Stupid People Doing Stupid Things Thread - Part 3

[cronosred]

Considering Jackson's pigment condition at that point in his life a white actor had to be cast so I don't see what's so stupid about this. Would you rather they had cast a black actor and cover him in white makeup or do you think they should have just ignored the fact that Jackson suffered from Vitiligo?

I just find the whole thing stupid.

 

[C. Lee]

I think in the case of Michael Jackson no matter who they cast it would bring controversy. His condition made it such you would need to have actors of different races playing him depending on the era of his life you are depicting.

A white actor gets accusations of white washing while a black actor in white face would equally get accusations of white facing.

The safest but still controversial way is to have him CG'd and no actor depict him.

Actually......its ANDY SERKIS TIME!!!!!!!

 

[Teelie]

Andy Serkis can play anything though so he gets a pass. He's been a Hobbit, fishman, chimpanzee, a bear, various alien races, a giant gorilla, and even an actual human being from time to time.

 

[Marvolo]

I just find the whole thing stupid.

Well i have to agree with you there. Even tho I think the casting isnt wrong, overall the project is pretty stupid. It might could be something funny, but due to Michael's disease casting was always going to cause controversy and knee jerk reactions and be the main focus of the film. And with all the fussing about white washing in hollywood its surprising any studio would want to even bother with this film.

Its the sort of thing that shpuld have never made it past the original pitch.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Considering Jackson's pigment condition at that point in his life a white actor had to be cast so I don't see what's so stupid about this. Would you rather they had cast a black actor and cover him in white makeup or do you think they should have just ignored the fact that Jackson suffered from Vitiligo?

Just for reference, this is Jackson in 2001:

I am black and I am that same pigment. The idea that you have to cast a white actor because skin color is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. We come in more than one shade.

 

[Marvolo]

I am black and I am that same pigment. The idea that you have to cast a white actor because skin color is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. We come in more than one shade.

It would be ridiculous if we werent talking about a person that was in the advanced stages of vitiligo. Do you know what vitiligo does? It destroys the pigment cells and pigment. Because its destroying the cells and pigment it can leave the skin of a black person more white than the skin of most healthy white people.

Im fully aware that black people come in a variety of shades, but youre not going to find a black actor that is as white as Jackson was at that point in his life unless they have vitiligo or some other condition. But by all means show me a currently active black actor that is that white. If you know of one and tell me who they are Ill take that into account. Its possible Ive forgotten about a black actor that suffers from advanced vitiligo that could pass for Jackson. Heck, show me a mixed actor that is as white as Jackson was.

If this movie was set earlier in Jackson's life or there were more black actors that suffered from advanced vitligo or pasty-white mixed actos who could have been hired Id be against casting Fiennes, but this film isnt set earlier in his life and as far as I know there arent many, if any, black actors or mixed actors that are as white as he was.

And Im sorry, but unless you are telling me you have vitiligo or some other pigment disease (if you do Im truly sorry to hear that) I seriously doubt you are this white:

Most caucasians arent even that white. Hell, Joseph Fiennes is damn near too dark skinned for the role.

 

[jaymes_e06]

That's my issue though i wouldn't normally care. They are going to have to put extensive makeup on whoever they cast so why take that opportunity away from a black actor when there are already so few opportunities for them in Hollywood anyway?

This makes Jada Pinkett Smith's stance that more legitimate every time a whitewashing like this occurs.

 

[Da-Scribe]

It would be ridiculous if we werent talking about a person that was in the advanced stages of vitiligo. Do you know what vitiligo does? It destroys the pigment cells and pigment. Because its destroying the cells and pigment it can leave the skin of a black person more white than the skin of most healthy white people.

Im fully aware that black people come in a variety of shades, but youre not going to find a black actor that is as white as Jackson was at that point in his life unless they have vitiligo or some other condition. But by all means show me a currently active black actor that is that white. If you know of one and tell me who they are Ill take that into account. Its possible Ive forgotten about a black actor that suffers from advanced vitiligo that could pass for Jackson. Heck, show me a mixed actor that is as white as Jackson was.

