Social Media and Behind the Scenes: AKA Everything Else Not "News and Media"

[Mellowyellow]

OMG she looks ridiculously hot in that pic! You could use that tummy as a chopping board it's so flat and toned! 

*vows to take the dogs on an extra walk today*

[tv echo]

MG will be at C2E2 next weekend...

Chicago Comic & Entertainment Expo (C2E2), April 21-23, 2017 (IL)
http://www.c2e2.com

[Belinea]

Is EBR dating the guy from Baby Daddy or have they just been hanging out ever since they did that project together?

Also I wonder, do they buy SA's wine or does he give it to them for free? 

[apinknightmare]

7 minutes ago, Belinea said:

Also I wonder, do they buy SA's wine or does he give it to them for free? 

I'm pretty sure he gives it to them for free.

[bijoux]

20 minutes ago, Belinea said:

Is EBR dating the guy from Baby Daddy or have they just been hanging out ever since they did that project together?

The last time there are records of them being together was last summer and that was with Aisha Tyler and Emmett Hughes just like now. 

[Belinea]

Just saying because I think they'd make a cute couple... 

[wonderwall]

47 minutes ago, Belinea said:

Is EBR dating the guy from Baby Daddy or have they just been hanging out ever since they did that project together?

I don't believe they are. They're apparently just good friends. 

[bijoux]

More information on Felicity's S5 make up.

http://arrowfashionblog.com/2017/04/11/felicity-season-5-make-up/

[tv echo]

Video of IndieWire's Fan Favorites Showrunners panel at WonderCon on April 1st (posted by People Of Con yesterday)...

Panel (left to right): Marc Guggenheim (Arrow, DC’s Legends of Tomorrow), Jessica Goldberg (The Path), Jonah Ray (Mystery Science Theater 3000, Hidden America), Sera Gamble (The Magicians), Raphael Bob-Waksberg (BoJack Horseman), and Aline Brosh McKenna (Crazy Ex-Girlfriend).  Moderator: Michael Schneider.

Showrunners Panel P1 - talked about being a showrunner and getting profanity approved by network standards & practices:

-- On what is a showrunner, MG: "Well, every day is different. Uh, the way I tend to describe it, like, to my parents, who have no knowledge of anything entertainment-related, is - I explain it's like being the CEO of a company, but a CEO where you're - like... Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook, he supposedly is CEO of Facebook but he also codes - that's kind of the way I describe being a showrunner." 

Showrunners Panel P2 - talked about return of MST3000, binge-watching, fan feedback and twitter:

-- On binge-watching, MG: "I'm just glad they're watching."

-- On whether they take fan feedback into account when writing for the show, like killing off a character that fans hate, MG: "No. I mean, I couldn't even if I wanted to because - I mean, I'm sure it's true for you guys too - like, you work so far ahead of broadcast that - you can't turn the tanker around. So if you use a character and they hate the character, you're stuck with that character because by the time you get the feedback, they've already lived with that character for a whole bunch of episodes."

-- On aggressive fans on twitter, MG: "I've been dealing with twitter a whole bunch of ways over the last five years. And, you know, I go through periods where I do what I call 'tweet in the blind' where I'll tweet but I will not look at my mentions, I will not look at stuff. Recently, I did a whole sort of purge of my timeline where I just muted a whole bunch of people and I'm like, 'oh, I enjoy twitter again, this is awesome.' Um, you know, I don't want to, like, block anyone because I don't want to give anyone the satisfaction of knowing I read their tweet, you know, accusing me of, you know, being a terrible person or something... That's why it's genius. Don't block anyone. Mute! Like, I went crazy one day and, like I said, twitter's awesome now. Cause it was like, oh, it's just a handful of people who were really being dense... Todd Helbing told me - he [overruns] Flash - he told me this great story that I actually, like, try to remind myself of because it's very telling. He was working for, uh, another showrunner who shall remain nameless... and the whole week he had been in this twitter war with, you know, one fan, like, just really nasty, nasty. He comes in on Friday and he looks ashen, and Todd said, 'oh my god, what happened?' and he's like, 'I found out the person I've been fighting with all week is a 10-year-old girl.' ... But it's true. It's like, you don't know who's on the other side of that user name."

