until you confirm it yourself.

Have you read your own post in this thread? It has a considerable amount of "jam" of its own.

And there it is. All roads lead to Rome/Trump. I guess this sub-Reddit https://old.reddit.com/r/2ALiberals/ is secretly a pro-Trump hotbed?

Yoda has shown considerable restraint with repeated character attacks in this thread. If you want mods to smite and banish and reinforce your preferences, then you need an echo chamber and not an open forum for discussion.

And now I find you're writing a novel downthread in which you have cast me as the Devil himself. Specifically, your personal political devil. Newsflash, I didn't vote Trump. I don't support Trump. I never did. I don't support the NRA and have never been a member. I am, by definition, not an incel as I am married with kids. Doesn't matter, though, right? Because I have disagreed with you and raised certain points you have placed me in a very simplified "bin" where the MAGA people go.

You came swaggering into this thread banging on about the NRA and gun nuts and bad faith jabs about "why wasn't there a good guy with a gun." This is as political for you as anyone else. You have the derangement of the "true believer." You feel strongly that you're morally right, so why would you ever entertain or platform the opposing argument?

INSIDER
'Rust' armorer once caused Nicolas Cage to storm off a film set after she repeatedly fired a gun without warning, former colleague says

She has a history of carelessness which should make her criminally responsible.

The Nic Cage,11 year old kid stuff and the OWI motorcycle thing is what I meant by the more I'm learning about her the more I'm shocked she was hired. Her track record of gun safety (safety in general) was abysmal.

I'm not really buying the woman quota thing. They seemed to have quite a few women working on the set so I think it's more about who her dad is. But come on, it's not like her dad is Martin Scorsese or Tom Hanks. It's Thell Reed. Has anyone in the business ever heard "Production is being held up because of Thell Reed's demands." I think Alec Baldwin has more clout in Hollywood than Thell and I'm positive Alec had more say on that set than just about anybody. I also get the impression from Alec that if something is off he's not afraid to speak his mind and maybe get a little confrontational. It'll be interesting to see how that set was actually run, who was really in charge and how hands on/off Alec was. I have to believe that if Alec, the star and producer, heard rounds going off between takes and says she's got to go, he's going to get his way.

What does her being an apprentice under him mean? Not trying to be a dick, but what does it really mean? What are the qualifications for armorer? Are there any or is it just "I shoot guns a lot." Does Thell offer classes that hand out certificates, technical diplomas or associates degrees in being an armorer or did the two of them just sit in the backyard firing off rounds? Did he teach others how to be armorers on set and if so, have there been any problems with them? Obviously whatever he taught her (and I'm assuming he knows what he's doing) didn't sink in or she chose to ignore it and I also agree she seems like a goof. I wouldn't want to be at the same range as her.

I question the hire of Hannah in the first place but understand the "give her another chance to see if she matured" with a very short leash. One **** up and she's gone. Not even a major **** up, just a little one and bye-bye. The minute live rounds were going off on set whoever was in charge of safety on the set (the AD?) had an obligation to the rest of the cast/crew, for their safety, to let the person in charge of the weapons go or convince whoever is in charge to let her go. When your crew starts leaving, you have a problem that needs to be addressed asap, not go and rehearse a scene. It's a no brainer.

Not related to this at all but a little. My dad and two uncles were iron workers. In 1999 they were working on Miller Park when a big "pick" was supposed to happen (lifting a big part of the roof in place). When these picks occurred it was a big deal. The day they scheduled the pick was windy and my dad and a bunch of other iron workers walked off the job saying it wasn't a safe. A couple hours later they attempted the pick, the crane collapsed and three iron workers died. Sometimes the guys on the ground know what they're talking about.

I'm not sure it is, and I feel bad that you wrote such a long post on what I'm fairly sure is a misunderstanding (and maybe my fault). See below:

I'm not saying "in a vacuum" to mean "with no consideration for the person's history." I'm specifically talking about your own personal history with someone. "I know them from another forum and trust me, they're terrible." Expecting me to moderate differently based on someone's grudge from another site, that's what's exploitable. The vacuum is this site, not this thread (this is also my fault, since I mentioned considering what could be gleaned "from this thread" as a thought exercise but it may have sounded like policy).

I have a lot of direct experience with this. We have seen similar influxes from other sites, and each time someone warns me about someone else, tells me they have a history of <whatever>. Sometimes it turns out to be true. Almost as often the person warning me ends up being the troublemaker (and occasionally totally unhinged). Sometimes they become the troublemaker specifically because they go all sandwich-board-on-the-sidewalk with their warnings and are offended when I don't immediately take their word for it.

So if you're telling me it's naïve not to consider what I already know about someone when assessing how they discuss things, that's fair, and we actually agree (and I'll take partial blame for not being more specific). But if you're saying it's naïve for me to give each new person a chance and make up my own mind about them, then yes, we do have a complete disagreement.

If we do have a real and complete disagreement, it's probably with this stuff. Because one of you is telling me someone's a clown troll, and the other's telling me he's the forum equivalent of Hannibal Lecter.

"Control." "Exploit." You make it sound as if people have no agency in this, and are helpless sheep in the face of the sheer ideological cunning of...what? Dragging talking points into a disagreement? Wasting your time? Making arguments people might agree with, which apparently leaves them brainwashed into accepting the next dozen arguments they might make after?

If someone can't entertain an idea in and of itself without immediately going full waterpark down a slippery slope, then it's not a question of if they get controlled or exploited, but of when, and the fight is about wanting to be the one in control.

