"I wonder how Jack feels about thousands of people talking about how his dad's an evil psychopath because of the fact he also likes his stepmom and baby sister."
Since you've given me this platform, I'd like to express my full opinion on this without having to cut it down into a soundbite:
Overall, I honestly feel VERY little animus towards many of the people banging on Pratt about his son, because I think they are, ultimately, coming from a good place. We are taught from a young age that it's the moral responsibility of those who have advantages to stick up for and support those who don't- and this is a very good and moral lesson that would lead to Heaven on Earth if everyone followed it without hypocrisy! We should actively encourage people to stick up for young disabled kids!
The problem lies in WHAT people think they're defending Jack from, and more importantly WHO they're trying to defend him from.
-Chris Pratt's post was clearly about the relationship between himself and his wife. I don't know what the Pratt family's home situation looks like, but any way it falls, the stepchild from a previous marriage will not be as crucial to that relationship as a biological child. Could Pratt have also said "and for being a loving mother to my step-son Jack?" Yes, he could have, but the sheer level of vitriol he's receiving seems extremely excessive for the crime of "being less than perfect as a parent." Find me a perfect parent- hell, a perfect HUMAN, and I'll find you a liar. Most people know this on some level as well- hence this need to weave this narrative where his post is some kind of elaborate dog-whistle attack on his ex-wife and son. The outrage and urge to follow the crowd is felt first- the reason is created later. (Worst offenders are the ones who believe that by acting NOW, they're somehow protecting a future Jack in 5 years from finding the post and "being devastated".)
-So, to defend poor Jack against this offence, they respond by... attacking Jack's dad. Now, I don't know what the relationship between Jack, Chris Pratt, and Anna Faris is, but from my limited outsider's perspective it looks AT WORST like Chris isn't a very big part of Jack's life a lot of the time but tries to be there for him regardless. Hardly the kind of bitter, abusive relationship that would lead to a young boy being fine with the masses calling his father a monster. In the name of defending Jack, their actions will, in all likelihood, end up causing him grief by putting someone he loves through a vicious public drubbing (especially if some obsessive type tries to contact him or Anna Faris about those whole affair). At its best, it's misguided; at its worst, it's this bizarre parasocial behavior where people on Twitter are trying to usurp the role of parental protector for a boy they never met FROM HIS ACTUAL PARENT.
Of course, you have those types who simply irrationally hate Chris Pratt (or Christians, or white men, or gingers, or comedians, or whatever it is about him that makes them bilious) and would therefore respond to an image of Chris Pratt pulling someone out of a burning building by trying to match the face of the victim to the state's sex offender registry. Those people are hopeless, and all we can do is hope some event shocks them out of their preconceived hatred before it seriously warps their personality.
"We are taught from a young age that it's the moral responsibility of those who have advantages to stick up for and support those who don't- and this is a very good and moral lesson that would lead to Heaven on Earth if everyone followed it without hypocrisy! "
Hypocrisy is the number one problem with the woke crowd. They often find a slight that isn't really there and then use it to justify bullying and being outright cruel to somebody.
So, who's more of an asshole- the guy who tried to say something nice about his wife and didn't hire a team of lawyers, psychics, and politicians to proofread his tweet first OR the people twisting his words and calling him names, just because they can.
These are probably the same"journalists" that took Henry Winkler to task for posting a picture of himself holding up a fish he caught.
When you wrote Buzzfeed I thought it said buzzkill before looking closer. Buzzkill would be a good description for their site, Twitter, and most of the internet in general.
I think everyone is correct to think his post was cringe-worthy given the circumstances of his son, but, like almost everything on social media, it was blown out of proportion and made everyone's business where it probably shouldn't be.
My daughter passed away shortly after birth due to a severe heart and lung defect. I know exactly what it feels like to have a child come out looking blue/grey - except in my case we knew that would be the case. I now have a son who was born without complications. My kids have the same mom, but imagine if they didn't, and I made this post to my (imaginary) millions of followers about my second wife and praised her for giving me a "healthy" son? It feels like a gross oversight or an intentional hit piece by Pratt. But still, I didn't write any articles or replies criticizing him, because I don't know him or his life - and that's where social media is a big problem.
Side note - thanks Erik for all your writing and perspective. I recommend your reasoned takes to others anytime I can.
Hey man, I just saw this (sorry, sometimes I can't keep up with the comments due to life stuff) and I want to just say I'm so sorry to hear about your daughter. I can't imagine how hard that would be, though I guess I have some small sense of the fear of it after the ordeal with my daughter. Not to compare the two, obviously.
And yeah, I can see your point. I really can. I think it's just that I find these busy-body scolds so abhorrent. Even if Pratt was being thoughtless, it's not the business of Slate or Buzzfeed to moralize and wag their fingers. Let Pratt and Faris hash that out.
You won't get much argument from me on the over-criticism. Sometimes the correct reaction is "oof, that sounded bad" and then move on. But websites gotta get clicks, am I right? Thanks Erik.