Showrunners Panel P3 - talked about dealing with fans, killing off characters, and musicals:

-- Another showrunner talked about the problem of addressing fan questions, explaining plot points, and defending a choice on the show, in 140 characters on twitter, and thought that tweeting directly to a fan was not the way to address that.  MG: "No, I'm a fan of that. And you're right. It's bad. And some of the fans are like, you know - My New Year's resolution was, if I do it direct on twitter, I'm always going to take the high road. The fact that I had to make that resolution tells you what things were like pre-2017. But, um, it's hard... Sometimes it's like, 'oh, I've got the wittiest response ever! don't do it, be nice!'"

-- Crazy Ex-Girlfriend showrunner talked about how if they listened to fans and let the character get her act together, the show would be over and that it would be boring if the character had no problems. MG: "Thank you. Thank you... I know there's a seasoned journalist in attendance. Can you guys please put that in your article? Seriously, like, if I get [unintelligible word] on twitter one more 'Can Oliver & Felicity get married, have babies, and go to Bed Bath and Beyond?' - like, that's not a good episode."

-- On how do they kill off a character and not piss off fans, MG: "Well, there's a great argument to be made that I'm the wrong person to be answering that. Um, you know, I mean, it's funny like, when we killed off Katie Cassidy's character, Laurel, uh, last year, and - I will say, the hardest part of killing off a character is, you are basically firing someone from their job. So - forget about the fans for a second - the hardest thing, bar none, is having that conversation. Um, and actually, it's funny, when we had that conversation with Katie, we said, you know, first of all, the show does flashbacks, it's a big universe, there's time travel, there's all kinds of realities - and,

 

Katie's coming back as a series regular in Season 6.

Um, we weren't shining her on when we had that conversation a year ago. It turned - it was true. Um, you know, not every show obviously can do that."

Showrunners Panel P4 - talked about potential writers' strike and answered audience questions (spec pilots):

Showrunners Panel P5 - talked about spec pilots and answered more audience questions (political effects, musical crossovers, working on multiple shows):

-- On art imitating life imitating art, MG: "Yeah, in this episode, Doomworld, uh, we had - reality has changed and suddenly the world is in control of this, you know, these narcissists who are totally evil. And, um, we always knew we were headed there at the beginning of the year, but admittedly, like many other shows, we kinda thought the world would be different by the time we got here. Um, although Keto Shimizu, one of our writers, uh - she wrote a really brilliant line, uh, in the episode where Thawne, the main bad guy who's sorta recreated reality, is on the phone and he's like, 'okay, okay, yes, and golf at your hotel, yes, and give my best to Mel - click - sorry, there's only so many times you can say to the President you'll call him back.' ... Again, like many things, it was a lot funnier [once]."

-- On how he works on multiple shows at the same time and keeps each show separate in his head, MG: "I think that's a muscle thing. Like, when I started my career, I had - I [oversaw] this romantic comedy movie and I was working on a show called Law and Order at the time. And the first half of the day, I was like, I'm going to spend it on Law and Order. And the second half of the day, I'm going to work on this romantic comedy. And I couldn't do it. I couldn't do it. I couldn't go from a murder mystery, uh, have lunch, and then write a romantic comedy. Um, but now I can do that within an hour. You know, it's pure - I think it's practice, it's just training your mind to learn how to make those switches."

Edited April 17, 2017 by tv echo

[statsgirl]

46 minutes ago, tv echo said:

-- On aggressive fans on twitter, MG: "I've been dealing with twitter a whole bunch of ways over the last five years. And, you know, I go through periods where I do what I call 'tweet in the blind' where I'll tweet but I will not look at my mentions, I will not look at stuff. Recently, I did a whole sort of purge of my timeline where I just muted a whole bunch of people and I'm like, 'oh, I enjoy twitter again, this is awesome.' Um, you know, I don't want to, like, block anyone because I don't want to give anyone the satisfaction of knowing I read their tweet, you know, accusing me of, you know, being a terrible person or something... That's why it's genius. Don't block anyone. Mute! Like, I went crazy one day and, like I said, twitter's awesome now. Cause it was like, oh, it's just a handful of people who were really being dense...

So he goes through periods where he expects people to read what he tweets but he will not look at what they tweet back much less what they tweet to him.  And he doesn't want to give anyone the satisfaction of knowing he's read their tweet by blocking them.

The arrogance is breath-taking.

