Celebrities & politics

[Bit Banger]

In another thread I said

"They are entitled to their opinion. But do they deserve a national soapbox to spout it? Do they have the experience to be subject experts?"

Which was part of a major thread drift. i don't really have a problem with celebrities holding political views, or even expressing them in the appropriate venue. Speaking at an issue based rally, guest on an interview program, or even their own program (Clint Eastwood at an RNC event, Scott Baio on Fox, or Whoopie Goldberg on The View) are all fine. Hell, they can call a press conference if they want to get their message out. But to use an awards show or football game to express their political position is a major thread drift and an abuse of their position, regardless of the content of their message.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Bit Banger

[pfunk]

12 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

But to use an awards show or football game to express their political position is a major thread drift and an abuse of their position, regardless of the content of their message.

If you believe, as I do, that freedoom of speech is fundamental to democracy, this is a ridiculous position. 

You use this platform to air your opinions, writers use books and news outlets, celebrities use awards shows and interviews, athletes use televised games, Trump addresses congress, and on and on, ad infinitum. 

Are you abusing your position when you post a political opinion here? Of course not. You're simply using a venue open to you.

Political censorship, on the other hand, is the enemy of the people.

[Guest]

Airtime and newspaper and magazine space are expensive and controlled by advertisers.  When celebs get "free" time or space to editorialize, the blame traces back to the sponsor more often than not.

[Guest]

But in this land of opportunity I don't blame anyone for trying to get their 2 cents in almost anywhere or anytime.  There's always the Off button on the tube.  Or mute...

[Guest]

As Lucy pointed out in another thread, politics isn't new to the Academy Awards. Remember Marlon Brando declining the Best Actor award for The Godfather (1972)?

 

[Vassago]

I think the real reason so many people get turned off by Hollywood politics is the fact that incredibly wealthy actors don't hold common ground with middle class working Americans. I don't think I can identify with them or their lifestyle. One of the major reasons Hillary lost this election was her basket of deplorables comment. It's statements like that that will ultimately turn away people who were on the fence this election. If you want votes you have to identify with the voters. What do people like Miley Cyrus for example know about stagnant wages and a teetering job market? We can't all be rockstars and movie stars. Most of us have to do things like teach kids, clean toilets, drive trucks or build all the houses you live in for a living.

[Mr.Pink]

they're entitled to their opinion, i'am entitled not to listen to it. they live in a sycophants echo chamber....meh...still waiting on the d-bags to leave the country like they said they would.

 

[FuriousWeasel]

I think the problem is, especially for me, the hysterics.  

If someone starts saying "Trump is a nazi, here come the death camps, etc," then I tune them right out, because they're not living in reality, so any solutions would be the same way.  If one came up to the stand and said "I didn't vote for candidate X, but I support them now though because I want everyone to do better, and I would hope that they would pay attention to the cause I support Y, and the proposed solution Z because ..." then I would treat them as a rational human being.  

[Guest]

To answer the OP's question, Of course Hollywood actors are not experts in any way but they are Americans with the rights of Freedom of Speech just like anyone else.

With the 50/50 split in ideology in our country right now, for the government to prevent anyone their constitutional freedoms to protest the government through limiting or preventing speech would be unconstitutional in itself...not to mention un-American.

They (Hollywood Actors) have the right to say it. Those who disagree have the right to not listen or turn off the medium through which the message is delivered.

[inkspot]

I tune into a program to be entertained whether it is a football game or awards ceremony. I don't tune into a football game to have someone preach to me about their political views. Saying it is absurd to disagree with their venue is just as absurd.

The other poster is correct. I turn off the program when I find the content offensive.

[JoDoe27]

27 minutes ago, inkspot said:

I tune into a program to be entertained whether it is a football game or awards ceremony. I don't tune into a football game to have someone preach to me about their political views. Saying it is absurd to disagree with their venue is just as absurd.

The other poster is correct. I turn off the program when I find the content offensive.

