Is it TIME for Entertainers to RATCHET DOWN Political Advocacy?

PirateMk1 said:

They hurt no one. Those who choose to listen do, those that don't, don't. It matters not, if an entertainer chooses to make their opinions known.

Click to expand...

I say that promoting fighting and hurting morale are harms to the society.

MrPeanut said:

I think you are giving entertainers too much power. Their job is to make money by entertaining people. Just because our celebrity obsessed culture wants to stick a camera in their face and ask them random questions doesn't mean their opinions are valid.

Click to expand...

A lot of entertainers are an a mission to push their views/agenda, surely you know.

Hawkeye10 said:

I tend to agree with that, but you are missing the point of the thread.

What are entertainers for?

Are they helping us now or are they hurting us now with their constant haranguing, their constant "US v THEM" mentality?

Click to expand...

There are receipts/pay stubs for the divide you're talking about.

Persuasive messaging is prone to deconstruction.

The best way to prevent this is to train subjects to reject any information that might do so.

You yourself use the term "elite" quite frequently.

This is certainly a focus group tested term. It appeared everywhere all at once and strains the term semantically. What it DOES do is evoke an emotional response.

Which is how persuasion works.

This thread has been a huge disappointment so far....we have not even yet gotten the standard argument that entertainers should be and often are on the vanguard of change, and if we dont change we will face certain doom, so what ever it takes...this is war....

It is sad when I need to argue both my side and the other side because 50+ posts in no one has shown up to argue the point.

What if...? said:

There are receipts/pay stubs for the divide you're talking about.

Persuasive messaging is prone to deconstruction.

The best way to prevent this is to train subjects to reject any information that might do so.

You yourself use the term "elite" quite frequently.

This is certainly a focus group tested term. It appeared everywhere all at once and strains the term semantically. What it DOES do is evoke an emotional response.

Which is how persuasion works.

Click to expand...

All of which is besides the point except for the question "Are Entertainers with their browbeating persuading anyone or are they only deepening the division, which harms us because divided we fall? "

Hawkeye10 said:

I say that promoting fighting and hurting morale are harms to the society.

Click to expand...

Words hurt no one. Actions do. Its not the entertainers you have a problem with, but those who would listen to them and then act.

PirateMk1 said:

Words hurt no one. Actions do. Its not the entertainers you have a problem with, but those who would listen to them and then act.

Click to expand...

Telling people that they are defective and not welcome is hurtful, on purpose.

Hawkeye10 said:

Professional sports labor as well, they are entertainers, and the so-called journalists who follow them such as ESPN.

Down, for what ever reason you believe, however far down you believe, not necessarily to zero.


My Answer: Yes, because what so often happens is that these people actively demean about half the people in the nation, which drives down morale, and because the browbeating has gotten to the point that it is an uncivil act......it has become an assault on the "wrong thinkers" sovereignty.

I think that a 60% reduction would be about right.

Note: This is not about rights to speak, this is about what would be best course of action, however you define that.

tyvm

Click to expand...

Hawkeye10:

Why are celebrities responsible for elevating the morale of people who hold political opinions which the entertainer opposes? Have all celebrities been drafted into the Big USO and I missed the headline? Should professional Republican Party personnel be responsible for boosting the morale and peace of mind of Democrats whose views they disagree with, for the benefit of the nation's happiness, and vice versa? And why does the American population need its morale boosted anyway? Americans are some of the most materially blessed and free people in the world. They should be jumping for joy and thanking God/fortune for winning the existential lottery of birth.

Celebrities can and should speak out (albeit with the foreknowledge that such speech may have professional consequences for them) if they feel strongly that they need to speak. If the US Supreme Court has decided that money (capital) is free speech, then it follows that celebrity (social capital) is free speech also. If the Koch brothers can leverage their wealth to influence the nation, and nudge it in a desired direction, then why can't or shouldn't an actor, musician, athlete or other person of prominence be able to leverage their celebrity as a speech force-multiplier to do the same? If a celebrity critiques society then either listen or don't; but why attempt to muzzle them with ersatz obligations to national morale and societal élan? If a famous physicist speaks, we all tend to listen and weigh his/her words even though the physicist is trained in physics and not in civics. So why not listen to a celebrity first and then decide whether what they say is wisdom or tripe? If tripe, ignore. If wisdom, even wisdom with which you disagree, then let it stand.

You seem to claim that an entertainer or athlete has a 24/7/365 responsibility to amuse you and distract you? Entertainment is their job, not their life. They have no responsibility or obligation to keep medicating and distracting the nation with entertainment-opiates when they are not working. If their opinions challenge some to think, even wrongly, and to wake up the electorate from its externally induced entertainment-stupor then more power to them. Democracy is noisy, adversarial and rancorous but authoritarian subjugation is quiet, compliant, orderly and very, very well behaved for fear of punishment. Which do you prefer?

A doctor or a veterinarian is a professional who works to heal. But I know doctors and even one vet who enjoy hunting or fishing or both. Is it improper for a doctor or a vet to hunt or fish if they want to?

Now, a question for you. Do you object to celebrity political speech because you tend to disagree with them and are personally annoyed by such speech, or do you object to celebrity political speech because other people tend to listen to them and thus might gravitate to their points of view, thus weakening your chosen political faction or constituency?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

It's not their job to bring the country together. Some of us are not interested in uniting. The correct response by the republican party would have been to kick out the "deplorables" not give over the party to them. I have no interest in uniting with bigots, homophobes, etc.

