Should Mark Whalberg's Films be Boycotted?

BFD....notice he had to stamp his feet and say he's leaving rather than just leave.

LOL

It happened over two decades ago and since then it's been pretty clear he's grown up alot and moved on from that dark time in his life. He made a lot of mistakes and learned from them which ultimately turned him into the respectable guy you see today. By your logic we should continue to berate Michael Vick for torturing dogs even though he has re-payed his debt to society and has learned from his mistakes. You could also apply that logic to a lot of other people that have done questionable things and made questionable comments, should we fault all of them for eternity as well? Of course not. I see you left, unfortunate, you're one of the few people that's keeping this place alive.

Except that in your analogy, no one currently at the company has ever done anything wrong (you specifically say that the people responsible had been forced out). That isn't like boycotting Mark Whalberg, that's like boycotting the company or companies that used to hire Mark Whalberg. In order for your analogy to work, the executives responsible for those policies would have to still be there making executive decisions.

And for your second point, Roman Polanski raped a girl and people were still willing to work with him. And that was with him still being a fugitive and never having served out his sentence.

LOL tc spits at people on the bus because of the way they look at him "cos he is black".

Not really but I don't have enough level of care so yeah.

Why are minorities so aggressive to people looking at them? It's a little ridiculous. To assume race has anything to do with it also implicates that the person being stared at is the one being prejudice. BRHD has consistently demonstrated his prejudice and wee bits of racism, so I'm not a little surprised.

Usually minorities give me dirty looks for even looking at them for half a second. I just assume they're having a bad day (and life).

wee bits??? Seriously! All he does is scream "BURN HIM!" when a white man is racist and then when " a brotha" beats someone into a coma it's "well he had it coming".

it is all well and good to talk about this but nothing will ever be solved until we all get together to wall off boston from the rest of society.

@MrGeezer:

"Except that in your analogy, no one currently at the company has ever done anything wrong"

You don't get it I guess I'm not explaining myself properly I'll try one more time.

In my analogy the company IS Mark, bad Mark is in the form of a bad company, the fact that heads have rolled and policies have changed at the company symbolises the violent behavior and bad attitude that Mark got rid of, so all the bad that was in Mark has gone same as all the bad that was in the company has gone, so now we are left with a good company/Mark, so I'm saying it would be wrong to judge Mark/company for a Bad past depending on how bad it was and provided they have now come good.

"And for your second point, Roman Polanski raped a girl and people were still willing to work with him. And that was with him still being a fugitive and never having served out his sentence"

guess it's a sad fact that people are willing to overlook certain peoples bad deeds because of their status, but maybe they thought he was innocent, maybe they were blinded by his status.

The way I see it it's never good to reveal personal details about your life and self on here even your sex and race, people will always use that shit against you which I think is what happened with BRHD but I think it's more the fact that the stuff Blu revealed about himself reflects badly on him.

Except that Mark isn't a company, he's a PERSON. The fact that your analogy requires him to be a company ruins the analogy, because companies and people are different things.

@MrGeezer: "Except that Mark isn't a company, he's a PERSON"

Nah!!! You don't say, really!?

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word analogy, and infact it was you that started using places of business as examples not me :P

I think you need to understand how an analogy WORKS. The company in your analogy is not ANALOGOUS to Mark Whalberg, that's analogous to whoever hires Mark Whalberg (Sony, Fox, whoever it may be). Now, if this thread had been about boycotting the movie studio that hires Whalberg, then your analogy would be appropriate. But the topic isn't about boycotting a company, it's about boycotting a person who is working for a company. That is ANALOGOUS to boycotting the CEO of Microsoft, it is not analogous to boycotting Microsoft. Your analogy cannot work because a company can get rid of an employee but Mark Whalberg cannot get rid of Mark Whalberg.

I wouldn't boycott his films. That stuff was kind of messed up, he should try to make amends to those people if they're still alive and he knows who they are (specifically the guy he blinded).

I think his movie "Last One Standing" or something like that is coming out soon, the commercial only mentions digital HD (I'm guessing that's a form of digital download) and Bluray though, it doesn't say anything about DVD. I'm not planning on buying it, but it is on my Netflix queue. But how would Netflix send it if it's not on DVD, I don't think they send blurays and even if they did I don't have a bluray player (well maybe my 360 could play it, or my computer, but I prefer to watch movies on a tv screen, not on the computer).

@Master_Live: I actually agree with you on that sentiment, its true that most people did stupid crap when they were young. Leaving people blinded is kinda beyond the pale of what should be considered nothing more than stupid teenage crap.

Well then I'll miss you Blu. You didn't make the best threads perhaps, but at least you made a fair amount (unfortunately most don't make many anymore). Also from a fairly limited perspective I'll that it did appear that you took far too much unwarranted crap.

So glad hollywood isn't pimping El Salvador like they do you Afro-Americans and Euro-Americans

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

If he still did those things, than yes, I'd probably avoid his stuff. But I dont tend to hold what someone does at age 15-16 against them. People are stupid when they are young and we are fallible creatures. I dont like this mentality that if you're not perfect, you should be punished and shunned for the rest of your life. The answer to hate and ignorance is not more hate and ignorance. Be the bigger man.

