|
Post by angryfan on May 9, 2014 18:14:40 GMT -5
Saw the comment that people in his backyard or at his front door is an extreme case, and this is very true. But so was John Lennon being murdered when he walked out his front door. So was John Hinkley. Now, is Punk on the level of Lennon or Reagan?
Of course not. But if a person does something, and becomes known for doing something, an extreme case is not something to be dismissed because "well it only happened that once or a few times". As someone who has worked security and protection, and works with the mentally ill, I can tell you that celebrity (and that term is used VERY loosely in many cases) worship and, well, obsession is common.
Someone writes an album, but the closest you ever get is a concert where you're kept at a physical distance. Someone hits home runs, but you never get within physical reach of them. Someone plays a role in a movie, same deal.
Wrestlers have a very unique version of fame, and it is both misunderstood and, frankly, filled with many more security risks.
A huge baseball star plays a few games in the minors. He's more accessible, but you still go through security checkpoints to get in the stadium. A musician may play a small venue, but again there are protocols in place.
Think of the small indy venues we've all been in. A high school or YMCA gym, an armory, a rat whole Bingo Hall on one of the worst corners in Philly (Love it, but being there after midnight unarmed was NOT a comforting thing). Take an obsessed fan (and we can all agree that they exist), and have Punk "get the itch" and roll in for a "thank you" indy appearance. People are in his yard, they have no fear of walking up to his front door. Most "real celebrities" would have gated communities, and security perimeters. Outside of a handful of super huge names, how many wrestlers have that kind of set up?
I miss the man performing, hey may come back and he may not, but in no way could I ever (or would I feel right professionally) saying "sure, people know his name and he's got money, to hell with protocols because no fan is crazy enough to..." and then fill in the blank with some act of violence or even just creepy break-in, stalker-ishness.
|
|
gr1990
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,485
|
Post by gr1990 on May 9, 2014 18:38:02 GMT -5
People on this thread are acting like Punk himself wrote some sort of diatribe about how he hates being famous and his fans bothering him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the OP is just one of his friends marvelling at the kind of harassment he has to deal with and being glad it's not her in that position. For all we know, Punk may be completely accepting that it's what comes with being the level of celebrity that he is. Not stopping to take pictures and sign autographs with every fan that you meet and wanting to keep yourself to yourself where possible is hardly unusual behaviour for a celebrity. He has no obligation to do those things. It's the same twisted culture of entitlement that has people hating on him for not risking his long-term health entertaining them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 19:00:37 GMT -5
I'm a total anti-social introvert who wants to be the face of a global entertainment company. what's the worst thing that could happen? I'm a musician and I'd love to play to a sold out arena and connect with all those people, make them feel like I've felt at shows like that. On the other hand, I'm introverted and somewhat of a loner, so I could see how it would be hell to be recognized and hassled everywhere I go. I play small club gigs, and when people from local magazines come up and try to take a bunch of pictures while we're playing, I want to kick the camera out of their hands. One time this guy ran up to the stage when we were done and was like WOW YOU GUYS WERE REALLY GOOD I LOVE THE WAY YOU PLAY, and I just gave him this weird look and muttered something and walked away. Sure, it's flattering, and I feel like a dick for doing that in retrospect, but it was my natural reaction. I'm a really nice person overall too, it's weird. John Fruiscante is one of my favorite musicians ever, and he quit the Red Hot Chili Peppers in the middle of the Blood Sugar Sex Magik tour. People are copmlex, it's not so cut and dry as "you wanna be famous but you don't like people that makes no sense". It's not always about fame, sometimes it's that your goals and passions coincide with being famous. When Punk was watching Roddy Piper and Randy Savage as a kid, I doubt he was like "man those guys probably get recognized everywhere and they're so famous, that'd be so ccol!" When I watched Pearl Jam in a dirty hockey arena in Toledo when I was 16, I wasn't thinking about fame, I just thought I wanted to be like them because they were awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 9, 2014 19:10:17 GMT -5