This is delayed but I love your writing Erik so I just came across this article. I agree with you that everyone seemed to take this out of perspective. When talking to others about it they pointed out 2 things that were cringey—that he posted a photo of his wife looking at him adoringly (instead of vice-versa which would’ve been way more endearing) and that he stated it as a thank you to his wife for “giving” him a healthy daughter which some thought was more hurtful towards his ex than his son. I really like Chris and his ex Anna and I’ve read pieces from them and seen photos and I have no doubt he loves his son. But I think thanking God, your wife, anyone for a healthy child should go without punishment. It is the greatest of gifts and I do not think he even thought there was a comparison between his 2 children when he wrote that. In the meantime I will continue to find a way around paying for a Forbes membership in order to read all of your WD universe recaps. Happy Holidays!
So, while the Internet is crazy, I think this is a social media issue as much as anything else. Imagine this: there's this huge party, with lots of folks, and Chris Pratt and Anna Faris are both attending, separately. They don't really interact, but they are both well aware of the other one's presence at the party. Then Pratt climbs up on a table, grabs a megaphone and shouts that stuff out for everyone to hear. Now, everybody would agree that the sentiment itself is pretty innocuous, but saying it like that knowing full well that your ex-wife would hear would probably be generally seen as inconsiderate.
That's the problem with social media - it's one big party where everyone can hear you. Everything that used to be private or limited to small groups is now absolutely, unflinchingly public. And we're still not really ready for that. So, yeah, the crucifixion of Pratt online is stupid as hell. But if I were in his shoes? Probably wouldn't have worded the tweet this way, just on the off-chance of it hurting someone who used to be a part of my life.
Very good point. But I do think it's a little unfair to say that divorced people on social media (who are public figures, anyways) can't make lovey dovey posts anymore, or be grateful publicly for their healthy children. I don't think that would even necessarily be taken the wrong way. For all we know Faris is happy to be out of that marriage also. I don't like my ex, but I'd be okay if she posted about having a healthy child on social media. But yeah, I guess we're all also still learning how to handle this beast.
This tweet from regular DIABOLICAL commenter Essex makes a good point also: https://twitter.com/essex7927/status/1456703929937498112
"I wonder how Jack feels about thousands of people talking about how his dad's an evil psychopath because of the fact he also likes his stepmom and baby sister."
Right???
Since you've given me this platform, I'd like to express my full opinion on this without having to cut it down into a soundbite:
Overall, I honestly feel VERY little animus towards many of the people banging on Pratt about his son, because I think they are, ultimately, coming from a good place. We are taught from a young age that it's the moral responsibility of those who have advantages to stick up for and support those who don't- and this is a very good and moral lesson that would lead to Heaven on Earth if everyone followed it without hypocrisy! We should actively encourage people to stick up for young disabled kids!
The problem lies in WHAT people think they're defending Jack from, and more importantly WHO they're trying to defend him from.
-Chris Pratt's post was clearly about the relationship between himself and his wife. I don't know what the Pratt family's home situation looks like, but any way it falls, the stepchild from a previous marriage will not be as crucial to that relationship as a biological child. Could Pratt have also said "and for being a loving mother to my step-son Jack?" Yes, he could have, but the sheer level of vitriol he's receiving seems extremely excessive for the crime of "being less than perfect as a parent." Find me a perfect parent- hell, a perfect HUMAN, and I'll find you a liar. Most people know this on some level as well- hence this need to weave this narrative where his post is some kind of elaborate dog-whistle attack on his ex-wife and son. The outrage and urge to follow the crowd is felt first- the reason is created later. (Worst offenders are the ones who believe that by acting NOW, they're somehow protecting a future Jack in 5 years from finding the post and "being devastated".)
-So, to defend poor Jack against this offence, they respond by... attacking Jack's dad. Now, I don't know what the relationship between Jack, Chris Pratt, and Anna Faris is, but from my limited outsider's perspective it looks AT WORST like Chris isn't a very big part of Jack's life a lot of the time but tries to be there for him regardless. Hardly the kind of bitter, abusive relationship that would lead to a young boy being fine with the masses calling his father a monster. In the name of defending Jack, their actions will, in all likelihood, end up causing him grief by putting someone he loves through a vicious public drubbing (especially if some obsessive type tries to contact him or Anna Faris about those whole affair). At its best, it's misguided; at its worst, it's this bizarre parasocial behavior where people on Twitter are trying to usurp the role of parental protector for a boy they never met FROM HIS ACTUAL PARENT.
Of course, you have those types who simply irrationally hate Chris Pratt (or Christians, or white men, or gingers, or comedians, or whatever it is about him that makes them bilious) and would therefore respond to an image of Chris Pratt pulling someone out of a burning building by trying to match the face of the victim to the state's sex offender registry. Those people are hopeless, and all we can do is hope some event shocks them out of their preconceived hatred before it seriously warps their personality.