If this movie was set earlier in Jackson's life or there were more black actors that suffered from advanced vitligo or pasty-white mixed actos who could have been hired Id be against casting Fiennes, but this film isnt set earlier in his life and as far as I know there arent many, if any, black actors or mixed actors that are as white as he was.

And Im sorry, but unless you are telling me you have vitiligo or some other pigment disease (if you do Im truly sorry to hear that) I seriously doubt you are this white:

Most caucasians arent even that white. Hell, Joseph Fiennes is damn near too dark skinned for the role.

It doesn't matter where he's at in his life. He's still black. There are plenty of pale ass black people. Yes, I'm one of them. Find one of them that acts. Hell find someone that's at least close and just use make up. Defaulting to a white guy is silly as hell, offensive, and does nothing but strips away yet another opportunity for a person of color.

 

[Teelie]

Do you take reptiles? Customer throws alligator through drive-thru

Another stupid "prank" that could lead to death. Because people being killed for your dumbassery is funny.

Of course it makes sense when his mother dismisses it as a joke and how dare they charge her child with assault and illegal possession of an alligator (you know those things with nasty attitudes and even nastier bites?). Now we know why he thinks throwing dangerous animals at people in confined spaces is hilarious.

It's all fun and games until someone tosses an alligator through the drive-thru window.

Let's just say the folks at Wendy's and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission were not amused.

A South Florida man was taken into custody after he was accused of placing an order at the fast-food restaurant in Royal Palm Beach, taking his drink and then pitching in a three-and-a-half foot gator when the server turned around.

"He's a prankster," his mom Linda James told CNN affiliate WPTV. "He does stuff like this because he thinks it's funny."

It's not so funny now.

Joshua James, 23, is charged with aggravated assault and unlawful possession and transportation of an alligator. The incident happened in October, but he wasn't arrested until this week.

"I don't even get that," his mom said. "Just a stupid prank that he did that's now turning into this. Stupid."

Yes, but at least he'll have a tale (or is that tail?) to tell his kids.

CNN

 

[CaptainWagner]

Personally, I think that's a bit questionable. Illegal possession of the alligator is accurate, but not so sure we need to be throwing around "assault with a deadly weapon"...

 

[Teelie]

Have you ever been around a 3.5 foot alligator?

 

[CaptainWagner]

Have you ever been around a 3.5 foot alligator?

Yeah. Never had one thrown at me though. But I personally just think it should be pretty easy for the guy's lawyer to point out that no harm was j tended, no harm was caused, and the potential for harm, while there, is rather far fetched.

 

[Teelie]

No harm has to be intended to cause harm. I might not intend to harm someone when I run them over on the road or off the road. That does not make it okay. And throwing an alligator like that into an inclosed space is not something most people would find funny outside of a dumb comedy.

 

[jaymes_e06]

If the alligator killed the person it would be manslaughter. I see no problem with the changes.

 

[CaptainWagner]

I guess it just doesn't sit right with me that someone should be prosecuted for a stupid act that had no ill intent and didn't cause any harm. Throw the book at him for the Illegal Possesion charge, but I couldn't get behind anything else.

 

[Marvolo]

I guess it just doesn't sit right with me that someone should be prosecuted for a stupid act that had no ill intent and didn't cause any harm. Throw the book at him for the Illegal Possesion charge, but I couldn't get behind anything else.

He threw a predator at a person. Thats ill intent enough. Its no different than throwing a knife at someone. Or throwing any other potentially harmful thing at someone. Its entirely irrelevebt whether the idiot thought it was funny in his irresponsible juvenile mind. Here in the adult world there are consequences for our stupid actions. Throwing harmful **** at people and at employees at the work place has consequences.

The charges are just. Maybe he will learn a lesson and stop trying to hurt random strangers.