People on this thread are acting like Punk himself wrote some sort of diatribe about how he hates being famous and his fans bothering him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the OP is just one of his friends marvelling at the kind of harassment he has to deal with and being glad it's not her in that position. For all we know, Punk may be completely accepting that it's what comes with being the level of celebrity that he is. Not stopping to take pictures and sign autographs with every fan that you meet and wanting to keep yourself to yourself where possible is hardly unusual behaviour for a celebrity. He has no obligation to do those things. It's the same twisted culture of entitlement that has people hating on him for not risking his long-term health entertaining them. You know, that is a good point. For all that's occurred, he's been quiet, so it probably is hasty to put her words on him. If you read the article, it does sound like he complains some about it, but a lot of us, myself included, are just making the assumption based on his past history and a sentence in a column this that it is something he would do, when he hasn't said anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on May 9, 2014 19:27:50 GMT -5
People on this thread are acting like Punk himself wrote some sort of diatribe about how he hates being famous and his fans bothering him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the OP is just one of his friends marvelling at the kind of harassment he has to deal with and being glad it's not her in that position. For all we know, Punk may be completely accepting that it's what comes with being the level of celebrity that he is. Not stopping to take pictures and sign autographs with every fan that you meet and wanting to keep yourself to yourself where possible is hardly unusual behaviour for a celebrity. He has no obligation to do those things. It's the same twisted culture of entitlement that has people hating on him for not risking his long-term health entertaining them. Agreed, if he doesn't complain about it publicly, it's an entirely different thing. I mean, look at the ridiculous stuff we complain about in our lives or on the internet. Those of us in the U.S., Europe, other developed places in the world are pretty blessed, but we still whine about a waiter messing up an order, the internet being slow, or about the booking of televised wrestling events. It's pretty ridiculous really. But we're human.
|
|
gr1990
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,485
|
Post by gr1990 on May 9, 2014 19:54:15 GMT -5
People on this thread are acting like Punk himself wrote some sort of diatribe about how he hates being famous and his fans bothering him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the OP is just one of his friends marvelling at the kind of harassment he has to deal with and being glad it's not her in that position. For all we know, Punk may be completely accepting that it's what comes with being the level of celebrity that he is. Not stopping to take pictures and sign autographs with every fan that you meet and wanting to keep yourself to yourself where possible is hardly unusual behaviour for a celebrity. He has no obligation to do those things. It's the same twisted culture of entitlement that has people hating on him for not risking his long-term health entertaining them. Agreed, if he doesn't complain about it publicly, it's an entirely different thing. I mean, look at the ridiculous stuff we complain about in our lives or on the internet. Those of us in the U.S., Europe, other developed places in the world are pretty blessed, but we still whine about a waiter messing up an order, the internet being slow, or about the booking of televised wrestling events. It's pretty ridiculous really. But we're human. Exactly. I doubt there's a celebrity around who isn't somewhat annoyed by being constantly in the public eye and complains about it to their friends, it's the natural response to something like that. As long as they're not spouting 'woe is me' laments in public they're alright by me.
|
|
Kalmia
King Koopa
Happy to be here
Posts: 11,941
|
Post by Kalmia on May 9, 2014 20:36:54 GMT -5
I think that there is a huge difference between being stopped by a fan when walking down the street and having fans hanging around your house.
If you're famous you have to expect and accept that fans will come up to you when you're doing daily things. As long as the fans are respectful, I don't have much sympathy for celebrities who complain about that.
But I think that a person's house and private space should be off limits. Hanging around in people's gardens or shoving things through mailboxes isn't cool and shouldn't be accepted. I think Punk has every right to complain about that (although let's not forget that he actually isn't complaining about that publicly, his friend is).