And hey, Guggie, maybe if you had read the tweets calling for Laurel to go dark back in s2 because that's what KC does best, you might have had your Black Siren-type character years ago.  Or not lost all those viewers by the stupid Olicity robotics all this season.

[apinknightmare]

44 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

So he goes through periods where he expects people to read what he tweets but he will not look at what they tweet back much less what they tweet to him.  And he doesn't want to give anyone the satisfaction of knowing he's read their tweet by blocking them.

The arrogance is breath-taking

I don't think that's arrogant. I mean, it depends on what he's tweeting and not looking at the responses to. If it's spoiler news, or just a script page or something, I don't see why he should feel obligated to read or reply to anyone's responses. If he's openly being antagonistic and then peacing out, then sure. But I've seen people respond to an Arrow script page by ranting on about one thing or another, or telling him to get cancer or die, or that he's an awful person. Not reading his @s probably does make the whole Twitter experience more enjoyable for him. And if it were me, I wouldn't give people like that the satisfaction of being blocked either. 

Edited April 17, 2017 by apinknightmare

[Carrie Ann]

I would personally prefer if Marc never directly responded to fans on Twitter or Tumblr, aside from positive responses. Explaining show choices or things that weren't clear on SM is a bad idea, as he admits. I think it's a crutch for him now to clear up mistakes the show made. The only instance I can think of where the show actually "fixed" something onscreen after they got major blowback is

Spoiler

the upcoming 520 flashbacks (which I believe were not planned all along and only added because they realized how confusing, unsatisfying, and frustrating the O/F dynamic was for viewers, and I don't think they only realized that because of uproar on social media).

Otherwise, Marc just makes his pronouncements on Twitter/Tumblr and we all have to accept them as canon explanations even if they're never addressed on the show. It's lazy.

But anyway, I have a lot of things that I'd prefer MG not do, but I wouldn't prescribe for any public figure the "right" way to use Twitter or other social media (there are plenty of wrong things to do, obviously), except whatever makes it not horrible for them. Because it's not mandatory that they use it at all, so whatever they do with it should be to maximize their own experience, and secondarily to maximize benefit to their projects if they care to use it that way, IMO. So no matter what, I don't think they should have to endure abuse or constant negativity, and muting is a great option. (Personally, I would just go ahead and block, but that's because I don't care whether people know. In fact, I'd prefer those people know that I'll never see their tweets again, even if they also take some satisfaction from the initial blocking.)

But also, I don't think he should write the show in the direction of his Twitter mentions. So missing things that some segment of fans urge him to do because he's muted them or because he's not reading mentions for a few months? That's really okay. If those things are more widespread opinions, he'll hear them from other sources. Critics probably, but also from his own bosses and colleagues who feel inclined that way, and those are the people whose opinions would be more likely to influence what ends up on screen anyway.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Carrie Ann

[statsgirl]

I think muting is passive-aggressive.  If you're offended or annoyed by something someone is saying, let them know.  It's also unfair to a genuine fan of the show who may think that she/he is communicating with MG unaware that they have been shut down.

Selective muting also produces biased information. I'm pretty sure Bam Bam has muted anyone who complains that fights scenes are not enough to keep watching the show for, and just listens to those who think he's wonderful.

Engage or don't engage, it's up to the writer. Tweet only p.r. or retweets if that's what he wants. But if he chooses to engage with the viewers, do it honestly.  Twitter is about a dialogue, otherwise just use press interviews.

[apinknightmare]

14 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

I think muting is passive-aggressive.  If you're offended or annoyed by something someone is saying, let them know.  It's also unfair to a genuine fan of the show who may think that she/he is communicating with MG unaware that they have been shut down.

I'm sure the people tweeting at him that he's a terrible person would respond very well to him telling them they annoy him. That would definitely make it stop and not at all encourage them to keep doing it.

It seems to me that those are the people he's muting? You don't owe anyone who's repeatedly being abusive to you. He even said it was just a "handful of people."

Quote

Engage or don't engage, it's up to the writer. Tweet only p.r. or retweets if that's what he wants. But if he chooses to engage with the viewers, do it honestly.  Twitter is about a dialogue, otherwise just use press interviews.

How is he not being honest? If a select few people are harassing him, isn't muting them better than ignoring *everyone* who responds to him by not looking at his @s? 