NBC News
'Rust' armorer has 'no idea' where live rounds came from, attorney says
Phil Helsel and Diana Dasrath
Fri, October 29, 2021, 12:03 AM
The armorer on the movie set where actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer last week has "no idea" where any live ammunition came from, her lawyers said Thursday.

"Rust" armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed "is devastated and completely beside herself over the events that have transpired," a statement from her attorney said.

Halyna Hutchins, director of photography, died in the on-set shooting last week, and director Joel Souza was injured.

The circumstances of the shooting in New Mexico are under investigation, and no charges have been filed.

"Safety is Hannah's number one priority on set. Ultimately this set would never have been compromised if live ammo were not introduced. Hannah has no idea where the live rounds came from," the statement from her attorneys said.

Siri, show me the entire Internet in one sentence.

👏👏 👏

Sometimes I think I’m here just to read your posts.

Yahoo Movies
‘Rust’ armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed breaks her silence, blames producers for ‘unsafe’ set

how sounds it in your dull skull! yoda

Yeah, that press release by Hannah Gutierrez-Reed.

Like...either they always had control over the guns or they didn't.

And if they didn't that begs the question why?

Someone is lying. This is going to take a long time to play out.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

Agreed.
Think of it less as a quota (rigid, structural, objective, quantifiable) and more as a sort of influence ("Icing on the cake") for a prospective candidate. Consider, for example, this rather boiler-plate language in a recent job posting:

Early-career researchers who are members of groups typically underrepresented in the biological sciences are especially encouraged to apply. Groups that are significantly underrepresented in biology in the U.S. include Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics, Latinos, and Native Americans, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Native Pacific Islanders, and persons with disabilities.

This is not the language of "quota" but of icing on the cake. And I have been on enough hiring committees to know that an equally qualified female candidate is sometimes sorted higher than a male candidate in the hopes of righting wrongs. And there is cultural pressure on the industry. They are asked, "Where are your female directors?", "Where are your black super heroes?", "Why are there so few POC nominated for the Academy Awards?", etc. If you fear you might face scrutiny, it's not a bad idea to be willing to be flexible in hiring over and above mere "paper merit."

Also, we are not only scratching our heads about how she was hired, but how she escaped getting fired as well.

And again, it is complicated. Ageism can punish the young in some circumstances (What do you know, green horn?), but also cut slack in others (Give a kid a break). Ditto for gender biases. Pro-female and anti-female bias can be primed depending on context. A person who succeeds, for example, in labeling a woman as a "Karen," can get away with a shocking amount of casual misogyny. We can't really know how biases played out, so I am speculating on scant evidence, but I will say this--given this person's manifest lack qualification, it appears to be the case that there was some sort of bias that was favoring her (although we must also accept that sometimes unqualified people get a job by dumb luck - but if it was dumb luck it is concerning how long she was able to "skate" on it).
I think nepotism is the key variable here. And keep in mind that a job hire is a game of inches. If your dad gets your foot in the door, you get to cut in line in front of a lot of applicants (via your dad's professional network) and you have the "halo" of perceived quality attached to his name. All others things being equal, that's a hell of an inequality for a "nobody" to defeat.
Right, but we're not speculating that he had a tantrum and insisted that his daughter be hired. Rather, his name is a nice coattail to ride. A small advantage in a race is the difference between winning and losing.
OK, I see what you're saying. Sure. If Alec (the producer) was aware of (or was responsible to be aware) of these shenanigans and regulate the set, then this puts scrutiny on to Mr. Baldwin. Even if he ducks an involuntary manslaughter charge, he appears to be vulnerable to civil action. And that he is retweeting articles supporting him as victim could prove to be bad optics in that context.
These are all good questions and we really don't know. However, if I am in the industry and I respect Thell Reed and trust and if someone I meet carries his name and his training, that has a psychological effect on me (warranted or not). It's a source of favorable bias. If martial arts teacher, for example, could convincingly establish that s/he trained under Bruce Lee in the 1970s, that teacher would have a sort of "halo" via the stamp of quality, a seal of approval, an implicit holy ectoplasm, a sloppy translative emotional logic of social bonds. It's a sort of "shine."
But this does establish that the "give a kid a break" heuristic is something recognize and are wiling, to some extent, to embrace.
Sounds reasonable.
Sure. And that is what is so confusing about this case. What went sideways that danger signals were not effective?

Do we know this armorer was licensed? Turns out it takes only 2 months to get an FFL license so it’s not rocket science apparently.

Two professionals, maybe, but the armorer is the final checker.

Trying to “play peacemaker” here would seem to be a waste of energy.

Exactly. And isn’t it also true that a rifle or shotgun should be “broken” (don’t know the correct term) when not being fired?

Sounds like the food wagon cook had more sharps than her.

Jeez, nice to meet you too.

And you’re not one of those “folks”?

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

Good to see you, as ever. What a post.

Maybe we should take a few minutes away from taking swipes at Jinn, lest before we escalate this further, especially since things seem to have calmed down of late, a few posts notwithstanding.
There’s no reason to use old grudges to pile on here, agreed?

Sounds all right, but I rather think the moderators should decide the way a thread goes.

I wasn’t deciding anything, really, but rather suggesting.
I don’t think there’s any issue with anyone trying to cool things down. Wether a mod or not. Agreed?

That's right. Play dumb. I have no idea where those bullets came from. They must have gotten in there all by themselves.