Bye bye Ryan Dunn

[The-Nameless]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2006086/Ryan-Dunn-dead-Bam-Margeras-fury-Roger-Ebert-accuses-Jackass-stuntman-drink-driving--hours-fatal-horror-Porsche-crash.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Insane.

[Pali]

*shrugs* For the most part, I agree with Ebert and don't view his statement as being in terribly poor taste - had it been a message directed specifically to Dunn's family/friends, sure, but this was simply a general tweet. The crash is a tragedy, sure, but I would say that the tragedy lies more on the side of the person who was likely Dunn's victim than on Dunn's side.

[The-Nameless]

it was a blatant statement about dunn..... It was in terribly poor taste. Ebert has 0 right to be saying stuff like that. He tried to make a pun about someone based on their previous acting combined with their actions. It was in horrible taste.

[jibber]

It sucks for all parties' families involved. **** politics..

[Elfrosto]

His buddy got in the car. He was there at the bar, most likely. So he knew what was up.

Ebert was WRONG. Even if that was the circumstance, you still don't say stuff like that. Ryan Dunn was a person, loved and cherished. And I bet he wouldn't have been like "I give that crash two thumbs down!" if the situation was reversed.

[Pali]

Yes, this was a public statement. It was not, however, a directed statement intentionally delivered to any of Dunn's family/friends - it was a tweet of his, a tweet that he could reasonably expect only his followers on Twitter to read (yes, it's possible that members of Dunn's family/friends follow Ebert's twitter feed, but I think it ridiculous to expect people to self-censor to that degree just in case someone personally involved might read their blog or tweet).

I can see how it may be viewed as disrespectful to Dunn, but on the other hand... Ebert's a movie critic. Yes, he refers to Dunn as a jackass - Dunn has made multiple movies that he stars in under that exact same title. The man quite literally made a career out of being a Jackass - referring to him as one seems as potentially tributary as it is potentially insulting to me (this kind of ambiguity is why I dislike mediums like Twitter, or more specifically, the attention paid to them by the media... they're extremely limited forms of communication, and treating a tweet or two as the entirety of a person's thoughts on a subject is a disservice to all involved). edit: My suspicion is that it was probably a bit of both, though more strongly on the insulting side... Ebert's never struck me as the kind of guy who'd really enjoy or respect the Jackass-style movies, but as I can't recall ever reading anything he's written regarding them before, I don't know for certain his opinion of them - perhaps he loved them. I just think it important to keep in mind that a tweet simply doesn't have enough context in it to be certain of exactly what connotation he meant "jackasses" to have.

If the rude part is the admonishment of the friends for letting him drive home... again, not a personal message intentionally delivered to anyone, simply a common sentiment paraphrased for context on a personal Twitter feed. Again, I think we should not be expecting that level of self-censorship from people - it stifles free expression. People should be allowed to be publicly honest about their opinions regarding someone, even negative opinions regarding a dead someone, without being vilified simply for having them... and a tweet or blog post is one of the most harmless ways for them to do that.

EDIT: And I have to say... Dunn drank and drove, killing someone else as well as himself in the process, his friends knew he was drinking and let him drive home which gives them a degree of indirect responsibility for that outcome... and you guys think that Ebert is the jerk out of all involved in this story for pointing that out? Even if I agreed entirely that what he said was rude and uncalled-for, the worst he did was say something - Dunn and his friends are at best partially responsible for the death of another person, at worst completely responsible for it. Entirely different leagues when it comes to not-cool behavior in my opinion. Just because someone died recently doesn't mean we must pretend they were perfect.

[Deykari]

I sort of have to agree with Pali here. Someone paid dearly for making a grave mistake. Sure, it's a tragic situation but the comment rings home a valuable lesson for something that shouldn't be excused just because of the circumstances. Drink driving (if that indeed is the case) places a lot of people at risk, and the only silver lining here is that more people weren't injured.

Dey

[The-Nameless]

I just feel it is insanely disrespectful to saddle up the high horse and talk **** about someone less than 24 hours after they died. Stupid or not.

[Mali]

Don't drink and drive.

[Pali]

I just feel it is insanely disrespectful to saddle up the high horse and talk **** about someone less than 24 hours after they died. Stupid or not.

I've never subscribed to the idea that just because someone has died, we should then not say about them what we would happily have said about them while they were still alive.

And again... all this was was a tweet. A couple dozen words. To call that "saddling up the high horse and talking ****" is, I think, quite an exaggeration.