[statsgirl]

49 minutes ago, apinknightmare said:

I'm sure the people tweeting at him that he's a terrible person would respond very well to him telling them they annoy him. That would definitely make it stop and not at all encourage them to keep doing it.

It seems to me that those are the people he's muting? You don't owe anyone who's repeatedly being abusive to you. He even said it was just a "handful of people."

It may be that he's muting only abusive tweeters.  Or it may be that he's like Greg Yaitanes, muting anyone who says anything negative, even in respectfully.  (Although he's ahead of Yaitanes who shamelessly courted followers and then blocked anyone who didn't adore him.)  We don't know. 

I'm just saying that I think that it's more honest to block someone than to mute them, and more effective at getting the message across.

Edited April 17, 2017 by statsgirl

[lemotomato]

1 hour ago, statsgirl said:

I think muting is passive-aggressive.  If you're offended or annoyed by something someone is saying, let them know.

I disagree. Trolls, and I'm assuming that's who MG was referring to, already know they're being annoying/offensive. They tweet at someone looking for acknowledgement. Blocking them is admitting that their tweets were read. I think it's far better to mute so the trolls don't know if they're being ignored or if what they said just doesn't bother him.

[wonderwall]

My twitter motto is - if anyone accuses me of something, if anyone sends me hate, if anyone is being disrespectful to me, it's an automatic block. Seeing all those kinds of tweets aimed at me takes a toll on me personally so I can't begrudge someone for liberally using the mute button. It's hardly the worst he can do.

Edited April 17, 2017 by wonderwall

[Carrie Ann]

2 hours ago, statsgirl said:

I think muting is passive-aggressive.  If you're offended or annoyed by something someone is saying, let them know.  It's also unfair to a genuine fan of the show who may think that she/he is communicating with MG unaware that they have been shut down.

Selective muting also produces biased information. I'm pretty sure Bam Bam has muted anyone who complains that fights scenes are not enough to keep watching the show for, and just listens to those who think he's wonderful.

Engage or don't engage, it's up to the writer. Tweet only p.r. or retweets if that's what he wants. But if he chooses to engage with the viewers, do it honestly.  Twitter is about a dialogue, otherwise just use press interviews.

This might be your preference for how Marc (or anyone) should use Twitter. But that doesn't mean it's what would be productive or enjoyable, or even simply tolerable, for him. I might agree that Twitter is best used as a dialogue--that's just true of any social media. But I don't agree that there's some sort of implied contract to engage on any level with anyone who tweets at you, even just to read their tweets, even if you have engaged with them before or engaged with others like them. I don't think anyone should be tweeting at him with any sort of expectation that they've now entered into some sort of mutual communication. And if you DO expect some level of discourse, then theoretically you would be civil in that discourse. But some people aren't, so those people are either just venting their own spleens in his mentions or looking for a fight or looking to hurt his feelings or make him feel bad for his behavior or whatever. I don't think he should have to see it from the comic book stans telling him he's a liberal cuck who let Olicity ruin the show, and I don't think he should have to see it from Olicity fans telling him they hate him and want him to be fired. He doesn't need to entertain any of those things if it ruins his experience and makes it unpleasant, unlikely, or even impossible for him to cut through the noise to engage with people/things he'd rather give his time to. (For the record, I'm not here White Knighting for Marc--I can hardly stand him, and he's a grownup who doesn't need my defense. This is just how I feel about anyone on social media. I don't think Emily or Katie should have to read tweets in their mentions from people calling them names and wishing for their death or even just saying they don't like their characters, for example.)

I also don't see muting as passive-aggressive. As you say, the people might have no idea that he's muted them, so how could they have any feelings about it when no action has been taken from their perspective? He simply no longer reads their tweets at him, which they have no reason or right to assume he will do or ever has done anyway. As far as biased information, again, ultimately anything beyond a fringe opinion will bubble up to him one way or another. There's no reason to believe he mutes one type of fan over another, and I doubt he's muting everyone who ever tweets something critical at him given how often he references "Twitter" or "the internet" giving him crap for something. 

In fact, I think there could be a benefit to muting the worst, loudest, most prolific offenders. If what's left in his mentions are people who are tolerable enough that they haven't stood out to be blocked/muted, then when something happens in an episode (for example), and his mentions are suddenly full of people saying "what the?," that might make more impact than when those people are drowned out by the general noise of the people who tweet hate at him 20 times in a row on a regular basis. Again, I don't want him writing the show in the direction of "Twitter," but if he realizes that they kinda skimmed over something and people didn't get it, then maybe he won't make a similar mistake in the future. It's possible! Keep hope alive!