 

[Jake Cassidy]

It's just an alligator. If it was a crocodile than it'd be assault. t:

 

[Teelie]

Idaho bill calls for Bible in schools for astronomy, biology, geology

It hasn't passed into law yet so it isn't quite an abuse of power. Just an abuse of intelligence. And to point out the hypocrisy, Oklahoma tried to pass a pointless law making Sharia Law illegal for a similar reason (religious indoctrination) albeit in the courts instead of the schools. Needless to say that was quickly ruled unconstitutional as would this waste of taxpayer money if it passes.

Politicians are often criticized for not living up to their promises. For the Idaho Republican Party, however, doing so may end up leaving schools open to constitutional battles.

Last year, the state Republican party's central committee officially endorsed using the Bible in the state's public schools. Although the Bible has valid educational uses in a number of classes, the resolution included a huge laundry list of possible topics where it could apply, and those included a number of sciences, specifically astronomy, biology, and geology.

At the time, it wasn't at all clear how an ancient religious text would inform modern scientific understanding. But that hasn't stopped the Idaho Senate's Education Committee, which has proposed a bill (pdf) with language that precisely mimics the central committee's document. The only significant additional text in the bill involves repealing existing Idaho education law in order to make room for the Bible.

By specifically mentioning the text of a single major religion, the bill clearly raises the danger of a lawsuit based on violations of the Constitution's establishment clause. All it will take is a teacher feeling encouraged to drag the Bible into a physics class.

Ars Technica

 

[Victarion]

It's just an alligator. If it was a crocodile than it'd be assault. t:

Throw me though a drive-thru and see what happens.

Of course it was Florida.

 

[Teelie]

Dentist said to hit patients will pay $12k for trying to out YouTube critic
"Psycho dentist" video remains up, and the attempt to remove it was costly.

He tried to sue for defmation. The problem is everything was true so he had no chance in hell of winning.

In late 2015, a Georgia dentist who had lost his license sued an anonymous YouTube user for defamation. After an intervention by Public Citizen, the user will remain anonymous, while the dentist will pay $12,000 in attorneys' fees.

The Georgia State Board of Dentistry revoked the license of Gordon Trent Austin after he pled guilty to six counts of Medicare fraud pursuant to a 2009 indictment. The indictment also said that Austin beat several patients, including children. The assault charges were dropped as part of the plea deal. "When patients moaned, or even cried out, during the procedures, loudly enough to be heard by other patients in the waiting room, Austin would tell the patient to stop making noise and, if the patient failed to obey his command, the claim was that Austin would then strike them with a dental instrument to reinforce the command," Public Citizen attorney Paul Levy said in court papers.

An Atlanta-area television station broadcast a two-part investigation about Austin that same year. The TV investigation was uploaded to YouTube by an anonymous user called "gordonaustinsacoward."

In 2015, Austin filed a lawsuit seeking to sue the YouTube user for defamation, sending a subpoena to Google to get the user's identity. "It is not at all clear why Austin suddenly revived his interest in the adverse story," wrote Levy in a blog post explaining his organization's decision to intervene in the case.

Public Citizen filed a motion to quash the subpoena in which Levy argued that Austin had no defamation case and that in any case, the statute of limitations had elapsed. A hearing was scheduled to take place this Tuesday in San Jose, but last week, Austin's lawyer agreed to drop the lawsuit and pay $12,000 in attorneys' fees to Public Citizen. It isn't clear whether the fees will be paid by Austin, his lawyer, or some combination of the two.

The law in California was already clear on the issue of when an anonymous Internet poster can be outed, but the fee payment is significant, said Levy. "We actually can't find any cases in which fees were awarded for baseless subpoenas," Levy told Ars. "We wanted to establish the proposition that fees can be awarded and that the attorneys who sign these out-of-state subpoenas are at some risk."

Austin's attorney didn't respond to a request for comment about the case.

This isn't the first time Levy has tangled in court with a rogue dentist. In 2013, Public Citizen challenged Stacy Makhnevich, who compelled patients to sign a contract in which she claimed copyright to any online reviews they wrote. That case was resolved when a judge awarded Levy $4,766 in fees. Makhnevich and her practice disappeared after the ruling, and even her own lawyers were unable to contact her.