[inscribed]

Drunk drivers deserve no sympathy. His passenger was dumb to get in the car with him. Reports show he was going 100mph+ (in a 35mph zone) when he hit the tree, after a night out drinking. Good riddance.

[Dale]

If he killed someone under any other circumstances we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Pali]

Drunk drivers deserve no sympathy. His passenger was dumb to get in the car with him. Reports show he was going 100mph+ (in a 35mph zone) when he hit the tree' date=' after a night out drinking. Good riddance.[/quote']

The people who do Jackass enjoy high-risk behavior?! Say it isn't so!! :eek:

[electricsheep]

I think that if he killed someone, we might then be able to call him a deserved title like jackass or ahole.

Wait. He did. He did kill someone.

He was an ahole.

I guess it is taboo to say unless you know the person he killed, however. Honestly, the whole lot of the jackass crew seems like a bunch of self-involved aholes from what they've been up to. Maybe this is what happens when you never grow up past your teen years. Either way, you are in death what you are in life. Pointing at the obvious might be in bad taste sometimes, but someone needs to do it.

EDIT :

And we all have the right to.

EDIT :

Except in China.

EDIT :

None of those words above are mine. I don't know who typed them, comrade.

[Streetfighter]

I hate to say it but he chose to get in the car, and he chose to drive that

fast. Its better they hit the tree than some poor innocent person who happened to be driving down that road at the time.

[Pali]

I must've misread the crash details... I thought he hit another car and killed that driver. His passenger's death is as much the passenger's fault as his own... If you knowingly get into a car with a drunk driver, you are knowingly risking your life, and at least some of the responsibility for what happens to you is yours.

This does not change my view in the slightest that, of all involved, Ebert's behavior remains the least worthy of condemnation by far, if it is at all.

[electricsheep]

"I'm Ryan Dunn, and this is Drunk Driving!"

Still too soon?

[Grimulfr]

I wouldn't condemn Ebert's behaviour because it is factually wrong, or because criticizing drink-driving is bad. Everyone knows that drink-driving is bad, and things like this accident can happen as a result. But is there really any reason to take jabs that are only going to affect those who are still alive - i.e. his family and friends?

Ebert is not some known campaigner against drink-driving. This isn't some causeof his that is close to his heart. He's a smart-alec film critic who picked this moment to perpetrate something that was both an act of dickheadery and not really necessary.

I'm not saying what he wrote was factually wrong, or that he had no right to write it - just that better people probably wouldn't have taken the jab.

He reminds me of one of those really pushy people (all of us know one) who love to make tactless, broad and offensive statements and then say right after "Hey, I just tell it like it is", as though that makes it all ok. No matter how stupid someone was in causing their own demise, you don't walk into their funeral and say "Hey, it was his own stupid fault!", even if you're 100% right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and everyone is entitled to express their opinion. I'm not arguing the "rightness" of his actions, but whether they make him a twat or not, and I believe they do.

I'm not saying drink-driving is excusable, or that people who drink-drive don't deserve to be criticized. But his tweet was clearly not meant as a critique on drink-driving, but as a smart-alec pun that wasn't really appropriate.

And in our Internet Age where seemingly inoccuous things like camera phone photos, camera phone videos, and Twitter threads can "go viral" - he had to know that his little wise-crack was going to get out and upset a whole lot of people who didn't do anything other than befriend Ryan Dunn. You can't blame someone for that.

[f0xx]

He reminds me of one of those really pushy people (all of us know one) who love to make tactless' date=' broad and offensive statements and then say right after "Hey, I just tell it like it is", as though that makes it all ok. No matter how stupid someone was in causing their own demise, you don't walk into their funeral and say "Hey, it was his own stupid fault!", even if you're 100% right.[/quote']

Hey now

[Twinblades713]

When you piss in someone else's cheerios, people get to see how small you are.

[Pali]

Had Ebert gone to the guy's funeral to say this, yes, it'd be a dick move. Had he sent an email to Dunn's family or friends saying this, yes, it'd be a dick move.

But he didn't do either of those things. He used his personal twitter account to make a bit of a joke and a bit of a point regarding the death of a semi-celebrity. He posted a couple dozen words on the internet in a general medium that has millions of such barely meaningful phrases (and billions of entirely meaningless ones) going through it constantly - that is not equivalent to going to a funeral to give people crap.

Had this been a blog post rather than a tweet, would you think it dickish for Ebert to have said it? I'm honestly curious about this: what do you (anyone who thinks this was a dick move by Ebert, not just Grimulfr) consider an acceptable manner for someone to make a negative statement in a public medium about someone else? If whether he died recently or not factors into your decision-making here... why?