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on May 9, 2014 20:57:00 GMT -5
There's this weird, fascinating magical thinking thing going on here, how him being famous has given him lifestyle benefits (He's rich!!!), and that somehow isn't a non-sequitor in response to people making constant demands on him because he's famous. It's this desperate desire to justify the bad by saying that good exists too, and it's creepy and it makes no sense. People are Just-Worlding all over the place, like they really WANT there to be this intrinsic downside to being famous that you have to be stupid to not know about, and they NEED a reason why famous people don't deserve their sympathy. (though it's better than "It's okay because I personally don't like him," so there is that.) And all that is ignoring the main point: This isn't some force of physics that has caused him trouble that directly result from him getting famous. Other people are doing this to him and ignoring his tacit or expressly stated desires to be left alone. I haven't seen this big upswelling of people who are justifying the bad stuff that the fans are doing. No one is saying "Yay, he makes money and is being harassed!" There's no big ground swelling of people who are happy that's he's dealing with miserable fans who are dumb enough to think that it's appropriate to hang out in alleys to see a guy take out the garbage, at least not that I've seen. In fact, people are generally saying these fans are way out of line and are clearly in the wrong and everyone should be entitled to live their lives, just saying that someone who is generally isolated, as his friend implies, should think twice about taking a job where the direct result is that you're going to have a lot of people who want to see you and meet you. It's sort of this thing adults do where they pick a job they are well suited to doing. As far as this Just-Worlding strawman thing you've concocted, if you really think there's no obvious downside to being famous, then I'm not going to shatter this fantastical worldview. For the rest of us, whether we like it or not, we see the clear evidence of the downside. It's not right that obsessed fans and press exist and are willing to go to insane lengths, no one is saying it is, but to deny that this happens is just being intentionally naive. Regardless of what you intend to do, whether it will make you famous or not, it's typically a good idea to think of the pros and cons of your proposed career path before they do and it's generally a good idea to think about the downsides that come with any career before you pursue it. Thinking about the pros and cons isn't creepy or magical, it's smart and sensible. It's what adults have to do in the real world. It's a pity that there are some people so clearly against the notion of actually putting thought into the future. Really though, honestly, this type of response doesn't even address what people really are saying, just taking passive aggressive pot shots that greatly misconstrue the point. No one said he shouldn't have privacy in his own home, no one said he shouldn't be safe, no one said fans should harass him. To try to characterize it as such is being incredibly dishonest. We're talking about two separate things here, the first about the crazy fan harassment, which pretty much everyone seems to agree is over the line and wrong, and the second about what an person should realistically expect when becoming a pro wrestler and how it might not be suited to someone who doesn't want the attention. She addressed at the very start that he was an isolated person, and there are a lot of previous stories of bad interactions with the guy, so it may not be outside the realm of possibility to wonder if his personality wasn't the best suited for the business. It's not missing the point at all to talk about an isolated person deciding to become a wrestler, there's more than one thing you can talk about in a particular article. Wow, uh. You're making a lot of assumptions (one of which seems to clearly be that I was talking about you specifically), but the most interesting one is that distinction you keep coming back to. Yes, obviously, getting stalked is bad. But getting harassed in public is bad, too. If there is someone who makes it perfectly clear through body language that they want to be alone, and yet strangers keep coming up to that person and bothering them... then yes, that person is worthy of your sympathy. If someone has a hard time shopping in the supermarket because of this... yeah. That sucks. Sympathy. The fact that fans ALSO hang out in his alleyway does not strengthen your argument that it's perfectly acceptable for fans to bother him out in public. You're not doing the magical thinking here, but it doesn't make sense to act like Problem B isn't worth sympathy because we can all agree that Problem A is much worse. At best, that's a non sequitor. At worst, it's evidence for what I'M saying, because it's evidence that fans don't respect boundaries and can be crazy, so it SHOULD be worrisome for him to get approached anywhere. The thing I was commenting on was people's very weird tendency to just mention that he's rich, as if that has anything to do with anything. Yes, he's got good stuff going on for him; it does not follow that we therefore shouldn't care about the bad things that happen to him. You keep making another kind of point: That because he chose to be a wrestler, he shouldn't get sympathy about things that happen to him (below an arbitrary standard of acceptability which, it seems, you get to decide) that are in any way related to that choice. But there's two problems with that. First, choices don't happen in a vacuum. It is not reasonable to expect someone to make a decision because they think it has no downside. People make decisions because they think it's worth it compared to whatever other options are there. So it's not fair to say "oh, he should have expected it," because that's presuming he DIDN'T expect it. He could just as easily have known about it and known it was going to suck, but did it anyway because the other alternatives are worse, for whatever reason. The other is that he didn't choose to get bothered by people, because that's not an inherent thing about being a wrestler. If I become a sushi chef when I could just as easily have become something else, and then I say to you "My life sucks because I hate touching fish," then that's at the very least confusing, because you can't be a sushi chef, much less a good one, without touching fish. But getting hounded by fans, on your time off, is not necessary to succeeding as a wrestler; it just happens as a consequence. But you're acting like it's inherent. And then there's the third problem, astutely pointed out by others: It takes the responsibility off of the people who are actually being inappropriate. And dude, was the tone of this really necessary? "fantastical worldview?" Rude.
