Steve Martin on Carrie Fisher: Can a Man Still Notice a Woman’s Beauty?

originally posted by: Anaana
a reply to: everyone

No, not at all, Skeptic Overlord explained it to me when I first joined, it's called "light-hearted banter". You only think I am a troll because you don't like what I am saying.

No i asked if you where one. The reason i asked is because trolls do not make it very clear that they are joking but say and claim ridiculous things at the same time. It is only when they get cornered that they come out and say "look i was just joking".

It's an over-reaction, sure, but it also makes quite clear that Martin, whether he met her or not, didn't know her very well.

And he probably realised that there is absolutely no need to make a tweet about that, or if he didn't he sure does now.

But you were just joking right.

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: Anaana
a reply to: everyone

No, not at all, Skeptic Overlord explained it to me when I first joined, it's called "light-hearted banter". You only think I am a troll because you don't like what I am saying.

No i asked if you where one. The reason i asked is because trolls do not make it very clear that they are joking but say and claim ridiculous things at the same time. It is only when they get cornered that they come out and say "look i was just joking".

It's an over-reaction, sure, but it also makes quite clear that Martin, whether he met her or not, didn't know her very well.

And he probably realised that there is absolutely no need to make a tweet about that, or if he didn't he sure does now.

But you were just joking right.

I never said I was joking, did I? You seem better versed in what I have and haven't said so I'll let you go check, but not taking a subject seriously does not mean that I renege on my opinion. What is it you found "ridiculous" about what I said? Or is just ridiculous that I find a storm in a tea cup ridiculous?

A few people got upset, Steve Martin deleted the comment and some other people got upset about that. I don't agree with either party, I have another opinion, if that is what you prefer to label as trolling, fine, no skin off my nose what so ever. It's okay. Okay?

originally posted by: Serdgiam
My concern is that these things have been present for generation upon generation, but at the same time, I firmly believe that we are meant to consciously and continuously write our cultural story. We just haven't learned how.

I don't know whether we're "meant" to, that would imply (to me) an over arching plan, and while there may be one, I'm personally unaware of any evidence to support that...if you know what I mean? But, do we need to, yes I think so. I'm also not entirely sure that we don't know how, I think it is more that we have been conditioned not to see how and I think that it is partiularly hard to see because it is an unintended consequence, completely unplanned and unanticipated.

a reply to: Anaana

I like the connotations of "meant to." Much in the same way we were "meant" to talk, or use tools, or create art. Within the variables, its hard to say it was going to turn out any differently than it did and their presence might even suggest it could not have resulted in anything else. In that, perhaps plan isnt even a strong enough word.

I suppose that's relative though. Looking at it before it happens might insinuate a plan, something that is consciously laid out that might not happen. Looking at it after it happens makes it appear it couldn't really happen any other way. In that sense, its about as "planned" as our orbit around the sun. We are meant for that orbit as the variables and constants could not have resulted in anything else.

I'd argue that the evidence for that is twofold. The first being the orbit itself, and the second is that these things are consistent and predictable enough for beings like us to have something like science, technology, or tools.

We might have ideas on how to write that cultural story, but I'm not convinced we "know" how to do it anymore than someone "knows" how to play baseball without ever having picked up a bat, ball, or glove.

Then again, I'm one of those crazies that believes "chaos" doesn't exist outside of the limitations of our biology. Despite being quite capable pattern recognition "machines," I don't think our inability the recognize a pattern points to anything other than our biological limitations. Certainly, plenty disagree with that. I'm also one of those crazies that believes if we find the right equation, we could run an exact, very precise recreation of the events that have brought us to this point. Not just down to the smallest measurements and locations, but even allowing us to accurately predict the presence, location, and nature of every minutia in the universe. And just as crazy, the concept that that doesn't necessarily negate free will, it just takes place in a system that is beyond our individual logic and rationality.

The fact we can perform something like science at all, at least suggest the possibility that some, if not all things, are meant to happen exactly as they occur. No need to involve a consciously directed plan, though it doesn't negate the idea, just a reliable, consistent framework in which events occur.

Maybe Steve Martin was always going to make this statement and always take it down. Its hard to argue it wasn't meant to happen this way when it did. Perhaps we are simply in the dark when it comes to identifying the precipitating parameters of the event, like some civilizations were when it came to the orbit of the planet around the sun.

Either way, I'd say that sufficiently overcomplicates the topic

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Anaana

I like the connotations of "meant to."

Much in the same way we were "meant" to talk, or use tools, or create art. Within the variables, its hard to say it was going to turn out any differently than it did and their presence might even suggest it could not have resulted in anything else. In that, perhaps plan isnt even a strong enough word.

I suppose that's relative though. Looking at it before it happens might insinuate a plan, something that is consciously laid out that might not happen. Looking at it after it happens makes it appear it couldn't really happen any other way. In that sense, its about as "planned" as our orbit around the sun. We are meant for that orbit as the variables and constants could not have resulted in anything else.

I'd argue that the evidence for that is twofold. The first being the orbit itself, and the second is that these things are consistent and predictable enough for beings like us to have something like science, technology, or tools.

We might have ideas on how to write that cultural story, but I'm not convinced we "know" how to do it anymore than someone "knows" how to play baseball without ever having picked up a bat, ball, or glove.

I don't think it is something that one person alone can know how to do.

