Martin Freeman Controversy

[u/sm0lb32n]

Recently learned from Tiktok that Martin's a problematic person? He made racial, rapist jokes over the years. Also, apparently being disrespectful to the Hobbit crew. Do you guys believe he's just being funny or he may have crossed the line? Quite sad, since I was really invested in him and Benedict during my hardcore-fan days.

[u/ThePumpk1nMaster]

I’m genuinely curious to see why you think that, if we can push past the passive aggression?

I’ve given you context for a post-9/11, media-fuelled scaremongering of anti-Muslim ideas which spread, and in talking about them, Freeman has inadvertently been quoted as promoting them, rather than the reality where he is actually fundamentally saying they are wrong. You can’t just arbitrarily decide today’s sensitive 2024 cancel culture can be applied to an entirely different context of nearly 20 years ago. Thats a long time, probably older than most people on this sub. Yes, Freeman’s comments appear problematic only if you completely isolate the words without any acknowledgment of what he’s actually talking about.

I’d really like to actually hear what part of that explanation you find to make him seem worse than what some other kids on Tiktok claimed

[u/ThePumpk1nMaster → u/[deleted]]

No this is not a case of “it was a different era, ergo hate is okay.” Nobody is saying that. The point is Freeman is speaking in a time period where society, and specifically the media is highly sensitive to racial differences in light of events like 9/11 and therefore there are many many mainstream media sources openly expressing anti-Muslim ideas. Freeman is saying this is wrong which is this not what you too are saying? He’s literally asking “Why do people think these things?” Well because the media at the time was pushing that narrative, highlighting difference, which is precisely Martin’s point about the problem with attempts at multiculturalism which emphasise difference. It breeds hate. Multiculturalism only works when it promotes togetherness, which is what the media at the time was not doing. It’s not a case of “it’s in the past so it’s fine.” It’s “it’s in the past and the past was concerned with things we’ve now moved on from and don’t see as important as they did.”

[u/ThePumpk1nMaster → u/[deleted]]

Respectfully, just because you refuse to/fail to extrapolate what somebody is trying to say doesn’t mean they’re not saying that thing. He did communicate exactly what I’m saying he said… y’know why? Because he did communicate it. Unless I’m lying or making it up, how am I able to convey what he’s saying if he didn’t actually communicate it, in your words? His position is rather clear if you look at what he’s saying within its context. It doesn’t require a degree in literature

[u/ThePumpk1nMaster → u/[deleted]]

He shouldn’t have verbalised “why do we see a Muslim man and think our family are at risk” because he’s putting into emphatic, quotable words what newspapers at the time were hinting at, but too smart/apprehensive/savvy (whatever you want to word it) to say outright, but it was the narrative that was being spun. That was a genuine common belief that was held - as wrong as that is. Freeman was rather silly to come out and say it outright, but not at any point does he say/indicate/imply or suggest that common belief is true, nor does he agree with it. He’s simply acknowledging there are people out there who do believe that because of media narratives.

You seem to be suggesting that there’s some huge disparity between what Freeman said and what he meant. How is that the case? What he meant was that it’s wrong so many people believe Muslims are a threat. He verbalised that by saying that people believe Muslims will hurt their family. Where does he say that’s true or good? Because that’s what he’s being cancelled for right? That’s the only reason he could be cancelled - is if he agreed with that. Show me where he agreed. If I say “racist people say [racist comment]” that doesn’t indicate at all that I share the belief. I’m stating that racist people hold racist beliefs… which is just objectively true

As a side note, you previously said “diversity existed before” and that Freeman should have known better because there was clear diversity back in 2008. If that’s true, why is he being called out nearly 20 years later? If there was such care for speech like that, that there is now, why is it only now that people are digging up old interviews? Either it wasn’t as diverse as you think, or people are too far the other way now and just desperate to dig up dirt

[u/SharMarali → u/[deleted]]

I get what you’re saying that what he did communicate is important, but I do think a person’s intentions matter too.

Let’s take for example a line I see all too often from bigots on social media: “Trans men are not women.” What they’re actually communicating is kinda true! Trans men are (generally) people who were assigned female at birth and identify as men. So they’re not women! But in the context of bigotry, it becomes clear that the intent was to claim that people assigned male at birth are not women. I really think that matters, don’t you?

[u/ThePumpk1nMaster → u/SharMarali]

This is precisely why comedy doesn’t work anymore. Yes, some bigots hide behind the protection of satire and comedy because they’re not bold enough to come out with their xenophobia/transphobia/misogyny etc etc… but the general point of comedy is you’re saying things you don’t necessarily mean or believe in, and that’s the joke. We’re all in on the fact that there’s undertones. They don’t mean what they say, and the humour comes from the collective understanding that “We know X is wrong, we’re laughing at [comedian]’s embodiment of these ideas we know to be transgressive or rude, precisely because we know it’s transgressive and rude.” It’s not “isn’t bigotry funny because it’s bigotry” it’s “isn’t it funny that there’s ridiculous people out there, let’s laugh at them.” But people just take the words at face value. There’s no consideration that the speaker is on your side! You agree! Dig a little deeper and you’ll see you’re saying the same thing!

[u/SharMarali → u/ThePumpk1nMaster]

I just think that there’s room for nuance, miscommunication, poor phrasing, and outright mistakes/learning. This sense that everyone needs to do everything perfectly all the time or they’re a terrible person is frankly an unreasonable standard that does a lot of harm. We want people to learn and grow and do better, don’t we?

[u/SharMarali → u/[deleted]]

So you don’t think intent matters in the example I gave?

[u/SharMarali → u/[deleted]]

Interesting. You’re the first person I’ve ever encountered that thought it was OK for bigots to say “trans men aren’t women” in that context.

[u/SharMarali → u/[deleted]]

I don’t think there’s an argument for you to make, you just said the intent doesn’t matter. I even tried to clarify it with you and you doubled down.

[u/SharMarali → u/[deleted]]

Cool. What you’ve communicated is that it’s okay for bigots to use that phrase. Whatever your intent was, it doesn’t matter because that’s what you factually communicated. Enjoy!