▲ 308 ▼ TIL of RHYTHM 0 : A performance art piece in which Marina Abramović stood still for six hours while the audience could do whatever they wanted to her. (aussie.zone) submitted 2 years ago* by useless_modern_god@aussie.zone to c/til@lemmy.world 155 comments fedilink hide all child comments 👉wiki 👉Tate Article Instructions: There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired. Performance: I am the object. During this period I take full responsibility. Duration: 6 hours (8pm–2am.) Studio Morra, Naples
[–] nieceandtows@programming.dev 65 points 2 years ago (1 child) Wow she stood still while someone slashed her throat to drink her blood. That’s commitment. permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mysoulishome@lemmy.world 94 points 2 years ago (5 children) The stuff they did boggles my mind such as cutting her with thorns, sexual assault. I don’t understand do they think because it’s “art” it isn’t a fucked up thing to do to a person? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Poggervania@kbin.social 42 points 2 years ago (3 children) I wonder if it’s supposed to be part of the “art” - to show how depraved humans can be given a chance to do it scot-free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Lmaydev@programming.dev 63 points 2 years ago Pretty sure that is literally the point of this. permalink fedilink source parent [–] cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago I always felt like this was the whole point of the performance permalink fedilink source parent [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago Yeah, that's pretty much the point of this sort of endurance art. permalink fedilink source parent [+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] mysoulishome@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (2 children) I agree she was prepared for it and expected it but still fucked. She didn’t tell them to be cruel…she just said they were allowed to. Reminds me of the Stanford prison experiment where you kind of give people a tacit permission to be evil…so they do and then we are confronted with the aftermath. I just can’t imagine I could cause someone’s skin to bleed purposefully and not feel awful… Not the same but related…this guy was shot as an art piece https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_(Burden) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 33 points 2 years ago (2 children) The Stanford prison experiment couldn't be replicated and the data are widely considered useless in psychologist community. Basically someone wanted to be famous so they created a shocking but fake study. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Thepolack@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) If I correctly remember my psychology lessons from 10+ years ago though, the results of Milgram's experiment has been reproduced countless times which sort of backs up the original point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MaryReadsBooks@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (6 children) What is the original point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments load more comments (6 replies) [–] ilikekeyboards@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Just get any warehouse or factory in UK where the moment somebody steps up as middle management they start being ultra evil to the employees who are too weak to do anything as they're bound by visas etc. I've seen it happen so many times, at some point I've been offered a job position and they told me "yeah the salary is not attactuve but you get to yell at "pakis" all day" Like what the fuck permalink fedilink source parent [–] MaryReadsBooks@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) The Stanford Prison Experiment was a sham and couldn't be replicated. This Art project still seems gruesome.... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fubo@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago There was no experiment. There was a LARP, in which the GM explicitly instructed the players to be abusive to one another. So they did. After a couple days of this bullshit, the GM's girlfriend made him stop the game. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It wasn't so much a sham as it was a gigantic mess, and that's the lesson. Zimbardo conducted one hell of a mess that had to be ditched less than halfway through and was only ditched because a grad student of his came in and was appalled by what he was letting happen as part of his "role" as the warden. He'd gotten directly involved in the study and as a result fucked it all up. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rambaroo@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (1 child) No shit she knew what they were going to do. That was the point. She was making a point about how inhumane people become when they think there are no consequences for their actions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] H2207@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago (6 children) Even if the gun was loaded with a blank, at any distance where she can be the one holding it (assuming it's aimed at her) a blank would still do serious damage. When a blank is fired, solid propellant typically is ejected as well as ignited propellant and metal shavings. Too close and a blank is almost like birdshot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Brandon Lee was killed by a blank on the set of The Crow, wasn't he? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] H2207@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) According to Wikipedia there was a squib load in the barrel, which was then pushed out by a blank round. So he was effectively shot, but the blank pushed out a bullet that was lodged in the barrel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Thanks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're assuming a full-strength blank, like they use in Hollywood. It could be a round with little/no powder. That would show if someone fired, but would not actually be capable of harm. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Event_Horizon5@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Even just a primer going off with no powder or bullet could cause serious injury or death, if the gun was held against your head. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (4 replies) [–] Enigma@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago Well, there is the Great Wall of Vagina(s). permalink fedilink source parent [–] cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago (5 children) so I realize this is probably a controversial take, but is it really sexual assault in this case. She did consent to „everything“ basically permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago It's a controversial take that has been the subject of all sorts of debate and even legislation. Some countries don't accept sweeping consent legally for anything, some people/groups think consent must be sought, etc. permalink fedilink source parent [–] frazw@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) She did not explicitly state that she was OK with being touched sexually. Nor did she say she was OK being cut. She said anything goes but I believe monkey paw rules of language apply here. I would argue that the whole point here is that different people take the "permission" to different levels. I personally would never do anything to someone that I would not want done to myself unless and perhaps not even if they gave explicit permission. Here only implicit permission is given and the audience decided how far it went. Your point might have stood if there was some explicitly stated agreement that asexual acts are ok, but frankly I believe it is clear here that it does count as a violation at minimum. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I dunno. I admire the idealism in your attitude here, but realistically we have to look at the words she herself used: "Instructions: There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired. Performance: I am the object. During this period I take full responsibility." It strikes me that this quite explicitly states that there are no limits. I'm honestly somewhat surprised that she wasn't more seriously assaulted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) but why do anything like that if she clearly didn't ask for that. Like if my mate comes over and I say "my es su casa, have free reign of the place" and he immeditaly shits on my couch I'm going to be pissed, like that's a shitty thing to do, even if I did "technically" say he could, doesn't mean you should. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (3 children) Because when you invite someone over, there's the additional context that they are your guest and should behave as such. During this performance art piece, that additional context does not exist. The only context is that provided by the artist, which did not set such limits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) Ya, some things come to mind I'd normally call victim blaming but she basically invited people to fuck with her. If being assaulted in multiple ways didn't cross her mind she was living in a fantasy world. Groups of people are terrible, the larger the group the more terrible they are. One person will push a boundary and then another will take it further, so on and so forth until it's just.... Mob mentality is a real thing and it's not when you see the best of humanity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago I mean - that's the point though, right? She probably knew it would be bad, it went further than she expected. It's still art. Like how you climb a mountain, it goes bad, you lose a hand but survive, no (sane) person is like, "good." permalink fedilink source parent [–] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* The point of this art is to show what humans become when they reduce a fellow person to an object. Every person that harmed her in any way is fundamentally a bad person, but also shares a quality with all of us in that we can all choose to become that person at any time. The goal of art like this is to get people to reflect upon these innate mentalities, not hopeful denial of their existence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (8 children) Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. She didn't set any limits and told them to do what they wanted to her. Amazing it wasn't worse in the end. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I agree but only in the most cold technical sense. That isn't what consent is supposed to look like though. If someone verbally consents but looks uncomfortable you should have the slightest shred of empathy to check in on them or wonder if they feel pressured to consent for whatever reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago Oh, 100%. In any other context, consent is–or should be–an ongoing event. I'm just not sure that applies in the context of endurance art. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (7 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 12 points 2 years ago* (8 children) They are doing it because they can. It probably means that they would do that to anyone is they know there will be no repercussions. Like someone who is passed out drunk or a child. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies) [–] a_mac_and_con@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (12 children) I can't believe how there wasn't a single person in the audience who tried to stop anyone. Other than the person who took the gun away from her head. Still. No one stopped the people trying to injure or assault her. No one called anyone out? It's sickening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] GigglyBobble@kbin.social 47 points 2 years ago (1 child) I can't believe how there wasn't a single person in the audience who tried to stop anyone Yeah, that's not what's written in the Wikipedia article. Faced with her abdication of will, with its implied collapse of human psychology, a protective group began to define itself in the audience. When a loaded gun was thrust to Marina's head and her own finger was being worked around the trigger, a fight broke out between the audience factions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (11 replies)
[–] mysoulishome@lemmy.world 94 points 2 years ago (5 children) The stuff they did boggles my mind such as cutting her with thorns, sexual assault. I don’t understand do they think because it’s “art” it isn’t a fucked up thing to do to a person? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Poggervania@kbin.social 42 points 2 years ago (3 children) I wonder if it’s supposed to be part of the “art” - to show how depraved humans can be given a chance to do it scot-free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Lmaydev@programming.dev 63 points 2 years ago Pretty sure that is literally the point of this. permalink fedilink source parent [–] cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago I always felt like this was the whole point of the performance permalink fedilink source parent [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago Yeah, that's pretty much the point of this sort of endurance art. permalink fedilink source parent [+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] mysoulishome@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (2 children) I agree she was prepared for it and expected it but still fucked. She didn’t tell them to be cruel…she just said they were allowed to. Reminds me of the Stanford prison experiment where you kind of give people a tacit permission to be evil…so they do and then we are confronted with the aftermath. I just can’t imagine I could cause someone’s skin to bleed purposefully and not feel awful… Not the same but related…this guy was shot as an art piece https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_(Burden) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 33 points 2 years ago (2 children) The Stanford prison experiment couldn't be replicated and the data are widely considered useless in psychologist community. Basically someone wanted to be famous so they created a shocking but fake study. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Thepolack@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) If I correctly remember my psychology lessons from 10+ years ago though, the results of Milgram's experiment has been reproduced countless times which sort of backs up the original point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MaryReadsBooks@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (6 children) What is the original point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments load more comments (6 replies) [–] ilikekeyboards@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Just get any warehouse or factory in UK where the moment somebody steps up as middle management they start being ultra evil to the employees who are too weak to do anything as they're bound by visas etc. I've seen it happen so many times, at some point I've been offered a job position and they told me "yeah the salary is not attactuve but you get to yell at "pakis" all day" Like what the fuck permalink fedilink source parent [–] MaryReadsBooks@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) The Stanford Prison Experiment was a sham and couldn't be replicated. This Art project still seems gruesome.... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fubo@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago There was no experiment. There was a LARP, in which the GM explicitly instructed the players to be abusive to one another. So they did. After a couple days of this bullshit, the GM's girlfriend made him stop the game. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It wasn't so much a sham as it was a gigantic mess, and that's the lesson. Zimbardo conducted one hell of a mess that had to be ditched less than halfway through and was only ditched because a grad student of his came in and was appalled by what he was letting happen as part of his "role" as the warden. He'd gotten directly involved in the study and as a result fucked it all up. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rambaroo@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (1 child) No shit she knew what they were going to do. That was the point. She was making a point about how inhumane people become when they think there are no consequences for their actions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] H2207@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago (6 children) Even if the gun was loaded with a blank, at any distance where she can be the one holding it (assuming it's aimed at her) a blank would still do serious damage. When a blank is fired, solid propellant typically is ejected as well as ignited propellant and metal shavings. Too close and a blank is almost like birdshot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Brandon Lee was killed by a blank on the set of The Crow, wasn't he? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] H2207@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) According to Wikipedia there was a squib load in the barrel, which was then pushed out by a blank round. So he was effectively shot, but the blank pushed out a bullet that was lodged in the barrel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Thanks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're assuming a full-strength blank, like they use in Hollywood. It could be a round with little/no powder. That would show if someone fired, but would not actually be capable of harm. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Event_Horizon5@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Even just a primer going off with no powder or bullet could cause serious injury or death, if the gun was held against your head. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (4 replies) [–] Enigma@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago Well, there is the Great Wall of Vagina(s). permalink fedilink source parent [–] cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago (5 children) so I realize this is probably a controversial take, but is it really sexual assault in this case. She did consent to „everything“ basically permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago It's a controversial take that has been the subject of all sorts of debate and even legislation. Some countries don't accept sweeping consent legally for anything, some people/groups think consent must be sought, etc. permalink fedilink source parent [–] frazw@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) She did not explicitly state that she was OK with being touched sexually. Nor did she say she was OK being cut. She said anything goes but I believe monkey paw rules of language apply here. I would argue that the whole point here is that different people take the "permission" to different levels. I personally would never do anything to someone that I would not want done to myself unless and perhaps not even if they gave explicit permission. Here only implicit permission is given and the audience decided how far it went. Your point might have stood if there was some explicitly stated agreement that asexual acts are ok, but frankly I believe it is clear here that it does count as a violation at minimum. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I dunno. I admire the idealism in your attitude here, but realistically we have to look at the words she herself used: "Instructions: There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired. Performance: I am the object. During this period I take full responsibility." It strikes me that this quite explicitly states that there are no limits. I'm honestly somewhat surprised that she wasn't more seriously assaulted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) but why do anything like that if she clearly didn't ask for that. Like if my mate comes over and I say "my es su casa, have free reign of the place" and he immeditaly shits on my couch I'm going to be pissed, like that's a shitty thing to do, even if I did "technically" say he could, doesn't mean you should. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (3 children) Because when you invite someone over, there's the additional context that they are your guest and should behave as such. During this performance art piece, that additional context does not exist. The only context is that provided by the artist, which did not set such limits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) Ya, some things come to mind I'd normally call victim blaming but she basically invited people to fuck with her. If being assaulted in multiple ways didn't cross her mind she was living in a fantasy world. Groups of people are terrible, the larger the group the more terrible they are. One person will push a boundary and then another will take it further, so on and so forth until it's just.... Mob mentality is a real thing and it's not when you see the best of humanity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago I mean - that's the point though, right? She probably knew it would be bad, it went further than she expected. It's still art. Like how you climb a mountain, it goes bad, you lose a hand but survive, no (sane) person is like, "good." permalink fedilink source parent [–] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* The point of this art is to show what humans become when they reduce a fellow person to an object. Every person that harmed her in any way is fundamentally a bad person, but also shares a quality with all of us in that we can all choose to become that person at any time. The goal of art like this is to get people to reflect upon these innate mentalities, not hopeful denial of their existence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (8 children) Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. She didn't set any limits and told them to do what they wanted to her. Amazing it wasn't worse in the end. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I agree but only in the most cold technical sense. That isn't what consent is supposed to look like though. If someone verbally consents but looks uncomfortable you should have the slightest shred of empathy to check in on them or wonder if they feel pressured to consent for whatever reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago Oh, 100%. In any other context, consent is–or should be–an ongoing event. I'm just not sure that applies in the context of endurance art. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (7 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 12 points 2 years ago* (8 children) They are doing it because they can. It probably means that they would do that to anyone is they know there will be no repercussions. Like someone who is passed out drunk or a child. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies) [–] a_mac_and_con@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (12 children) I can't believe how there wasn't a single person in the audience who tried to stop anyone. Other than the person who took the gun away from her head. Still. No one stopped the people trying to injure or assault her. No one called anyone out? It's sickening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] GigglyBobble@kbin.social 47 points 2 years ago (1 child) I can't believe how there wasn't a single person in the audience who tried to stop anyone Yeah, that's not what's written in the Wikipedia article. Faced with her abdication of will, with its implied collapse of human psychology, a protective group began to define itself in the audience. When a loaded gun was thrust to Marina's head and her own finger was being worked around the trigger, a fight broke out between the audience factions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Poggervania@kbin.social 42 points 2 years ago (3 children) I wonder if it’s supposed to be part of the “art” - to show how depraved humans can be given a chance to do it scot-free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Lmaydev@programming.dev 63 points 2 years ago Pretty sure that is literally the point of this. permalink fedilink source parent [–] cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago I always felt like this was the whole point of the performance permalink fedilink source parent [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago Yeah, that's pretty much the point of this sort of endurance art. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lmaydev@programming.dev 63 points 2 years ago Pretty sure that is literally the point of this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago I always felt like this was the whole point of the performance permalink fedilink source parent
[–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago Yeah, that's pretty much the point of this sort of endurance art. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] mysoulishome@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (2 children) I agree she was prepared for it and expected it but still fucked. She didn’t tell them to be cruel…she just said they were allowed to. Reminds me of the Stanford prison experiment where you kind of give people a tacit permission to be evil…so they do and then we are confronted with the aftermath. I just can’t imagine I could cause someone’s skin to bleed purposefully and not feel awful… Not the same but related…this guy was shot as an art piece https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_(Burden) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 33 points 2 years ago (2 children) The Stanford prison experiment couldn't be replicated and the data are widely considered useless in psychologist community. Basically someone wanted to be famous so they created a shocking but fake study. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Thepolack@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) If I correctly remember my psychology lessons from 10+ years ago though, the results of Milgram's experiment has been reproduced countless times which sort of backs up the original point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MaryReadsBooks@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (6 children) What is the original point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments load more comments (6 replies) [–] ilikekeyboards@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Just get any warehouse or factory in UK where the moment somebody steps up as middle management they start being ultra evil to the employees who are too weak to do anything as they're bound by visas etc. I've seen it happen so many times, at some point I've been offered a job position and they told me "yeah the salary is not attactuve but you get to yell at "pakis" all day" Like what the fuck permalink fedilink source parent [–] MaryReadsBooks@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) The Stanford Prison Experiment was a sham and couldn't be replicated. This Art project still seems gruesome.... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fubo@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago There was no experiment. There was a LARP, in which the GM explicitly instructed the players to be abusive to one another. So they did. After a couple days of this bullshit, the GM's girlfriend made him stop the game. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It wasn't so much a sham as it was a gigantic mess, and that's the lesson. Zimbardo conducted one hell of a mess that had to be ditched less than halfway through and was only ditched because a grad student of his came in and was appalled by what he was letting happen as part of his "role" as the warden. He'd gotten directly involved in the study and as a result fucked it all up. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rambaroo@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (1 child) No shit she knew what they were going to do. That was the point. She was making a point about how inhumane people become when they think there are no consequences for their actions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] H2207@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago (6 children) Even if the gun was loaded with a blank, at any distance where she can be the one holding it (assuming it's aimed at her) a blank would still do serious damage. When a blank is fired, solid propellant typically is ejected as well as ignited propellant and metal shavings. Too close and a blank is almost like birdshot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Brandon Lee was killed by a blank on the set of The Crow, wasn't he? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] H2207@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) According to Wikipedia there was a squib load in the barrel, which was then pushed out by a blank round. So he was effectively shot, but the blank pushed out a bullet that was lodged in the barrel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Thanks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're assuming a full-strength blank, like they use in Hollywood. It could be a round with little/no powder. That would show if someone fired, but would not actually be capable of harm. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Event_Horizon5@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Even just a primer going off with no powder or bullet could cause serious injury or death, if the gun was held against your head. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (4 replies) [–] Enigma@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago Well, there is the Great Wall of Vagina(s). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mysoulishome@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (2 children) I agree she was prepared for it and expected it but still fucked. She didn’t tell them to be cruel…she just said they were allowed to. Reminds me of the Stanford prison experiment where you kind of give people a tacit permission to be evil…so they do and then we are confronted with the aftermath. I just can’t imagine I could cause someone’s skin to bleed purposefully and not feel awful… Not the same but related…this guy was shot as an art piece https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_(Burden) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] rikudou@lemmings.world 33 points 2 years ago (2 children) The Stanford prison experiment couldn't be replicated and the data are widely considered useless in psychologist community. Basically someone wanted to be famous so they created a shocking but fake study. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Thepolack@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) If I correctly remember my psychology lessons from 10+ years ago though, the results of Milgram's experiment has been reproduced countless times which sort of backs up the original point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MaryReadsBooks@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (6 children) What is the original point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments load more comments (6 replies) [–] ilikekeyboards@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Just get any warehouse or factory in UK where the moment somebody steps up as middle management they start being ultra evil to the employees who are too weak to do anything as they're bound by visas etc. I've seen it happen so many times, at some point I've been offered a job position and they told me "yeah the salary is not attactuve but you get to yell at "pakis" all day" Like what the fuck permalink fedilink source parent [–] MaryReadsBooks@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) The Stanford Prison Experiment was a sham and couldn't be replicated. This Art project still seems gruesome.... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fubo@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago There was no experiment. There was a LARP, in which the GM explicitly instructed the players to be abusive to one another. So they did. After a couple days of this bullshit, the GM's girlfriend made him stop the game. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It wasn't so much a sham as it was a gigantic mess, and that's the lesson. Zimbardo conducted one hell of a mess that had to be ditched less than halfway through and was only ditched because a grad student of his came in and was appalled by what he was letting happen as part of his "role" as the warden. He'd gotten directly involved in the study and as a result fucked it all up. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 33 points 2 years ago (2 children) The Stanford prison experiment couldn't be replicated and the data are widely considered useless in psychologist community. Basically someone wanted to be famous so they created a shocking but fake study. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Thepolack@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) If I correctly remember my psychology lessons from 10+ years ago though, the results of Milgram's experiment has been reproduced countless times which sort of backs up the original point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MaryReadsBooks@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (6 children) What is the original point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments load more comments (6 replies) [–] ilikekeyboards@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Just get any warehouse or factory in UK where the moment somebody steps up as middle management they start being ultra evil to the employees who are too weak to do anything as they're bound by visas etc. I've seen it happen so many times, at some point I've been offered a job position and they told me "yeah the salary is not attactuve but you get to yell at "pakis" all day" Like what the fuck permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Thepolack@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) If I correctly remember my psychology lessons from 10+ years ago though, the results of Milgram's experiment has been reproduced countless times which sort of backs up the original point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MaryReadsBooks@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (6 children) What is the original point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments load more comments (6 replies)