Edited April 17, 2017 by Carrie Ann

[pillow mountains]

I don't blame him for muting. He can come off like a close-minded jerk sometimes on social media, but its nothing compared to the hate he gets served on a regular basis. Everyone has a right to protect there mental state from that kind of toxic environment and use whatever coping mechanisms they need. 

I'll bet though that he mutes both trolls and people making rational arguments disagreeing with him. No one likes to be criticized, especially when you can't clap back. And it would explain why his responses are oddly selective, replying to some people but not others. It does tend to create an echo chamber when you silence the voices that disagree with you, but I understand why he does it. We all tailor our own social media experiences to make them more tolerable, why shouldn't he?

[KenyaJ]

2 hours ago, lemotomato said:

I disagree. Trolls, and I'm assuming that's who MG was referring to, already know they're being annoying/offensive. They tweet at someone looking for acknowledgement. Blocking them is admitting that their tweets were read. I think it's far better to mute so the trolls don't know if they're being ignored or if what they said just doesn't bother him.

I agree completely. I've seen so many people on Twitter post screencaps showing they've been blocked people and use it as a badge of honor (and sometimes it's warranted, LOL). But I would never give someone the satisfaction of thinking they were significant enough for me to block. I'd just prefer to let them scream into the void with no response at all.

I stopped following MG months ago, because reading his tweets was pissing me off constantly. But short of hurling verbal abuse or threatening people, he has the right to experience Twitter however he wants to. 

[statsgirl]

2 hours ago, Carrie Ann said:

I also don't see muting as passive-aggressive. As you say, the people might have no idea that he's muted them

That's why I think it's passive-aggressive, because people don't know he's muted them.  I'm using passive-aggressive in the DSM sense when I say that.

2 hours ago, Carrie Ann said:

In fact, I think there could be a benefit to muting the worst, loudest, most prolific offenders. If what's left in his mentions are people who are tolerable enough that they haven't stood out to be blocked/muted, then when something happens in an episode (for example), and his mentions are suddenly full of people saying "what the?," that might make more impact than when those people are drowned out by the general noise of the people who tweet hate at him 20 times in a row on a regular basis. Again, I don't want him writing the show in the direction of "Twitter," but if he realizes that they kinda skimmed over something and people didn't get it, then maybe he won't make a similar mistake in the future. It's possible! Keep hope alive!

 

You're making the assumption that he blocks only the worst offenders. We don't know that.  He could be blocking perfectly reasonable people who dislike some aspect of the show, like WD calling Felicity "Blondie" when she keeps telling him not to.  I'm pretty sure Bam Bam blocks reasonable tweeters because I've never seen a reply to him that wasn't at least somewhat respectful.

MG is perfectly within his rights to run his social media any way he wants, just as I am to dislike the way he does it.

ETA:  Andrew Marlowe didn't seem to have this problem with Castle fans, but he didn't engage the way MG does either.

Edited April 17, 2017 by statsgirl

[Carrie Ann]

20 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

You're making the assumption that he blocks only the worst offenders. We don't know that.  He could be blocking perfectly reasonable people who dislike some aspect of the show, like WD calling Felicity "Blondie" when she keeps telling him not to.

I'm not saying that I know who Marc mutes, despite his own claims. That paragraph was mostly a joke that actually feels a little true to me--if he does mute the people who make him most upset, then the people who are left might have a better chance of being heard. But I don't care if he mutes every person who ever criticizes him or the show or who he just finds annoying, because I don't particularly care if the reasonable people do get through to him on Twitter.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Carrie Ann

[Cleanqueen]

I think he mentioned to someone that the death threats and attacks after they killed LL really got to him and he did contemplate leaving twitter. Him being able to still remain on twitter but choosing to mute them is good IMO, he still gets to interact with fans and filters twitter for his sanity. And I don't think he blocks everyone who criticizes him, I think the tone with how these ppl tweet him has a lot to do with whether he mutes them or not.

And yes, I don't agree with everything he says but I do appreciate that he has maintained a line of communications with the fans. 

