That's a really fair point that I hadn't considered.

I mean...do you have a foreskin? Because there's a standard use for it that's pretty great, but not very creative.

By a definition, sure, but I think that definition is too wide to be useful. Most people would say someone of Hart's status has reached a point where his livelihood isn't directly linked to persistent work, and as such, he's outside the working class.

Because 1) The the scale of the work is minuscule in comparison to the scale of the pay and 2) the work that's being requested is reasonably related to the work that's already being done.

I love your username.

Well no, obviously calling him a whore is a dick move.

Actually, yeah, it kinda does.

Well I would think, if he felt so strongly about it, his lawyers would make a point to write up the contracts in such a way that, next time, it would be explicit that no such considerations would be allowed.

No I definitely get that being asked to do extra work for free is shitty and wrong. It's just that the level of work is 1) so amazingly insignificant and 2) something you'd think someone in his position would do anyway, that is, mention his current projects on social media.

Can't I just side with neither?

Except Kevin Hart is already being paid millions of dollars to be in the movie, so yeah, if you were gonna pay me more money than 90% of the people in the planet make in a lifetime, you can bet I'd be their fucking lap dog. Go to that presser? Sure! Send a few tweets promoting myself and the movie I'm in? Absolutely!

Well no, they also have the option of mocking it, which seems to be a popular one.

Sure, I get that it's principles, but I have a hard time siding with the guy who's fighting for, say, $3.1m vs. $3.0m on principle.

I know Hart doesn't have a major network show. I think that's the point about "crossing over", getting an audience like that.

Kim Kardashian sexualized herself a long time ago.

I thought that's what he'd already been paid for acting and doing the junket, and he wanted more to include social.

Because Stewart draws in a couple million viewers every night?

I have conflicted feelings about Sony v. Hart. On the one hand, you'd think Sony would have some kind of boiler plate social media aspect to their promotional agreements with talent. On the other, I get why Hart wouldn't want to do extra work for Sony, it just opens up abuse for later. On a third hand, it's really in…

To be fair, he does have the look of a guy who would paint something with his penis.

What, explicitly, is your problem with it? Why is it not ok? What is the different spin?