|
|
|
Post by somsta on May 9, 2014 21:01:38 GMT -5
In a perfect world, this is how people would treat celebrities. Me: Hey aren't you(insert celebrity name here)? Celebrity: Yes. Yes, I am. Me: Cool... Welp, see you later. Or tell them your name is Chris too.
|
|
|
Post by Wrestling Curmudgeon on May 9, 2014 21:09:22 GMT -5
"I want to be the face of a massive entertainment company...but I don't want a lot of hassle." That's not fair. He didn't do it to be famous, he did it to get to the top of an industry he loved and that inspired him. I'm glad he did instead of going "well I don't want to work my ass off and be the best, because I might get famous and that would suck!" We would've missed out on a lot of CM Punk greatness if he took that defeatist route. I don't get how people don't get when celebrities get sick of the fame, of never having a moment to yourself if you're not confined in your own house. Well don't wrestle in the biggest global wrestling company in the world. No matter where you are on the card, you're going to be famous if you join WWE. I give him no sympathy whatsoever, Phil Brooks needs to go move to Walden Pond if he doesn't want to be bothered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 21:12:52 GMT -5
If he did live in Walden Pond, Punk would build a cabin for Colt and Kofi would have a bunk bed somewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 22:26:21 GMT -5
That's not fair. He didn't do it to be famous, he did it to get to the top of an industry he loved and that inspired him. I'm glad he did instead of going "well I don't want to work my ass off and be the best, because I might get famous and that would suck!" We would've missed out on a lot of CM Punk greatness if he took that defeatist route. I don't get how people don't get when celebrities get sick of the fame, of never having a moment to yourself if you're not confined in your own house. Well don't wrestle in the biggest global wrestling company in the world. No matter where you are on the card, you're going to be famous if you join WWE. I give him no sympathy whatsoever, Phil Brooks needs to go move to Walden Pond if he doesn't want to be bothered. OH NO YOU DIDN'T
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on May 9, 2014 22:31:48 GMT -5
We've had insanely uncomfortable threads on this board, often dealing with things like gender issues, yet the level of discourse I'm seeing from some corners in this thread is one of the absolute creepiest things I've ever seen here. The lack of basic human sympathy is astounding me, and some of it borders on sociopathy.
"He wanted to be the face of WWE, he should have to live with </insert negative consequence here>". No. No, he shouldn't have to. Just because you resent somebody's fame, fortune, good looks, or </whatever they have that you don't> doesn't mean they need to abide by your own personal "rules" (good Lord, get over yourself) for how they should conduct themselves in public, how they should shape their lives, nor does it mean they should accept awful behavior because "it comes with the territory".
If CM Punk wants to take his millions, settle down in his favorite neighborhood in Chicago, never sign another autograph, but take advantage of some of the perks his fame gives him (e.g. getting to drop the puck at a Blackhawks game), tough shit, that's entirely his right, and you have no right whatsoever to expect anything more from him. You can feel he's being a dick in certain situations, you can say "I think he should treat his fans better", but you have no right to demand more of him, zero. And, good Lord, we're talking in hypotheticals! The article cited here says nothing about Punk's behavior toward his fans, and it wasn't even written by Punk, and so we have no earthly idea how he interacts with the vast majority of his fans anyway...yet, here we are, losing our minds because he's not conforming to our personal rules for celebrity behavior.
I'm with Numero on this one; all that talk IS "victim-blamey". It's telling the guy who parked on a dark city block while going out with his friends that it's his fault for getting mugged, or telling the girl with the short skirt she deserves blame for people harassing her, because, hey! That's just how people are! YOU have to deal with it! It's YOUR fault!
No, it absolutely isn't their fault, because when you assign blame to the person receiving the negative or abhorrent treatment then you are inherently excusing the terrible behavior that was committed against them. You're shrugging and saying "Welp, muggings and harassment and stalking, those are just facts of life, best just live with 'em" instead of making it clear that they're clearly unacceptable behavior, and no human being should feel forced to change their very way of life because of these negative behaviors. CM Punk should not have to move out of his favorite neighborhood and into a gated community. He should not have to dress differently or hide his face when he goes grocery shopping. He should not feel like the integrity of his own him is compromised because people will show up, or hang out outside of it, or otherwise stalk him.