This one I'm curious on and using your wording to ask my question(s) so ignore or correct as needed; but who exactly was preaching during the games? And how were they preaching to you? I take preaching as a verbal communication of some sort, so really I'm just asking for clarification. 

[Bit Banger]

2 hours ago, JoDoe27 said:

This one I'm curious on and using your wording to ask my question(s) so ignore or correct as needed; but who exactly was preaching during the games? And how were they preaching to you? I take preaching as a verbal communication of some sort, so really I'm just asking for clarification. 

I'll take a stab at this:

Sitting during the National Anthem coveys a message, just not verbal. 

Using an awards acceptance speech to deliver a political rant is verbal, definitely preaching. 

Both are out of place, as in "not the proper venue". Which was the main point of my OP.

Yes, I as a listener can tune them out by turning them off; which I did. I didn't bother with either the NFL or the Oscars this year. 

For the NFL, perhaps they can take a hint from the NHL next year. Bring both teams out to stand center field for the Anthem(s).

[pfunk]

35 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

Both are out of place, as in "not the proper venue". Which was the main point of my OP.

I disagree. A two minute speech, in a night full of speeches, seems appropriate to me. Sitting down impedes the rights of no-one else. If you want to reach those, who will otherwise ignore you, sometimes you have to you have to choose the "improper venue".

e.g. 1960s "sit-ins" on college campuses, civil rights marches, protests at political conventions, etc. I think any public venue is appropriate, unless you are preventing someone else from expressing their view.

Of course, I also consider acts of dissension, to be part of the "infotainment" of the moment. 

[FuriousWeasel]

9 hours ago, pfunk said:

I disagree. A two minute speech, in a night full of speeches, seems appropriate to me. Sitting down impedes the rights of no-one else. If you want to reach those, who will otherwise ignore you, sometimes you have to you have to choose the "improper venue".

e.g. 1960s "sit-ins" on college campuses, civil rights marches, protests at political conventions, etc. I think any public venue is appropriate, unless you are preventing someone else from expressing their view.

Of course, I also consider acts of dissension, to be part of the "infotainment" of the moment. 

Infotainment... that's the perfect description.

For me, I look at the football protests as messed up, only because that's their job, that they are actively being paid to do at the time.  It does seem that their employers don't seem to have a real issue with it, since they're not shitcanning players.  Prior to a couple years ago, the national anthem was played while the teams were still in the locker room, and only changed because the gov't paid the NFL to have the players out there.  So a government I'm extremely distrustful of is mucking around in things they have no business in.  To go farther, I know that it's tradition, but I am still conflicted on whether or not a private sporting event is the right place to even play the anthem.  It's one thing for national olympic teams and such, however it seems very bread and circuses to me.  Actually, that's exactly what it is, with taxpayers funding stadiums and all that crap that shouldn't be happening.

On to the Oscars:  Here, I don't have much of a problem with them doing their 2 min speeches for whatever the hell they want.  They're not really getting paid at the time and all, and I don't have to watch it.  Plus, it's nice to have it out in the open.  If Actor/Actress Whoever goes up and says something repugnant to me, I don't have to support their movies if I don't want to.  

More public protests, I'm highly against "free speech zones" and shit like that, and also against rioting, blocking traffic, and the like.  The middle ground has always worked, and despite what some radicals think, they get more people to consider their positions by behaving rationally and friendly to those going by.  

You're right about preventing others.  Those types of "protestors" stopping speeches by invited guests, etc., that's so popular now, they need taken out and whipped.  Those shitheads are just creating sympathy for their targets, so not only is what they're doing wrong, their doing the worst possible thing to really prevent the opposing messages from getting out.  I mean, how many conservatives would have actually listened to Milo had the idiots at places like Berkeley not stopped his speeches?