EDIT: Also, I think that recommending self-censorship simply because of the mere possibility that what you say may "go viral" is an unreasonable expectation of protection from criticism.

[Grimulfr]

I included the 'going viral' statement at the end of my post to indicate that although Ebert didn't walk into a funeral parlor - in this day and age, tweeting and blogging are bound to reach the people who might have attended the actual funeral.

Subsequent events demonstrated this. I think it's fair to say that Johnny Knoxville and Bam Margera are not subscriber's to Ebert's Twitter account, but they found out. I doubt anyone in this whole forum subscribes to his Twitter account, and now we all know. Famous people who tweet on contentious issues know that their tweets will be read, re-told, reproduced and broadcast far more broadly than just within their list of subscribers.

To me the factor that makes Ebert a tool is not proximity to the event, nor the exact medium over which the negative statement is conveyed (whether it be Twitter or a blog). I personally believe Ebert did it on purpose to cause a stink. As I said earlier, it's not as though he's always fought the cause of anti drink-driving. I think he was trying to be a bastard about it, and trying to make himself sound clever and 'matter of fact' in the process.

That's why I think it was a dickish thing to do, and also why I don't really think it's a self-censorship issue. I'm not saying he can't say whatever he wants. I'm just saying that:

knowing the nature of the internet + poking fun at a dead guy for your own gratification = a dickish move in my book.

[electricsheep]

Really? We are really giving this guy or his friends even a moment of our sympathy? He made a living from making other people look like jerks, himself look like a jerk, or at a bare minimum... making people feel uncomfortable. Half of his "pranks" were played on random people, and those of them done as CKY (his original group known as "Camp Kill Yourself"... rather appropriate in this situation) were very malicious and very destructive.

Why... why would I really care about him or his friends now? His family, maybe. None of the outcry against Ebert are coming from his family, however. They are coming from the epitome of aholes, Bam, and people who didn't even know the guy. Even if Ebert's comment hurt his family, come on! It was the comment of some guy on the internet. It isn't the fault of this guy that he is famous.

The comment I made right before this one was Trollish, and I made it simply to see if anyone would outcry against me. I guess I'm not famous enough to need to self-censor? I guess because Ebert is famous, he isn't allowed to say what he wants to on the internet? Maybe we shouldn't either? What about the people who are happy Dunn is dead, because they hate drunk drivers. They would be offended anyone has the audacity to outcry against Ebert's comment. Should we censor those people, too?

Actually, rather then potentially hurt anyones feelings with anything we communicate, let's burn a few books as well. You know, I am offended by Mark Twain writing n!gger so much in his books. To the crematorium we go.

No matter what we say, or write, or tweet... we have the possibility to hurt someone. Without getting in to Ebert's head, we don't know his intentions. I don't care about his intentions. He could have been trolling. Luckily for us, no one has found a way to truly censor the net yet, and I pray to god the trolls will continue trolling.

[Grimulfr]

I didn't say Ebert's comments should be censored.

I didn't say, at any point, that people weren't free to express their opinions.

I didn't say famous people can't say anything they please.

And I certainly didn't advocate book burning, internet censorship or anything of that matter. So before you jump on the 'slippery-slope of censorship' argument, I suggest you read my post more thoroughly.

All I did was say I thought he was a tool, and pointed out why. I don't have proof of his intentions, and I never said I did. It's just my opinion.

That's all I ever said I was posting. I am not pro-censorship of anything. Saying "I think Ebert is a tool" does not equate to "He should not be allowed to say anything about Ryan Dunn".

[Pali]

Why do you personally believe Ebert did it to cause a stink, rather than he simply tweeted it because it happened to be his thought on the subject? Where is your insight into his motives coming from? One doesn't have to be some crusader against drunk-driving to hear of a drunk-driving death and make a statement like Ebert's.

And yes, you are advocating self-censorship - calling someone a tool because of what they said is saying that you think they should not have said it. Telling someone they shouldn't say something (distinct from telling them they can't) is suggesting they self-censor. I do not agree with you that people should be expected to self-censor to this degree just because they happen to be famous and know that there is some chance that what they say might reach the ears of someone it bothers - because they will then be expected to keep every opinion that might offend someone to themselves at all times, given the prolific nature of the modern media that you alluded to. That is simply an unfair expectation of self-censorship in my book - it is not their fault that everyone jumps on everything they say, it is everyone else's fault for jumping on it.

Do you at least agree that Dunn was much, MUCH more of a tool than Ebert was?