[BkWurm1]

2 hours ago, statsgirl said:

That's why I think it's passive-aggressive, because people don't know he's muted them.  I'm using passive-aggressive in the DSM sense when I say that.

You're making the assumption that he blocks only the worst offenders. We don't know that.  He could be blocking perfectly reasonable people who dislike some aspect of the show, like WD calling Felicity "Blondie" when she keeps telling him not to.  I'm pretty sure Bam Bam blocks reasonable tweeters because I've never seen a reply to him that wasn't at least somewhat respectful.

MG is perfectly within his rights to run his social media any way he wants, just as I am to dislike the way he does it.

ETA:  Andrew Marlowe didn't seem to have this problem with Castle fans, but he didn't engage the way MG does either.

Since Twitter made the option to Mute people, people are going to use it but it is kind of wishy washy.  And from my standpoint as a nosy fan, I want to know who MG deems worthy of silencing and him using the Mute option takes that away from me so if I had a choice, I'd want him to out and out block them so if there are people that are being reasonable and still being silenced, we'd know it. I mean, it's a given that he'd silence the nutjobs.  

[apinknightmare]

16 minutes ago, BkWurm1 said:

Since Twitter made the option to Mute people, people are going to use it but it is kind of wishy washy.  And from my standpoint as a nosy fan, I want to know who MG deems worthy of silencing and him using the Mute option takes that away from me so if I had a choice, I'd want him to out and out block them so if there are people that are being reasonable and still being silenced, we'd know it. I mean, it's a given that he'd silence the nutjobs.  

You'd only know it if they were vocal about it somewhere. And even then they'd have the option of going back and deleting the offending tweets without you even being able to see them, so you wouldn't know if they were being rational or not.

[BkWurm1]

3 minutes ago, apinknightmare said:

You'd only know it if they were vocal about it somewhere. And even then they'd have the option of going back and deleting the offending tweets without you even being able to see them, so you wouldn't know if they were being rational or not.

That's a risk I'd be willing to take, lol.  And this fandom has been pretty good about preserving the good stuff on line.  But no worries.  It's all moot anyway.  

[Primal Slayer]

Because everyone was interested, SA addresses Coachella.

[BkWurm1]

4 minutes ago, Primal Slayer said:

Because everyone was interested, SA addresses Coachella.

Aww!  SA can learn new tricks!  Good Boy!

[Guest]

I feel so uncomfortable when celebs talk about their marriages. Too much overshare. I'm cringing.

(Also, no, you don't have to love the same thing as your spouse.)

Edited April 18, 2017 by Guest

[BkWurm1]

Just now, Angel12d said:

I feel so uncomfortable when celebs talk about their marriages. Too much overshare. Keep it to yourself, Steve.

(Also, no, you don't have to love the same thing as your spouse.)

Love it, no, but take some kind of interest in, yes.  The degree varies from there.  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, BkWurm1 said:

Love it, no, but take some kind of interest in, yes.  The degree varies from there.  

I disagree. But I'm not really gonna debate it, haha.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited April 18, 2017 by Guest

[wonderwall]

He does share way too much. And that post really made him look like an asshole to me. But whatever. Steve will be Steve.  

[apinknightmare]

Just now, wonderwall said:

And that post really made him look like an asshole to me.

Yeah. Maybe don't talk about making fun of your wife for no reason and taking pleasure in the fact that she couldn't go one year because she was pregnant, even if it was a joke (which I hope it was). It didn't land. 

[BkWurm1]

1 minute ago, Angel12d said:

I disagree. But I'm not really gonna debate it, haha.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I guess I just mean that no couple stays together if they never do anything together, lol.  

[Chaser]

LOL I'm such a cynic. E gave their marriage a shoutout (with a 'source' wth). JustJared popped up with an article about them right after the IG pic was posted. Instead of 'awww-ing', I'm like 'divorce?'

[Guest]

Just now, BkWurm1 said:

I guess I just mean that no couple stays together if they never do anything together, lol.  

Well, that's true! But in the context of SA's post, he was saying that you should love everything your spouse does which I think is impossible tbh. And I actually think it's healthy not to do everything together and to like different things. So that's why I disagree.

[apinknightmare]

1 minute ago, Chaser said:

E gave their marriage a shoutout (with a 'source' wth)

LOL, really? That's...weird.