@MrGeezer: like I said you are the one that started using places of business in comparison to the subject of the thread,

@Brain_Duster: People that don't respect themselves don't respect others. I don't understand why people blame their self destruction on others.

You can use places of business as an analogy, so long as the two situations are still analogous to each other. For example, let's compare that to a company in which the CEO did some shitty stuff, was punished in some way, but still remained on the company making executive decisions. That's using business as a comparison, and it works because the person who did the bad stuff a long time ago (and was punished for it) is still there. That is analogous to the situation with Mark Whalberg, in which he did shitty stuff a long time ago, was punished for it, and is currently getting hired for movies. So, sure you can use business as a comparison, so long as you don't fundamentally change the essence of the situation by making the comparison. The essence of this topic is "should a guy who did crappy stuff a long time ago, got punished, and still continues to get work be boycotted?" Therefore, any good analogies must involve someone doing crappy stuff a long time ago, must involve that person having been punished for it, and must involve that person still getting work despite their undesirable history. You can use business as a comparison, but you can't invoke a situation in which the people who did the shitty things have been sacked. That ruins the analogy, because anyone who did the shitty things is no longer at the company, so why would you boycott the company? That situation is fundamentally different than one in which an actor who did horrible things is still getting hired to help make new movies or products.

The dude attacked people just for being a different race from him and even blinded a man in one eye. If that one post is right about him serving only 45 days in jail for that, then my bullshit meter is pretty much maxed out. Teenager or not, 20 years ago or not, that's some fucking bullshit. A man getting only a month and a half for hate crimes and attempted murder means the "justice" system is pretty fucked up.

I've been away, and I realize that I've missed you. It's not so much a matter of agreement with your many tangents, but an unnamed and unnameable respect at your ability to go from tangent to cotangent so effortlessly.

Don't tell me this is the first indication you've seen of the justice system being "pretty fucked up".

Not at all.

Paula Dean said the n word and lost a whole bunch of money and respect.........and said it years before it came to the public eye.

Mark beat up and blinded a man for no reason and served 45 days in jail out of a two year sentence. I'm sorry but at 15 you have the common sense to know what you're doing is wrong or right. To all these people saying "He was only a teen! Its ok now" would you say the same for the Columbine shooters? How would you feel if they were movie stars and loved by all? Idk how Mark got out early, but if he served his time in jail like he should have and paid that man money the rest of his life I think Mark wouldn't be where he is now. Something to think about.

I think it's a bit extreme to compare Mark's actions to that of the Columbine shooters. Those kids were obviously mentally disturbed to go into a high school and shoot up innocent people with automatic weapons, and then turn the gun on themselves. While Mark's actions clearly aren't positive by any stretch of the imagination, his crime isn't nearly as heinous as the Columbine incident.

I saw BOOGIE NIGHTS the other day , mark was tottally ... i shouldn't say more =P

@jasean79:

While Columbine is the more extreme I would say if Mark had done this today at 15 he would be placed in a jail or a mental hospital. He did it multiple times which I think most would agree that the man needs some help. If I had done that when I was 15 I guarantee Id be in prison for a while and paying retribution checks to the man I blinded. Most people would.

And if Mark was truly sorry he'd be giving the man and his family retribution money in the first place. At least for medical procedures and anything else to help with his condition. But doing this is an admittance of wrong doing which I don't think Mark is ready to do yet if ever.

@Star67: I see what you're saying, but I don't know that I necessarily agree that 20+ years after the incident, Mark should still be paying for his crime. Yes, what he did was wrong, and yes he should be held accountable (which he was at that time, regardless of whether anyone else feels that the punishment didn't match the crime).

We all do dumb things when we're younger. I think it has a lot to do with maturity level. Mark I'm sure, has come a long way since then. And who knows? Maybe he did express sympathy towards the victim and his family; we all know how the media picks apart stories to give us an impression that may not necessarily be 100% trustworthy. But that's something that he should be concerned with, not us. Yes, he is in Hollywood, so his personal life is never that personal. But, I know how I would feel if something I did as a teenager was brought up for all to know about - I'd feel embarrassed and ashamed for my actions. It doesn't need to be broadcast and if I truly hurt someone in the process, I wouldn't broadcast my apology either.

No. His films are pretty good and he did all of those things when he was an immature kid. People grow up, life goes on.

But has he grown up? He doesn't show any remorse for his actions.

How do you know he doesn't show remorse for his actions? Do you know him personally? Or are you basing this solely on whatever so and so news reporters say?

Will miss my ady

Those were my thoughts. When most people think "stupid stuff people do as teenagers" they think drinking and then attempting dangerous stunts or something along those lines. A person who actually blinded a man though? Yeah... That's something else entirely.

Not sure how so. Not like he intentionally set out to blind the person. You could get in a stupid bar brawl, hit a guy once and kill them. Doesn't mean you are irreversibly screwed up and violent. Sure, attacking someone for their race/gender is terrible...but it happens FAR more than many would like to believe; and just because someone may be young and grew up in a specific environment, with specific influences that created the sort of hatred that could lead them to do such things, DOES NOT mean they can't change. As far as I can see, he served the time the law required and is a perfectly decent person now. So why this is even still being discussed is beyond me. Can we just erase every stupid thread Blu created?

It's been almost a month, folks. No need to be bringing up old threads again.