Just an FYI but Jack is not his stepson. He is Pratt's biological child from a different marriage.
Sorry, yes, it should be "her step-son". I knew that, but have a bad habit of not proof-reading my comments.
"We are taught from a young age that it's the moral responsibility of those who have advantages to stick up for and support those who don't- and this is a very good and moral lesson that would lead to Heaven on Earth if everyone followed it without hypocrisy! "
Hypocrisy is the number one problem with the woke crowd. They often find a slight that isn't really there and then use it to justify bullying and being outright cruel to somebody.
Reminds me that I'm still in Twitter jail. I've had an appeal in place for over a week with no response. Thanks for posting the text of the tweet.
I know your last question is rhetorical, but yes, Buzzfeed IS run by sociopathic assholes. That's been clear for many years now.
So, who's more of an asshole- the guy who tried to say something nice about his wife and didn't hire a team of lawyers, psychics, and politicians to proofread his tweet first OR the people twisting his words and calling him names, just because they can.
If the uptick in love for Anna Faris means I can finally stream Smiley Face, I’ll consider it a wash.
These are probably the same"journalists" that took Henry Winkler to task for posting a picture of himself holding up a fish he caught.
When you wrote Buzzfeed I thought it said buzzkill before looking closer. Buzzkill would be a good description for their site, Twitter, and most of the internet in general.
"Is Buzzfeed run by sociopathic assholes? "
think you answered that question already
I don’t do Twitter 🥱
I think everyone is correct to think his post was cringe-worthy given the circumstances of his son, but, like almost everything on social media, it was blown out of proportion and made everyone's business where it probably shouldn't be.
My daughter passed away shortly after birth due to a severe heart and lung defect. I know exactly what it feels like to have a child come out looking blue/grey - except in my case we knew that would be the case. I now have a son who was born without complications. My kids have the same mom, but imagine if they didn't, and I made this post to my (imaginary) millions of followers about my second wife and praised her for giving me a "healthy" son? It feels like a gross oversight or an intentional hit piece by Pratt. But still, I didn't write any articles or replies criticizing him, because I don't know him or his life - and that's where social media is a big problem.
Side note - thanks Erik for all your writing and perspective. I recommend your reasoned takes to others anytime I can.
Hey man, I just saw this (sorry, sometimes I can't keep up with the comments due to life stuff) and I want to just say I'm so sorry to hear about your daughter. I can't imagine how hard that would be, though I guess I have some small sense of the fear of it after the ordeal with my daughter. Not to compare the two, obviously.
And yeah, I can see your point. I really can. I think it's just that I find these busy-body scolds so abhorrent. Even if Pratt was being thoughtless, it's not the business of Slate or Buzzfeed to moralize and wag their fingers. Let Pratt and Faris hash that out.
You won't get much argument from me on the over-criticism. Sometimes the correct reaction is "oof, that sounded bad" and then move on. But websites gotta get clicks, am I right? Thanks Erik.
This is delayed but I love your writing Erik so I just came across this article. I agree with you that everyone seemed to take this out of perspective. When talking to others about it they pointed out 2 things that were cringey—that he posted a photo of his wife looking at him adoringly (instead of vice-versa which would’ve been way more endearing) and that he stated it as a thank you to his wife for “giving” him a healthy daughter which some thought was more hurtful towards his ex than his son. I really like Chris and his ex Anna and I’ve read pieces from them and seen photos and I have no doubt he loves his son. But I think thanking God, your wife, anyone for a healthy child should go without punishment. It is the greatest of gifts and I do not think he even thought there was a comparison between his 2 children when he wrote that. In the meantime I will continue to find a way around paying for a Forbes membership in order to read all of your WD universe recaps. Happy Holidays!
So, while the Internet is crazy, I think this is a social media issue as much as anything else. Imagine this: there's this huge party, with lots of folks, and Chris Pratt and Anna Faris are both attending, separately. They don't really interact, but they are both well aware of the other one's presence at the party. Then Pratt climbs up on a table, grabs a megaphone and shouts that stuff out for everyone to hear. Now, everybody would agree that the sentiment itself is pretty innocuous, but saying it like that knowing full well that your ex-wife would hear would probably be generally seen as inconsiderate.
That's the problem with social media - it's one big party where everyone can hear you. Everything that used to be private or limited to small groups is now absolutely, unflinchingly public. And we're still not really ready for that. So, yeah, the crucifixion of Pratt online is stupid as hell. But if I were in his shoes? Probably wouldn't have worded the tweet this way, just on the off-chance of it hurting someone who used to be a part of my life.
Very good point. But I do think it's a little unfair to say that divorced people on social media (who are public figures, anyways) can't make lovey dovey posts anymore, or be grateful publicly for their healthy children. I don't think that would even necessarily be taken the wrong way. For all we know Faris is happy to be out of that marriage also. I don't like my ex, but I'd be okay if she posted about having a healthy child on social media. But yeah, I guess we're all also still learning how to handle this beast.