[Vassago]

The liberal media stirs all of this shit up. A Gallup poll revealed that 55% of Americans have faith that news media outlets are telling truthful news. The art of dishonesty through omission has become the order of the day for most predominant news outlets. When Americans get bombarded by this shit day in day out they develop a contorted perspective of reality. The fact that Democrats are hysterically clutching at every straw they can, spells evidence of their rapid decline. When Nancy Pelosi gets on national tv and expounds on a false Michael Flynn tweet in front of millions of viewers without bothering to check where the tweet actually came from, all I see before me is desperation and hysteria. Embarrassing. This party just keeps slitting its own throat.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Vassago
Typo

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Vassago said:

The liberal media stirs all of this shit up. A Gallup poll revealed that 55% of Americans have faith that news media outlets are telling truthful news. The art of dishonesty through omission has become the order of the day for most predominant news outlets. When Americans get bombarded by this shit day in day out they develop a contorted perspective of reality. The fact that Democrats are hysterically clutching at every straw they can, spells evidence of their rapid decline. When Nancy Pelosi gets on national tv and expounds on a false Michael Flynn tweet in front of millions of viewers without bothering to check where the tweet actually came from, all I see before me is desperation and hysteria. Embarrassing. This party just keeps slitting it's own throat.

This isn't anything new. Since when does the media have an obligation to report truth without slander, bias or opinion? The answer is they don't.

The First Amendment says that government shall not limit Freedom Of The Press, nowhere does it say that the Press has an obligation to report the Truth.

[JoDoe27]

I don't think this is necessarily a Liberal Media only problem. The last time I checked Conservative Media wasn't exactly the most honest in the bunch either. If you believe it's one sided then you too have fallen victim to misinformation. That's a different argument though. 

On Milo and him getting blocked at colleges; the Republican Party was actually more than ok keeping him around and invited him to CPAC until he made his weird comments oking grown men sleeping with young teenage boys. I'm certain they loved the attention he garnered especially with the idea of hypocritical liberals, and then they distanced themselves from him as well without giving him the floor to defend his actions. 

On Kaep; there's a lot to unpack with this one. For me though I loved he didn't stand.  I had no problem with that. And this is coming from a guy with family that's served in every active US engagement since WWII. All members saw action. Kaep peacefully protested, and had been doing so until people noticed a few weeks into the regular season. He didn't say anything until he was asked and gave an answer that was morphed into a black/white issue even though he himself never mentioned race. The interesting thing is the argument of it being his job to play a sport. With that I say he has an employer and we all know the NFL is no stranger to handing out fines. Had he been in the arena of misconduct they'd have let him and everyone else know. Further it is not a law to stand for the flag. As Americans we have a host of hard faught freedoms that allow us to do these things. You can exercise your rights by not watching, and saying your peace. But you AND he are all well within your rights. He peacefully protested with a minor, yet load symbol, and was told "this is not the time nor place." When is the best time? And why do people get to say when that is? What if the government stepped in and made it illegal to do these things during events because it made some uncomfortable?

Really though, do we want to start telling people to sit down and play their part? To forget their constitutional liberties because it angered some? To turn a blind eye and to shut up because it wasn't "the right time or place to speak out"?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, JoDoe27 said:

I don't think this is necessarily a Liberal Media only problem. The last time I checked Conservative Media wasn't exactly the most honest in the bunch either. If you believe it's one sided then you too have fallen victim to misinformation. That's a different argument though. 

 

Who did you direct this towards?

I made no such distinction between Media of any kind. My point was there no obligation on Media to report Truth without slander, bias, or opinion. All Media operates under the same Freedom to report events anyway they want with equal protection under the First Amendment w/o limits from Government.

My personal thoughts on the subject are that each type of Media has a certain degree of Propaganda served up along with the content of what they report and the way it is reported. The Truth isn't a factor in the way any media outlet presents what we think of as "News" rather advancing an agenda based on that particular media outlet's Political Ideology.

[JoDoe27]

3 minutes ago, MrBigShot said:

Who did you direct this towards?