Ars Technica

 

[Teelie]

Melissa Click, Missouri professor filmed asking for 'muscle,' is fired

This is also an amusing one. Of all the professors at the school who would/should know better than to attempt to censor a journalist she is the top of the list. Her job was literally teaching journalism.

What I find more amusing is her request for "muscle" to remove the offending journalist who was doing their job. I wonder if she passed or failed the student for recording her actions?

Melissa Click, the University of Missouri professor who was filmed trying to intimidate journalists during a campus protest, has been fired.

At an executive session Wednesday, the school's Board of Curators voted 4-2 to terminate Click's employment. Click has the right to appeal the decision.

"The board believes that Dr. Click's conduct was not compatible with university policies and did not meet expectations for a university faculty member," board spokeswoman Pam Henrickson said in a statement on Thursday.

Courtney Fitzpatrick, a spokesperson for Click, said, "She is not taking interviews and has no comment at this time."

Last fall, as the Mizzou campus was gripped with protests over charges of racism at the school, Click, an assistant professor of communications, was recorded aggressively confronting a video journalist.

"Hey, who wants to help me get this reporter out of here?" Click could be heard saying on the video. "I need some muscle over here."

The footage quickly went viral, and Click faced an onslaught of criticism. Following the outcry, Click resigned from her courtesy appointment at the Missouri's journalism school. Last month, Click was charged with third-degree assault by the city prosecutor in Columbia, Missouri. The charge is punishable by a fine of up to $300 and up to 15 days in jail.

Mark Schierbecker, the University of Missouri student who captured the incident, originally filed the complaint against Click, but he had suggested an extralegal resolution.

In December, Schierbecker told CNNMoney that he would have been willing to "just drop the whole thing" if Click discussed the kerfuffle with him on a local radio station.

CNN

 

[Teelie]

Upstate N.Y. students who claimed bias attack face criminal charges

This one is up there on the stupidity list. Besides giving fuel to claims of false charges when it comes to harassment and racism, it also shows how brazen some people will be to lie thinking social media (sadly often will) come to your defense on the assumption you told the truth. Only it backfires when there are 35 witnesses and a dozen security cameras plus mobile devices all showing you are the one doing the harassing.

These women are the problem with social media being righteously angry and knee-jerk reacting to mere claims of injustice. Sometimes the ones who are doing the injustice are the ones who pretend to be the victims.

Three State University of New York at Albany students who claimed to be hate crime victims are being accused of fabricating the racially motivated attack, according to campus police.

The charges against the women, which include assault and falsely reporting an incident, come weeks after the upstate New York university held a rally in support of the black students, who said they were attacked by a group of white men and women during a confrontation on a bus January 30.

Days after the alleged assault, university President Robert J. Jones said in a letter to students and faculty that he was "deeply concerned, saddened and angry about this incident."

But the university police department said a three-week investigation found the three women actually assaulted another passenger, were not subjected to racial epithets and falsely reported the alleged crime.

"The evidence shows that, contrary to how the defendants originally portrayed things, these three individuals were not the victims of a crime," university Police Chief Frank Wiley said in the statement. "Rather, we allege that they are the perpetrators."

Police said Ariel Agudio, 20, faces charges of assault in the third degree, falsely reporting an incident in the third degree, attempted assault in the third degree and attempted criminal mischief in the fourth degree; Alexis Briggs, 20, faces a count of assault in the third degree; and Asha Burwell, 20, faces charges of assault in the third degree and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree.

The three women were being given court appearance tickets for arraignment on Monday, police said. It was not clear if they had obtained attorneys.

The evidence gathered against them included interviews with 35 bus passengers, video from a dozen security cameras on the bus and mobile videos taken by passengers.

"No male struck the three women," the police statement said. "The evidence indicates they were actually the aggressors ... and that they continued to assault the victim despite the efforts of several passengers to stop them."

The 19-year-old woman the students allegedly assaulted was not identified.