That doesn't mean these bad things won't happen, even if all of us called the behavior unacceptable; nobody's that naive to believe things would work that way. But we'd get a hell of a lot closer to a better world if we stopped taking out our own inadequacies and insecurities on those we deem as "having it too good" (e.g. they're rich, they're pretty/handsome, whatever) and instead focus on speaking out and acting out against destructive, abhorrent behavior.
I'm sure one might call me a hypocrite on this, but I draw a very clear line: without getting overtly political, I feel zero sympathy for the rich when I hear them complaining that they're not making more money (e.g. talks of tax policy and what have you). However, I definitely feel sympathy when I hear about the darker side of being famous. That doesn't have anything to do with money; that has everything to do with being human, and there being nothing to prepare you for what happens to your life when you're suddenly recognized everywhere you go. Maybe you've got plenty of money to help you deal with the problems; that's great, but you're still human, and money doesn't determine a person's emotional or mental well being when dealing with a new way of life that nothing can ever prepare you for.
So, yeah: stop excusing lunatics, stop saying people should have to put up with ridiculously awful behavior, and get over resentment you have for people who have things you don't and acting like they should have to live by whatever arbitrary "rules" you've created for how everybody should act.
|
|
|
Post by Wrestling Curmudgeon on May 9, 2014 23:02:11 GMT -5
Well don't wrestle in the biggest global wrestling company in the world. No matter where you are on the card, you're going to be famous if you join WWE. I give him no sympathy whatsoever, Phil Brooks needs to go move to Walden Pond if he doesn't want to be bothered. OH NO YOU DIDN'T It is his name, am I right?
|
|
|
Post by Wrestling Curmudgeon on May 9, 2014 23:04:17 GMT -5
We've had insanely uncomfortable threads on this board, often dealing with things like gender issues, yet the level of discourse I'm seeing from some corners in this thread is one of the absolute creepiest things I've ever seen here. The lack of basic human sympathy is astounding me, and some of it borders on sociopathy. "He wanted to be the face of WWE, he should have to live with </insert negative consequence here>". No. No, he shouldn't have to. Just because you resent somebody's fame, fortune, good looks, or </whatever they have that you don't> doesn't mean they need to abide by your own personal "rules" (good Lord, get over yourself) for how they should conduct themselves in public, how they should shape their lives, nor does it mean they should accept awful behavior because "it comes with the territory". If CM Punk wants to take his millions, settle down in his favorite neighborhood in Chicago, never sign another autograph, but take advantage of some of the perks his fame gives him (e.g. getting to drop the puck at a Blackhawks game), tough shit, that's entirely his right, and you have no right whatsoever to expect anything more from him. You can feel he's being a dick in certain situations, you can say "I think he should treat his fans better", but you have no right to demand more of him, zero. And, good Lord, we're talking in hypotheticals! The article cited here says nothing about Punk's behavior toward his fans, and it wasn't even written by Punk, and so we have no earthly idea how he interacts with the vast majority of his fans anyway...yet, here we are, losing our minds because he's not conforming to our personal rules for celebrity behavior. I'm with Numero on this one; all that talk IS "victim-blamey". It's telling the guy who parked on a dark city block while going out with his friends that it's his fault for getting mugged, or telling the girl with the short skirt she deserves blame for people harassing her, because, hey! That's just how people are! YOU have to deal with it! It's YOUR fault! No, it absolutely isn't their fault, because when you assign blame to the person receiving the negative or abhorrent treatment then you are inherently excusing the terrible behavior that was committed against them. You're shrugging and saying "Welp, muggings and harassment and stalking, those are just facts of life, best just live with 'em" instead of making it clear that they're clearly unacceptable behavior, and no human being should feel forced to change their very way of life because of these negative behaviors. CM Punk should not have to move out of his favorite neighborhood and into a gated community. He should not have to dress differently or hide his face when he goes grocery shopping. He should not feel like the integrity of his own him is compromised because people will show up, or hang out outside of it, or otherwise stalk him. That doesn't mean these bad things won't happen, even if all of us called the behavior unacceptable; nobody's that naive to believe things would work that way. But we'd get a hell of a lot closer to a better world if we stopped taking out our own inadequacies and insecurities on those we deem as "having it too good" (e.g. they're rich, they're