I made no such distinction between Media of any kind. My point was there no obligation on Media to report Truth without slander, bias, or opinion. All Media operates under the same Freedom to report events anyway they want with equal protection under the First Amendment w/o limits from Government.

My personal thoughts on the subject are that each type of Media has a certain degree of Propaganda served up along with the content of what they report and the way it is reported. The Truth isn't a factor in the way any media outlet presents what we think of as "News" rather advancing an agenda based on that particular media outlet's Political Ideology.

Really to no one and really less to you than anyone. Just combing multiple things into a single response. My phone doesn't handle muItiple quotes or quoting in general.

I do think the media has some liability with telling the truth though agree they all have an agenda with their presentation. <- that one was for you, Frank. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, JoDoe27 said:

I do think the media has some liability with telling the truth though agree they all have an agenda with their presentation. <- that one was for you, Frank. 

Any of us can think, hope, wish our own values on the Media as much as we want. I'm saying the Truth and a particular Media outlet's obligation to it isn't very high on their list of priorities as much as advancing that outlet's agenda based on their demographic audience or perceived moral obligation to brainwash the public to their ideology.

[Lucy Kitten]

16 minutes ago, FuriousWeasel said:

Infotainment... that's the perfect description.

For me, I look at the football protests as messed up, only because that's their job, that they are actively being paid to do at the time.  It does seem that their employers don't seem to have a real issue with it, since they're not shitcanning players.  Prior to a couple years ago, the national anthem was played while the teams were still in the locker room, and only changed because the gov't paid the NFL to have the players out there.  So a government I'm extremely distrustful of is mucking around in things they have no business in.  To go farther, I know that it's tradition, but I am still conflicted on whether or not a private sporting event is the right place to even play the anthem.  It's one thing for national olympic teams and such, however it seems very bread and circuses to me.  Actually, that's exactly what it is, with taxpayers funding stadiums and all that crap that shouldn't be happening.

On to the Oscars:  Here, I don't have much of a problem with them doing their 2 min speeches for whatever the hell they want.  They're not really getting paid at the time and all, and I don't have to watch it.  Plus, it's nice to have it out in the open.  If Actor/Actress Whoever goes up and says something repugnant to me, I don't have to support their movies if I don't want to.  

More public protests, I'm highly against "free speech zones" and shit like that, and also against rioting, blocking traffic, and the like.  The middle ground has always worked, and despite what some radicals think, they get more people to consider their positions by behaving rationally and friendly to those going by.  

You're right about preventing others.  Those types of "protestors" stopping speeches by invited guests, etc., that's so popular now, they need taken out and whipped.  Those shitheads are just creating sympathy for their targets, so not only is what they're doing wrong, their doing the worst possible thing to really prevent the opposing messages from getting out.  I mean, how many conservatives would have actually listened to Milo had the idiots at places like Berkeley not stopped his speeches?

I love the protests, without them history would be much different. I agree that they can sometimes go too far but when can and can't we protest what is protest worthy? When are people allowed to draw the line with what that can put up with from their government? The middle ground hasn't always worked, often the anger of the people has to be visible for real change to happen.

I personally liked Kaepernick's protest, it was quiet and only distracting to those who had to take serious offense. If anything people should be protesting the NFL, the players aren't the reason tax payers pay for stadiums that's the NFL. Players aren't the reason teams abandon towns and newly built stadiums and move to new towns forcing them to build brand new stadiums. Until the NFL can get their shit together I have no issue with a player and a silent protest.  The NFL is all about money and ratings anyways, they like the ratings from the controversy. People should wise up to the scam that is the NFL and personally I think players protesting on the field is the least the NFL's problems.