[BkWurm1]

Just now, Angel12d said:

Well, that's true! But in the context of SA's post, he was saying that you should love everything your spouse does which I think is impossible tbh. And I actually think it's healthy not to do everything together and to like different things. So that's why I disagree.

No, you are right, I just took it in a looser context aka what I assumed he meant as opposed to what he really said.  (Though that's a dangerous road to go down.)

[wonderwall]

2 minutes ago, Chaser said:

LOL I'm such a cynic. E gave their marriage a shoutout (with a 'source' wth). JustJared popped up with an article about them right after the IG pic was posted. Instead of 'awww-ing', I'm like 'divorce?'

I saw the just Jared stuff but not the E... 

[Chaser]

I saw a screenshot on twitter in some festival article. Something about SA and his wife being there and a source said they were so in love and couple-y.

I thought it was so random. 

[Mellowyellow]

I didn't think there was anything bad about what he posted. Plus the stuff he says could mean something completely different and be a joke between them that we think sounds mean or bloody weird.

[apinknightmare]

2 minutes ago, Mellowyellow said:

I didn't think there was anything bad about what he posted. Plus the stuff he says could mean something completely different and be a joke between them that we think sounds mean or bloody weird.

It could be. But for someone who doesn't know them, it does sound bad - to me. I think the post would've been nice if he'd left out making fun of her and being jazzed that she couldn't go one year because she was pregnant.

[Mellowyellow]

Just now, apinknightmare said:

It could be. But for someone who doesn't know them, it does sound bad - to me. I think the post would've been nice if he'd left out making fun of her and being jazzed that she couldn't go one year because she was pregnant.

I guess my take is different because I know a lot of married couples who say a lot of strange things and tease each other all the time, but have solid marriages. 

[apinknightmare]

2 minutes ago, Mellowyellow said:

I guess my take is different because I know a lot of married couples who say a lot of strange things and tease each other all the time, but have solid marriages. 

I wasn't evaluating the state of his marriage, just saying that those comments made him sound like an asshole.

Edited April 18, 2017 by apinknightmare

[BkWurm1]

20 minutes ago, apinknightmare said:

It could be. But for someone who doesn't know them, it does sound bad - to me. I think the post would've been nice if he'd left out making fun of her and being jazzed that she couldn't go one year because she was pregnant.

I took it as he didn't understand why anyone would like Cochella and so teased her about liking it and even thought it was funny that he inadvertently was part of why she couldn't go.  I get though that it might sound meaner than I expect it really was.  

[apinknightmare]

3 minutes ago, BkWurm1 said:

I took it as he didn't understand why anyone would like Cochella and so teased her about liking it and even thought it was funny that he inadvertently was part of why she couldn't go.  I get though that it might sound meaner than I expect it really was.  

Yeah, I understand that he likely didn't intend for it to come off badly. 

[BkWurm1]

Just now, apinknightmare said:

Yeah, I understand that he likely didn't intend for it to come off badly. 

I guess for me, knowing that he couldn't have intended it to come off badly meant that I didn't take it that way either.  But I do understand that people will perceive it differently.  

[apinknightmare]

3 minutes ago, BkWurm1 said:

I guess for me, knowing that he couldn't have intended it to come off badly meant that I didn't take it that way either.  But I do understand that people will perceive it differently.  

I'm not perceiving it in any particular way. I never said he WAS an asshole, just that that part kinda makes him sound like one. I think that for the tone that he was trying to hit with the post he should've left that part out, that's all.

[BkWurm1]

Just now, apinknightmare said:

I'm not perceiving it in any particular way. I never said he WAS an asshole, just that that part kinda makes him sound like one. I think that for the tone that he was trying to hit with the post he should've left that part out, that's all.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were perceiving it that way, just that you were concerned others would and it didn't initially even occur to me.  And it's very true that SA should check and recheck anything he posts to weed out the awkward and potentially problematic.  

[wonderwall]

10 minutes ago, BkWurm1 said:

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were perceiving it that way, just that you were concerned others would and it didn't initially even occur to me.  And it's very true that SA should check and recheck anything he posts to weed out the awkward and potentially problematic.  

He should because the way I read it was that he 'knocked her up' and was glad she couldn't do something she loved. How disgusting. I mean he then goes on to say that he felt bad... but still. The fact that he did that in the first place...... that is not a healthy marriage.