pretty/handsome, whatever) and instead focus on speaking out and acting out against destructive, abhorrent behavior. I'm sure one might call me a hypocrite on this, but I draw a very clear line: without getting overtly political, I feel zero sympathy for the rich when I hear them complaining that they're not making more money (e.g. talks of tax policy and what have you). However, I definitely feel sympathy when I hear about the darker side of being famous. That doesn't have anything to do with money; that has everything to do with being human, and there being nothing to prepare you for what happens to your life when you're suddenly recognized everywhere you go. Maybe you've got plenty of money to help you deal with the problems; that's great, but you're still human, and money doesn't determine a person's emotional or mental well being when dealing with a new way of life that nothing can ever prepare you for. So, yeah: stop excusing lunatics, stop saying people should have to put up with ridiculously awful behavior, and get over resentment you have for people who have things you don't and acting like they should have to live by whatever arbitrary "rules" you've created for how everybody should act. Phil Brooks knew what he was getting into when he wanted to be a wrestler. If he didn't want to be famous, he should have aspired to become an accountant or a janitor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 23:20:22 GMT -5
We've had insanely uncomfortable threads on this board, often dealing with things like gender issues, yet the level of discourse I'm seeing from some corners in this thread is one of the absolute creepiest things I've ever seen here. The lack of basic human sympathy is astounding me, and some of it borders on sociopathy. "He wanted to be the face of WWE, he should have to live with </insert negative consequence here>". No. No, he shouldn't have to. Just because you resent somebody's fame, fortune, good looks, or </whatever they have that you don't> doesn't mean they need to abide by your own personal "rules" (good Lord, get over yourself) for how they should conduct themselves in public, how they should shape their lives, nor does it mean they should accept awful behavior because "it comes with the territory". If CM Punk wants to take his millions, settle down in his favorite neighborhood in Chicago, never sign another autograph, but take advantage of some of the perks his fame gives him (e.g. getting to drop the puck at a Blackhawks game), tough shit, that's entirely his right, and you have no right whatsoever to expect anything more from him. You can feel he's being a dick in certain situations, you can say "I think he should treat his fans better", but you have no right to demand more of him, zero. And, good Lord, we're talking in hypotheticals! The article cited here says nothing about Punk's behavior toward his fans, and it wasn't even written by Punk, and so we have no earthly idea how he interacts with the vast majority of his fans anyway...yet, here we are, losing our minds because he's not conforming to our personal rules for celebrity behavior. I'm with Numero on this one; all that talk IS "victim-blamey". It's telling the guy who parked on a dark city block while going out with his friends that it's his fault for getting mugged, or telling the girl with the short skirt she deserves blame for people harassing her, because, hey! That's just how people are! YOU have to deal with it! It's YOUR fault! No, it absolutely isn't their fault, because when you assign blame to the person receiving the negative or abhorrent treatment then you are inherently excusing the terrible behavior that was committed against them. You're shrugging and saying "Welp, muggings and harassment and stalking, those are just facts of life, best just live with 'em" instead of making it clear that they're clearly unacceptable behavior, and no human being should feel forced to change their very way of life because of these negative behaviors. CM Punk should not have to move out of his favorite neighborhood and into a gated community. He should not have to dress differently or hide his face when he goes grocery shopping. He should not feel like the integrity of his own him is compromised because people will show up, or hang out outside of it, or otherwise stalk him. That doesn't mean these bad things won't happen, even if all of us called the behavior unacceptable; nobody's that naive to believe things would work that way. But we'd get a hell of a lot closer to a better world if we stopped taking out our own inadequacies and insecurities on those we deem as "having it too good" (e.g. they're rich, they're pretty/handsome, whatever) and instead focus on speaking out and acting out against destructive, abhorrent behavior. I'm sure one might call me a hypocrite on this, but I draw a very clear line: without getting overtly political, I feel zero sympathy for the rich when I hear them complaining that they're not making more money (e.g. talks of tax policy and what have you). However, I definitely feel sympathy when I hear about the darker side of being famous. That doesn't have anything to do with money; that has everything to do with being human, and there being nothing