I tend to be a little bit more liberal so I usually enjoy the blend of politics at awards shows or in Hollywood in general. There are also some Hollywood folks who do know their politics and are helpful beyond just philanthropy. There is also so much more to celebrities and politics than just commentary on the government. Haven't most of us read The Crucible? Or more recently did anyone happen to see Trumbo? McCarthyism was so fucked up and had a huge impact on Hollywood. HW was also important during WWII, I watched a collection of Disney propaganda cartoons and they were pretty wild. Hollywood and politics can't help but be bedfellows, this is just one of those moments in history where it's more frustrating and noticeable to the common man.

Milo is a tricky little fucker. People do listen to him and he's not all vitriol and gross he's actually intelligent underneath it all.  The protest at Berkeley got out of hand, the university probably should have said no from the get go and just avoided all that. I actually shifted perspective on this one, at first it made sense that the students at Berkley would protest a speaker with a vile image as presented by most media outlets but definitely liberal ones. But after learning more about the sneaky Greek I realized that while he definitely enjoys the protests because they do prove a few of his points he really does want a conversation and the best way to "beat" him if that's the goal is to openly debate him. I stile think he's vile but I begrudgingly admit that he is worthy of the debate.

[Guest]

Media gets on the air or pages only after it is funded by advertisers. Liberal or conservative bias of any media entity is merely a theatrical tactic to keep an audience involved enough to soak in the ads.

 

Blaming the slant of a media chain without looking at who is funding the broadcast or ad space is the distraction that the people that really run the airwaves and pages love seeing. 

 

The NBA for instance is really an intellectual property profiteer much more than it is a sports organization.  the football leagues are almost collateral aspects of the business.

 

If CNN or MSNBC gets attention for liberal stories that piss off conservatives, the pharmaceutical companies and car companies sponsoring the broadcasts ar laughing all the way to the bank since they got your attention...

[FuriousWeasel]

5 hours ago, Lucy Kitten said:

I love the protests, without them history would be much different. I agree that they can sometimes go too far but when can and can't we protest what is protest worthy? When are people allowed to draw the line with what that can put up with from their government? The middle ground hasn't always worked, often the anger of the people has to be visible for real change to happen.

Oh I think you should be able to protest anything you want, especially Sonic getting rid of their fiesta steak breakfast burrito last year.  My problem is with some of the tactics used, being so counter productive that even the middle of the road, thoughtful people that might become allies are turned off.    I'm more of a soap box, ballot box, bullet box type, in that order.

 

5 hours ago, Lucy Kitten said:

I personally liked Kaepernick's protest, it was quiet and only distracting to those who had to take serious offense. If anything people should be protesting the NFL, the players aren't the reason tax payers pay for stadiums that's the NFL. Players aren't the reason teams abandon towns and newly built stadiums and move to new towns forcing them to build brand new stadiums. Until the NFL can get their shit together I have no issue with a player and a silent protest.  The NFL is all about money and ratings anyways, they like the ratings from the controversy. People should wise up to the scam that is the NFL and personally I think players protesting on the field is the least the NFL's problems.

I can't stand the NFL as an organization.  Actually I would have liked it more if Kaepernick was protesting the NFL itself...

As for Milo, yeah, he's a smart guy, and the recent issues are caused by him telling the truth people don't want to hear, of course, it was all edited and presented by the media through the lens they wanted to portray.

[Admiral C]

I get some amusement value out of it, same as when a politico I don't like pops up.....It's fun, especially around others, hitting the mute button and saying..'Shut the f#ck up"......Always remember...they are at the mercy of your button

[Vassago]

9 hours ago, MrBigShot said:

This isn't anything new. Since when does the media have an obligation to report truth without slander, bias or opinion? The answer is they don't.

The First Amendment says that government shall not limit Freedom Of The Press, nowhere does it say that the Press has an obligation to report the Truth.

They don't but all credibility dessolves with every lie they spill. If they are a news organization I think they should have a professional obligation to tell me the facts. You can lose yourself in mazes of moral relativism all you wish. They might be legally allowed to lie to all of us, but should they be doing it? Many Americans are getting tired of it. That was my point.