People have always found something to do with a ball-like object. Kicking, throwing, hitting with a stick. We give objects momentum through our interaction with and refinement of, that is the basis of almost all sports, which in themselves originates as demonstrations of practical hunting and then martial skills. Give a group of kids in a hunter-gathering society, who have never seen baseball played, the kit without instructions and they will work out a game to play that optimises the expression of the skills that they value culturally and it is likely going to be similar to baseball, or cricket or rounders because throwing, catching, running between points of safety, are techniques that they are familiar with.

It's a group effort though. A child on his own with the same equipment is not going to invent a game that everyone will want to play.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
Then again, I'm one of those crazies that believes "chaos" doesn't exist outside of the limitations of our biology. Despite being quite capable pattern recognition "machines," I don't think our inability the recognize a pattern points to anything other than our biological limitations. Certainly, plenty disagree with that. I'm also one of those crazies that believes if we find the right equation, we could run an exact, very precise recreation of the events that have brought us to this point. Not just down to the smallest measurements and locations, but even allowing us to accurately predict the presence, location, and nature of every minutia in the universe. And just as crazy, the concept that that doesn't necessarily negate free will, it just takes place in a system that is beyond our individual logic and rationality.

This is a toughie. The thing with us being "capable pattern recognition machines" is that we are also just as capable of creating patterns. And, of focusing on certain patterns in the belief that they exist in isolation or are in any way unique to the over all scheme of things. I agree with you on the modelling aspect, though I am not sure how knowing in that way would negate "free will"...but then I suppose that depends upon what you're looking for or what at the back of your mind you are expecting/hoping to find.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
The fact we can perform something like science at all, at least suggest the possibility that some, if not all things, are meant to happen exactly as they occur. No need to involve a consciously directed plan, though it doesn't negate the idea, just a reliable, consistent framework in which events occur.

Maybe Steve Martin was always going to make this statement and always take it down. Its hard to argue it wasn't meant to happen this way when it did. Perhaps we are simply in the dark when it comes to identifying the precipitating parameters of the event, like some civilizations were when it came to the orbit of the planet around the sun.

Either way, I'd say that sufficiently overcomplicates the topic

I think that maybe Steve Martin's publicist or agent told him to take it down as he doesn't need to lose what audience he has left these days. I don't think any harm has been done in the long or short term, perhaps a few ruffled feathers. Consciously directed or otherwise, I don't think it was a good plan.

Generally or specifically.

I was reading about Lyndon B Johnson earlier. According to a number of articles, he was fond of exhibiting his man-hood in all manner of presidential situations and the best way to get promoted was to sleep with him. I can't believe that any "higher" power meant that to be. And yet, that has become quite a pattern. One might suggest that the reason Hilary couldn't be president is because she would have been unable to slap her meat on the desk of the oval office and say that is what Vietnam (or Syria to update the story) is about. I think my faith leans more to denying that any that is meant to be.

a reply to: Anaana

I think that a major difference here is the involvement of a higher power in unison with something that is "meant to be." I make no such distinction in my perspective. Unless we look at what we understand through concepts like physics or astronomy as a "higher power."

Beyond that though, we are pretty much in agreement. Solitary exploration needs to meet with team effort. That's the whole driving factor behind the systems I work on. I'm not sure "balancing" them is as important as allowing both the room and tools to thrive in their natural interplay.

My own personal issues with someone like Hillary is her character. I think that if a woman like.. Judge Milian (from The People's Court) would have won this election with ease. Hell, if someone like her ran, I would have gone through the extraordinary effort it would take for me to cast a vote.

I'm not convinced that chauvinism (from either gender) plays much of a role anymore. However, it is easy to think differently due to the innate differences in our perspectives. I find that interaction interesting, but if I were to say something like this statement by "Steve," it wouldn't be based in any sort of negativity or superiority. However, it would be exceedingly easy to assume otherwise due to the diversity in perspective (as we have seen, and I have experienced countless times).

a reply to: Serdgiam

Indeed. Carrie Fisher through a diverse range of talents drew support and admiration from a number of fringe interests. Within any group there are bound to be extremists, and further more, celebrity itself attracts certain types of people with mental health problems who develop emotional attachments to people they've never met. For some of those, her death will have been a major event.

Martin is a smart bloke, he can put two and two together...and walk calmly away.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I'm not convinced that chauvinism (from either gender) plays much of a role anymore. However, it is easy to think differently due to the innate differences in our perspectives. I find that interaction interesting, but if I were to say something like this statement by "Steve," it wouldn't be based in any sort of negativity or superiority. However, it would be exceedingly easy to assume otherwise due to the diversity in perspective (as we have seen, and I have experienced countless times).

I would have to agree with your train of thought here on our diversity in perspective.

I am not sure why Steve Martin chose to remove his tweet because we should all stand up to what we believe to be right, but, alternatively, the people thinking the term 'beautiful creature' is somehow to be construed as an objectification remark should also have the right to free speech and stand up for their beliefs. So, we have two opposing perspectives in what is and what is not considered to be the objectification of a women through this, what I believe to be an intended compliment.

We then have the right to challenge both perspectives.

Why do some women buy into objectification?

broadblogs.com...

But when women are objectified, so much that’s wonderful about them is missed. Whether it’s men looking at women or women looking at themselves in one-dimensional ways. That one-dimensionality is a problem. But our society bombards young women with messages that they should objectify themselves. The images act as role models. After all, the women in them are called “models.” It all gets unconsciously into the heads of both women and men. That’s why I blame society and not the individuals who internalize it.

I believe that Steve Martin tweeted a sincere compliment from his heart and being from his generation, I can understand where he is coming from, so to speak, and he did not miss the mark on what was truly wonderful about Carrie Fisher.