"What happened on the bus was not a 'hate crime,'" Wiley said. "The only person we heard uttering racial epithets was one of the defendants."

The three women, who were not identified at the time, said a group of 10 to 12 white men assaulted them and used racial slurs, according to the letter from Jones.

After the incident was reported, the hashtag #DefendBlackGirlsUAlbany appeared on social media.

The university has approximately 17,000 students, with African-Americans making up 15% of the student body.

CNN

 

[Teelie]

Ted Cruz’s Michigan Legislative Co-Chair Wants To Ban Homosexuality

Yes, let's ban something that is an innate part of being a person. Let's also ban anyone who doesn't have the right skin color, gender, height or physical attributes while we're at it.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has made no bones about his opposition to marriage equality throughout his presidential campaign, but the newly announced legislative co-chair of his Michigan campaign takes things a step further.

Republican Michigan state Rep. Gary Glenn — one of nine Cruz legislative co-chairs in the Wolverine State — has said he believes being gay should be a crime.

During a 2011 interview, Glenn, who also serves as the president of the American Family Association of Michigan, was asked if he supported criminalizing homosexuality. “The short answer to your question is yes, we believe that states should be free to regulate and prohibit behavior that’s a violation of community standards and a proven threat to public health and safety — including, as most of the United States did throughout its history, homosexual behavior,” he said.

Glenn has a long history of harboring anti-LGBT views. Back in 2012, when Mt. Pleasant, Michigan was considering an ordinance designed to prohibit discrimination in housing, public accommodations, and employment, Glenn wrote an email to every city commissioner urging them to “not to even consider adopting such a discriminatory and volatile proposal which is clearly a solution in search of a non-existent problem, intended only to advance homosexual activists’ drive to have homosexual behavior and cross-dressing defined by law and endorsed by city government as the moral, social, and legal equivalents of immutable characteristics such as race, ethnic background, and sex.”

Last year, Glenn spoke out against a Planet Fitness policy that resulted in a Midland, Michigan woman having her membership cancelled after she spent several days complaining about a transgender woman she saw using the bathroom at her gym.

“Planet Fitness obviously should rethink its anti-woman, anti-reality policy,” Glenn said. “If they don’t, they shouldn’t be surprised in a conservative family-friendly community such as Midland if they lose more female members.”

In a statement announcing Glenn’s status as a legislative co-chair of his campaign, Cruz said he’s “thrilled to announce the addition of such outstanding conservative legislators to our Michigan leadership team.”

“These courageous conservatives are coalescing behind our campaign because the people of Michigan are tired of career politicians in Washington and want someone who has a record of fighting for our values and the Constitution,” he added.

Polling released today shows Cruz in second place in the Republican field in Michigan, 13 points behind frontrunner Donald Trump.

Think Progress

 

[Teelie]

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Once Smeared ‘Queers’ As Undeserving Of Sympathy For AIDS

And more stupid coming out of another politician's mouth. Much like her buddy above, Rebecca Bradley just can't abide people who are not like her.

Of course she now claims these were mistakes made in her college days. I could accept that. I remember my college days where I made plenty of screw ups too. However none were of the vitirol of hers, nor were they so heartless and offensive that I would feel a need to defend myself for saying something so terrible as gay people and people with AIDS (they're the same thing, right?) deserved to die horrible deaths.

Next month, Wisconsin voters will consider who should fill the empty seat on the state Supreme Court. It came to light Monday that one of the candidates to survive last month’s jungle primary, incumbent Justice Rebecca Bradley, once wrote some incredibly toxic comments about the LGBT community and liberals more broadly, as discovered by the group One Wisconsin Now.

Upset by the election of President Bill Clinton, Bradley lashed out in student newspaper columns back in 1992, calling voters “either totally stupid or entirely evil” for supporting him.

She also targeted “queers” and everyone with AIDS, blaming the disease’s victims for their own condition. “Perhaps AIDS Awareness should seek to educate us with their misdirected compassion for the degenerates who basically commit suicide through their behavior,” she wrote. “But the homosexuals and drug addicts who do essentially kill themselves and others through their own behavior deservedly receive none of my sympathy.”