[Guest]

when I think of these athletes I'm humbled:

tommie smith and john carlos 1968 olympics, mexico city, a few months after the MLK assassination. If you're not familiar it's an interesting story. 

muhammad ali (1967-1971) lost three years of his boxing career fighting for conscientious objector status from induction into the army during the vietnam war. oh yeah, he was a muslim and the supreme court exonerated him. 

celebrity or otherwise, all beings have the right if not the obligation to protest any injustice they may see using any platform or vehicle at their disposal. 

protesting is geared to inconvenience, madden and disrupt. If it doesn't it's being done wrong.

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by bluesbroker

[Bit Banger]

4 hours ago, bluesbroker said:

 

tommie smith and john carlos 1968 olympics, mexico city, a few months after the MLK assassination. ...

muhammad ali (1967-1971) lost three years of his boxing career fighting for conscientious objector status from induction into the army during the vietnam war. ...

 

The Black Power salute in Mexico City: I found distasteful. It was disrespectful to the country the represented  

Muhammad Ali: While I did not agree with his position, I did agree with his method. Instead of fleeing the country, he applied & fought for Contentious Objector status. Then took his lumps when he lost. 

[JoDoe27]

1 hour ago, Bit Banger said:

The Black Power salute in Mexico City: I found distasteful. It was disrespectful to the country the represented  

Muhammad Ali: While I did not agree with his position, I did agree with his method. Instead of fleeing the country, he applied & fought for Contentious Objector status. Then took his lumps when he lost. 

That's distasteful? Not their treatment by the country they represented? What about Paul Norman standing up their wearing his OPHR badge? Or Avery Brundage, the IOC President, being cool with the Nazi Salute because it was the national salute of the country? 

Just becuse they're athletes doesn't mean they escaped the harsh reality of the world they were currently living in. It's crazy how they're only supposed to be able to show their anger at the current status quo and unity towards their fellow black Americans at specific times because it's "distasteful" to do so despite the fact that very same country sure as shit had no problem reminding them of how they thought or treated anyone that looked liked Tommie and John on a daily basis. 

I can feel myself getting angry so I'm done with this thread before I say something "distasteful."

[Vassago]

28 minutes ago, JoDoe27 said:

That's distasteful? Not their treatment by the country they represented? What about Paul Norman standing up their wearing his OPHR badge? Or Avery Brundage, the IOC President, being cool with the Nazi Salute because it was the national salute of the country? 

Just becuse they're athletes doesn't mean they escaped the harsh reality of the world they were currently living in. It's crazy how they're only supposed to be able to show their anger at the current status quo and unity towards their fellow black Americans at specific times because it's "distasteful" to do so despite the fact that very same country sure as shit had no problem reminding them of how they thought or treated anyone that looked liked Tommie and John on a daily basis. 

I can feel myself getting angry so I'm done with this thread before I say something "distasteful."

I agree with you. I don't think what they did was distasteful. For 1968 it seems like a noble gesture. Then again, I don't have all the facts about that event. What I do know is that 1968 is a far cry from today in just about every regard I can think of. I can't compare Colin Kaepernick with these two gentlemen. They are not even in the same ballpark. While there is still some vestiges of social injustices occurring in this country, no way is it anything like it was in the 50's and 60's.

 

Dia Duit

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Vassago said:

They don't but all credibility dessolves with every lie they spill. If they are a news organization I think they should have a professional obligation to tell me the facts. You can lose yourself in mazes of moral relativism all you wish. They might be legally allowed to lie to all of us, but should they be doing it? Many Americans are getting tired of it. That was my point.

A Press that tells it to us straight w/o slander, bias, opinion, propaganda or advancing an agenda...We can all hope, can't we?

I, for one, would be thrilled to live in a society where there was a Press with the moral standards and political ideological neutrality of which you speak. I'm simply saying that it doesn't exist and has never existed. If I am mistaken, I invite you to correct me.