to prepare you for what happens to your life when you're suddenly recognized everywhere you go. Maybe you've got plenty of money to help you deal with the problems; that's great, but you're still human, and money doesn't determine a person's emotional or mental well being when dealing with a new way of life that nothing can ever prepare you for. So, yeah: stop excusing lunatics, stop saying people should have to put up with ridiculously awful behavior, and get over resentment you have for people who have things you don't and acting like they should have to live by whatever arbitrary "rules" you've created for how everybody should act. It is a disheartening thread in some spots. Pretty blown away by some responses. There are some that I disagree with but are at least politely stated and have some reason to them, but some are just basically "f*** him" and don't even try to understand the issue at hand.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on May 9, 2014 23:45:53 GMT -5
That's not fair. He didn't do it to be famous, he did it to get to the top of an industry he loved and that inspired him. I'm glad he did instead of going "well I don't want to work my ass off and be the best, because I might get famous and that would suck!" We would've missed out on a lot of CM Punk greatness if he took that defeatist route. I don't get how people don't get when celebrities get sick of the fame, of never having a moment to yourself if you're not confined in your own house. Well don't wrestle in the biggest global wrestling company in the world. No matter where you are on the card, you're going to be famous if you join WWE. I give him no sympathy whatsoever, Phil Brooks needs to go move to Walden Pond if he doesn't want to be bothered. There's a pretty big difference between just being famous and being stalked, though. Being a celebrity doesn't give anyone free reign to follow you wherever you go, or camp out at your house just to see you. Even if you're the biggest CM Punk fan in the world, doing that stuff is still pretty dickish imo.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on May 10, 2014 0:05:54 GMT -5
At this point I feel like there's some bored people just trolling CM Punk fans on the board.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Sparkybob on May 10, 2014 0:14:18 GMT -5
I actually don't see this large contingency of people here supporting these lunatic stalkers. I think most people are focusing on the first couple of lines of not being able to go to target due to being famous.
I do think it's obvious we are dealing with incomplete information here in that we don't know what happens in these occurrences. If almost every-time he's in a store he gets fans chanting Phil Brooks at him and violating his personal space, then yea that's truly some shitty behavior which shouldn't be allowed since these celebrities are people who deserve respect.
If on the other hand, these incident are like if Punk is waiting on line after buying his favorite tangerines and the guy in front of him tells Punk that he's a big fan and respect his work and that's all and Punk gets perturbed by those interactions, then I won't feel much compassion for old Punky since that does come with the territory of being on TV.
Of course I'm not saying it's a black or white issue here and there will be a lot of gray area that include fan interactions that aren't lunatics, but aren't the nicest people either. My main point is that those stalker stories make me feel bad for Punkster, but without much context given to the 1st line, it makes it really ambiguous how Punk truly feels.
|
|
khali
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,673
|
Post by khali on May 10, 2014 1:44:51 GMT -5
I don't follow the logic of "if you didn't want to be famous, you shouldn't have gotten into this field!" Let's take just some generic person who loves music and wants to perform songs for large groups of people. That is his dream in life. But let's say he's also introverted and shy, has a hard time dealing with people at times, and would be bothered if lots of people approached him in public. Should he really look at that potential problem and go "shit, better not pursue my dream"? No, that would be ridiculous. In life, people should try to be as happy as possible, right? People should try to pursue their dreams and career goals, right? Seeing as achieving that dream would make them happy, they should probably go and try to make it a reality. So maybe being at the top of WWE was Punk's dream. Forget that he's rich. Forgot that he's famous. Just think of him as a person looking to do well in a job he likes. Who are any of us to tell that person, or any person " hey, I know this is something you always wanted to do, but you should have given up on that dream because you didn't see this side effect!" No. Famous or otherwise, people should get into whatever job or work they want if it makes them happy. There's bad parts to every job. If people looked at jobs and didn't take them because of some auxiliary thing they didn't like, no one would ever take a job.
I also think a lot of "tough shit" crowd would feel a lot different if they were being stopped at all times. I know I wouldn't like it.
|
|