Indeed, she viewed those who had HIV as criminals. “Heterosexual sex is very healthy in a loving marital relationship. Homosexual sex, however, kills,” Bradley wrote. “I will certainly characterize whomever transferred their infected blood a homosexual or drug-addicted degenerate and a murderer.” She objected to Marquette University “attempting to bring legitimacy to an abnormal sexual preference.”

In one column, she also suggested that people were better off getting AIDS than cancer, because research on the disease was supposedly receiving more funding. “How sad that the lives of degenerate drug addicts and queers are valued more than the innocent victims of more prevalent ailments.”

Bradley is already serving on the Supreme Court, having been appointed by Gov. Scott Walker (R) to temporarily fill the vacancy. She issued an apology Monday “to those offended by comments I made as a young college student,” explaining that “those comments are not reflective of my worldview… These comments have nothing to do with who I am as a person or a jurist, and they have nothing to do with the issues facing the voters of this state.”

Previously, she declined to state her current position on marriage equality, but according to her campaign spokeswoman, she would be willing to perform a same-sex marriage if she were asked.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), the only openly LGBT member of the Senate, called out Walker, who had previously appointed Bradley to two other lower court positions, for ignoring her record of hate. “These hateful and divisive writings raise serious questions about Rebecca Bradley’s fitness to serve on the Wisconsin Supreme Court as a fair, impartial and independent justice,” she said in a statement Monday.

Walker responded to the controversy by simply saying, “Justice Bradley appropriately made it clear today that a column written in college does not reflect her views as a Supreme Court justice, a Court of Appeals judge, a circuit court judge or as an attorney.” His office claimed that he was not aware of her columns prior to any of the appointments.

Next month’s election pits Bradley head-to-head against State Appeals Court Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg. In last month’s jungle primary, they split the vote 45-43, with 12 percent of the vote going to a third candidate, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Joe Donald. Donald and Kloppenburg are both liberal, so she has a strong chance to win over his voters.

Kloppenburg told the Wisconsin State Journal that the “comments are as abhorrent and disturbing today as they were in 1992 as people were dying in huge numbers from AIDS.”

Think Progress

 

[Teelie]

Anti-Gay Alabama Justices Surrender To Marriage Equality In The Most Childish Way Possible

We're on a roll here. Why stop at two when we have a third person spouting stupid homophobic and as a bonus, secessionist rhetoric for no reason at all?

The Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed a so-called “Motion for Clarification and Reaffirmation of the Court’s Orders Upholding and Enforcing Alabama’s Marriage Laws” on Friday, effectively reaching the unremarkable conclusion that they cannot halt the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision that marriage equality is the law of the law.

It took them 170 pages to explain this conclusion.

The Alabama justices’ actual order on marriage equality is exactly one sentence long — “IT IS ORDERED that all pending motions and petitions are DISMISSED.” This single sentence, however, is accompanied by well over a hundred pages worth of opinions complaining about the landmark marriage equality decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

If you really care to read these complaints, you can do so here. There, you can read Chief Justice Roy Moore’s conclusion that “the Obergefell majority ‘exceed the commission from which they derive their authority’ and are ‘tyrants.'”

You can find Justice Tom Parker’s statement that “Obergefell conclusively demonstrates that the rule of law is dead.”

You can savor Justice Glenn Murdock’s opinion that “a group of judges can declare all it wants that two people of the same sex can ‘marry,’ but . . . they cannot change ‘the nature and reason of the thing” called marriage.'”

And, you can admire Justice Michael Bolin’s restraint when he somewhat reluctantly decides that he will not “reenact the type [of] defiance the State of Georgia and President Andrew Jackson espoused when Georgia refused to comply with a Supreme Court order” because “we have already had one war with kinsmen fighting kinsmen” and “we do not need another.”

Or you can ignore these men’s opinions, and focus on the bottom line. The forces of discrimination just lost one of their last stands against equality.

Think Progress