[–] MaryReadsBooks@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (6 children) What is the original point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ilikekeyboards@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Just get any warehouse or factory in UK where the moment somebody steps up as middle management they start being ultra evil to the employees who are too weak to do anything as they're bound by visas etc. I've seen it happen so many times, at some point I've been offered a job position and they told me "yeah the salary is not attactuve but you get to yell at "pakis" all day" Like what the fuck permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MaryReadsBooks@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) The Stanford Prison Experiment was a sham and couldn't be replicated. This Art project still seems gruesome.... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fubo@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago There was no experiment. There was a LARP, in which the GM explicitly instructed the players to be abusive to one another. So they did. After a couple days of this bullshit, the GM's girlfriend made him stop the game. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It wasn't so much a sham as it was a gigantic mess, and that's the lesson. Zimbardo conducted one hell of a mess that had to be ditched less than halfway through and was only ditched because a grad student of his came in and was appalled by what he was letting happen as part of his "role" as the warden. He'd gotten directly involved in the study and as a result fucked it all up. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fubo@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago There was no experiment. There was a LARP, in which the GM explicitly instructed the players to be abusive to one another. So they did. After a couple days of this bullshit, the GM's girlfriend made him stop the game. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It wasn't so much a sham as it was a gigantic mess, and that's the lesson. Zimbardo conducted one hell of a mess that had to be ditched less than halfway through and was only ditched because a grad student of his came in and was appalled by what he was letting happen as part of his "role" as the warden. He'd gotten directly involved in the study and as a result fucked it all up. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rambaroo@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (1 child) No shit she knew what they were going to do. That was the point. She was making a point about how inhumane people become when they think there are no consequences for their actions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] H2207@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago (6 children) Even if the gun was loaded with a blank, at any distance where she can be the one holding it (assuming it's aimed at her) a blank would still do serious damage. When a blank is fired, solid propellant typically is ejected as well as ignited propellant and metal shavings. Too close and a blank is almost like birdshot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Brandon Lee was killed by a blank on the set of The Crow, wasn't he? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] H2207@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) According to Wikipedia there was a squib load in the barrel, which was then pushed out by a blank round. So he was effectively shot, but the blank pushed out a bullet that was lodged in the barrel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Thanks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're assuming a full-strength blank, like they use in Hollywood. It could be a round with little/no powder. That would show if someone fired, but would not actually be capable of harm. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Event_Horizon5@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Even just a primer going off with no powder or bullet could cause serious injury or death, if the gun was held against your head. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Brandon Lee was killed by a blank on the set of The Crow, wasn't he? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] H2207@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) According to Wikipedia there was a squib load in the barrel, which was then pushed out by a blank round. So he was effectively shot, but the blank pushed out a bullet that was lodged in the barrel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Thanks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] H2207@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) According to Wikipedia there was a squib load in the barrel, which was then pushed out by a blank round. So he was effectively shot, but the blank pushed out a bullet that was lodged in the barrel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Thanks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're assuming a full-strength blank, like they use in Hollywood. It could be a round with little/no powder. That would show if someone fired, but would not actually be capable of harm. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Event_Horizon5@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Even just a primer going off with no powder or bullet could cause serious injury or death, if the gun was held against your head. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Event_Horizon5@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Even just a primer going off with no powder or bullet could cause serious injury or death, if the gun was held against your head. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Enigma@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago Well, there is the Great Wall of Vagina(s). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago (5 children) so I realize this is probably a controversial take, but is it really sexual assault in this case. She did consent to „everything“ basically permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago It's a controversial take that has been the subject of all sorts of debate and even legislation. Some countries don't accept sweeping consent legally for anything, some people/groups think consent must be sought, etc. permalink fedilink source parent [–] frazw@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) She did not explicitly state that she was OK with being touched sexually. Nor did she say she was OK being cut. She said anything goes but I believe monkey paw rules of language apply here. I would argue that the whole point here is that different people take the "permission" to different levels. I personally would never do anything to someone that I would not want done to myself unless and perhaps not even if they gave explicit permission. Here only implicit permission is given and the audience decided how far it went. Your point might have stood if there was some explicitly stated agreement that asexual acts are ok, but frankly I believe it is clear here that it does count as a violation at minimum. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I dunno. I admire the idealism in your attitude here, but realistically we have to look at the words she herself used: "Instructions: There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired. Performance: I am the object. During this period I take full responsibility." It strikes me that this quite explicitly states that there are no limits. I'm honestly somewhat surprised that she wasn't more seriously assaulted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) but why do anything like that if she clearly didn't ask for that. Like if my mate comes over and I say "my es su casa, have free reign of the place" and he immeditaly shits on my couch I'm going to be pissed, like that's a shitty thing to do, even if I did "technically" say he could, doesn't mean you should. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (3 children) Because when you invite someone over, there's the additional context that they are your guest and should behave as such. During this performance art piece, that additional context does not exist. The only context is that provided by the artist, which did not set such limits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) Ya, some things come to mind I'd normally call victim blaming but she basically invited people to fuck with her. If being assaulted in multiple ways didn't cross her mind she was living in a fantasy world. Groups of people are terrible, the larger the group the more terrible they are. One person will push a boundary and then another will take it further, so on and so forth until it's just.... Mob mentality is a real thing and it's not when you see the best of humanity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago I mean - that's the point though, right? She probably knew it would be bad, it went further than she expected. It's still art. Like how you climb a mountain, it goes bad, you lose a hand but survive, no (sane) person is like, "good." permalink fedilink source parent [–] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* The point of this art is to show what humans become when they reduce a fellow person to an object. Every person that harmed her in any way is fundamentally a bad person, but also shares a quality with all of us in that we can all choose to become that person at any time. The goal of art like this is to get people to reflect upon these innate mentalities, not hopeful denial of their existence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (8 children) Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. She didn't set any limits and told them to do what they wanted to her. Amazing it wasn't worse in the end. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I agree but only in the most cold technical sense. That isn't what consent is supposed to look like though. If someone verbally consents but looks uncomfortable you should have the slightest shred of empathy to check in on them or wonder if they feel pressured to consent for whatever reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago Oh, 100%. In any other context, consent is–or should be–an ongoing event. I'm just not sure that applies in the context of endurance art. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (7 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago It's a controversial take that has been the subject of all sorts of debate and even legislation. Some countries don't accept sweeping consent legally for anything, some people/groups think consent must be sought, etc. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frazw@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) She did not explicitly state that she was OK with being touched sexually. Nor did she say she was OK being cut. She said anything goes but I believe monkey paw rules of language apply here. I would argue that the whole point here is that different people take the "permission" to different levels. I personally would never do anything to someone that I would not want done to myself unless and perhaps not even if they gave explicit permission. Here only implicit permission is given and the audience decided how far it went. Your point might have stood if there was some explicitly stated agreement that asexual acts are ok, but frankly I believe it is clear here that it does count as a violation at minimum. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I dunno. I admire the idealism in your attitude here, but realistically we have to look at the words she herself used: "Instructions: There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired. Performance: I am the object. During this period I take full responsibility." It strikes me that this quite explicitly states that there are no limits. I'm honestly somewhat surprised that she wasn't more seriously assaulted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) but why do anything like that if she clearly didn't ask for that. Like if my mate comes over and I say "my es su casa, have free reign of the place" and he immeditaly shits on my couch I'm going to be pissed, like that's a shitty thing to do, even if I did "technically" say he could, doesn't mean you should. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (3 children) Because when you invite someone over, there's the additional context that they are your guest and should behave as such. During this performance art piece, that additional context does not exist. The only context is that provided by the artist, which did not set such limits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I dunno. I admire the idealism in your attitude here, but realistically we have to look at the words she herself used: "Instructions: There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired. Performance: I am the object. During this period I take full responsibility." It strikes me that this quite explicitly states that there are no limits. I'm honestly somewhat surprised that she wasn't more seriously assaulted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) but why do anything like that if she clearly didn't ask for that. Like if my mate comes over and I say "my es su casa, have free reign of the place" and he immeditaly shits on my couch I'm going to be pissed, like that's a shitty thing to do, even if I did "technically" say he could, doesn't mean you should. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (3 children) Because when you invite someone over, there's the additional context that they are your guest and should behave as such. During this performance art piece, that additional context does not exist. The only context is that provided by the artist, which did not set such limits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) but why do anything like that if she clearly didn't ask for that. Like if my mate comes over and I say "my es su casa, have free reign of the place" and he immeditaly shits on my couch I'm going to be pissed, like that's a shitty thing to do, even if I did "technically" say he could, doesn't mean you should. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (3 children) Because when you invite someone over, there's the additional context that they are your guest and should behave as such. During this performance art piece, that additional context does not exist. The only context is that provided by the artist, which did not set such limits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (3 children) Because when you invite someone over, there's the additional context that they are your guest and should behave as such. During this performance art piece, that additional context does not exist. The only context is that provided by the artist, which did not set such limits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) Ya, some things come to mind I'd normally call victim blaming but she basically invited people to fuck with her. If being assaulted in multiple ways didn't cross her mind she was living in a fantasy world. Groups of people are terrible, the larger the group the more terrible they are. One person will push a boundary and then another will take it further, so on and so forth until it's just.... Mob mentality is a real thing and it's not when you see the best of humanity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago I mean - that's the point though, right? She probably knew it would be bad, it went further than she expected. It's still art. Like how you climb a mountain, it goes bad, you lose a hand but survive, no (sane) person is like, "good." permalink fedilink source parent [–] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* The point of this art is to show what humans become when they reduce a fellow person to an object. Every person that harmed her in any way is fundamentally a bad person, but also shares a quality with all of us in that we can all choose to become that person at any time. The goal of art like this is to get people to reflect upon these innate mentalities, not hopeful denial of their existence. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago I mean - that's the point though, right? She probably knew it would be bad, it went further than she expected. It's still art. Like how you climb a mountain, it goes bad, you lose a hand but survive, no (sane) person is like, "good." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* The point of this art is to show what humans become when they reduce a fellow person to an object. Every person that harmed her in any way is fundamentally a bad person, but also shares a quality with all of us in that we can all choose to become that person at any time. The goal of art like this is to get people to reflect upon these innate mentalities, not hopeful denial of their existence. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (8 children) Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. She didn't set any limits and told them to do what they wanted to her. Amazing it wasn't worse in the end. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I agree but only in the most cold technical sense. That isn't what consent is supposed to look like though. If someone verbally consents but looks uncomfortable you should have the slightest shred of empathy to check in on them or wonder if they feel pressured to consent for whatever reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago Oh, 100%. In any other context, consent is–or should be–an ongoing event. I'm just not sure that applies in the context of endurance art. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (7 replies)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I agree but only in the most cold technical sense. That isn't what consent is supposed to look like though. If someone verbally consents but looks uncomfortable you should have the slightest shred of empathy to check in on them or wonder if they feel pressured to consent for whatever reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago Oh, 100%. In any other context, consent is–or should be–an ongoing event. I'm just not sure that applies in the context of endurance art. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] infinipurple@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago Oh, 100%. In any other context, consent is–or should be–an ongoing event. I'm just not sure that applies in the context of endurance art. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 12 points 2 years ago* (8 children) They are doing it because they can. It probably means that they would do that to anyone is they know there will be no repercussions. Like someone who is passed out drunk or a child. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies)
[–] a_mac_and_con@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (12 children) I can't believe how there wasn't a single person in the audience who tried to stop anyone. Other than the person who took the gun away from her head. Still. No one stopped the people trying to injure or assault her. No one called anyone out? It's sickening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] GigglyBobble@kbin.social 47 points 2 years ago (1 child) I can't believe how there wasn't a single person in the audience who tried to stop anyone Yeah, that's not what's written in the Wikipedia article. Faced with her abdication of will, with its implied collapse of human psychology, a protective group began to define itself in the audience. When a loaded gun was thrust to Marina's head and her own finger was being worked around the trigger, a fight broke out between the audience factions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (11 replies)
[–] GigglyBobble@kbin.social 47 points 2 years ago (1 child) I can't believe how there wasn't a single person in the audience who tried to stop anyone Yeah, that's not what's written in the Wikipedia article. Faced with her abdication of will, with its implied collapse of human psychology, a protective group began to define itself in the audience. When a loaded gun was thrust to Marina's head and her own finger was being worked around the trigger, a fight broke out between the audience factions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)