Evilroddy said:

Hawkeye10:

Why are celebrities responsible for elevating the morale of people who hold political opinions which the entertainer opposes? Have all celebrities been drafted into the Big USO and I missed the headline? Should professional Republican Party personnel be responsible for boosting the morale and peace of mind of Democrats whose views they disagree with, for the benefit of the nation's happiness, and vice versa? And why does the American population need its morale boosted anyway? Americans are some of the most materially blessed and free people in the world. They should be jumping for joy and thanking God/fortune for winning the existential lottery of birth.

Celebrities can and should speak out (albeit with the foreknowledge that such speech may have professional consequences for them) if they feel strongly that they need to speak. If the US Supreme Court has decided that money (capital) is free speech, then it follows that celebrity (social capital) is free speech also. If the Koch brothers can leverage their wealth to influence the nation, and nudge it in a desired direction, then why can't or shouldn't an actor, musician, athlete or other person of prominence be able to leverage their celebrity as a speech force-multiplier to do the same? If a celebrity critiques society then either listen or don't but why attempt to muzzle them with ersatz obligations to national morale and societal élan? If a famous physicist speaks, we all tend to listen and weigh his/her words even though the physicist is trained in physics and not civics. So why not listen to a celebrity first and then decide whether what they say is wisdom or tripe?

You seem to claim that an entertainer or athlete has a 24/7/365 responsibility to amuse you and distract you? Entertainment is their job, not their life. A doctor or a veterinarian is a professional who works to heal. But I know doctors and even one vet who enjoy hunting or fishing or both. Is it improper for a doctor or a vet to hunt or fish if they want to?

Now, a question for you. Do you object to celebrity political speech because you tend to disagree with them and are personally annoyed by such speech, or do you object to celebrity political speech because other people tend to listen to them and this might gravitate to their points of view thus weakening your chosen political constituency?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Good post....nice to finally see one...

Yes, one side argues that entertainers have more of an obligation than the rest to push for the political views they favor because they have visibility and to not use it for "good" is a dereliction of duty. I argue the opposite that since the nation is so divided and entertainment is about the only place were it is possible to escape the division and bring people of differing views together that their main obligation is to do that instead.....to try to help us get through these bad times rather than contributing to the division...rather than contributing to the weakening of America.

Hawkeye10 said:

Telling people that they are defective and not welcome is hurtful, on purpose.

Click to expand...

You can tell somebody anything, it is not in and of itself hurtful or helpful in any way. A listener must ACT, for there to be pain or gain. Even then simple listening to the conveyance of information is but a part of the LISTENERS actions.

Truckstop said:

It's not their job to bring the country together. Some of us are not interested in uniting. The correct response by the republican party would have been to kick out the "deplorables" not give over the party to them. I have no interest in uniting with bigots, homophobes, etc.

Click to expand...

So this is something you are willing to fight to death for?

America is dying you might have noticed...

The American dream is almost dead.

Hawkeye10 said:

All of which is besides the point except for the question "Are Entertainers with their browbeating persuading anyone or are they only deepening the division, which harms us because divided we fall? "

Click to expand...

I frankly consider the whole thing broke and not worth fixing.

Let it fall.

It depends on how they engage

Redress said:

The best thing to happen is this:

That means they have the exact same rights to speak as any one else. Don't like it? Then don't listen.

Click to expand...

Entertainers? Media celebs, more or less? Yah, they can talk about whatever. Unless they actually have some expertise, I tend not to pay attention. Sean Penn, for instance, set up & was running his (?) own private relief effort in Haiti after the earthquake years ago. So I'll listen to what the has to say on the topic of relief efforts in Haiti - operating, organizing, getting in & distributing supplies & so on. With the ones who aren't hands on - it's harder to tell what their level of involvement is.

Hawkeye10 said:

Good post....nice to finally see one...

Yes, one side argues that entertainers have more of an obligation than the rest to push for the political views they favor because they have visibility and to not use it for "good" is a dereliction of duty. I argue the opposite that since the nation is so divided and entertainment is about the only place were it is possible to escape the division and bring people of differing views together that their main obligation is to do that instead.....to try to help us get through these bad times rather than contributing to the division...rather than contributing to the weakening of America.

Click to expand...

Hawkeye10:

You quoted me before I had finished editing my post. I'm a bit slow you know! :3oops:

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Whenever I go home to visit the U.S. the one thing that becomes obvious right away is that EVERY facet of life in America is tied to politics now. You can't have an opinion, belief or value on anything without it being assigned to a political camp. It's getting really, really crazy and claustrophobic... like you can't think freely anymore without coming under some kind of scrutiny.

Entertainers and famous people have NO obligation to draw a line in the sand for you. If they want to stay out of politics, that's their business, not yours!

Everyone decides what they'll accept as evidence or indications

Hawkeye10 said:

Its not about my side or another side, when the nation is evenly split what kind of sense does it make for entertainers...who are supposed to be in the business of lifting our spirits...to highlight our differences and to drive up division? They are in the wrong line of work if that is what they want to do. Entertainers should be if they are doing their jobs working to bring us together.

Click to expand...

I don't think most entertainers would agree that their task is to lift our spirits. I think it's to entertain - sing, dance, act, play - whatever the particular talent is. We can hope that the entertainer is good @ his/her craft, & so manages to attract & hold our attention - that's the measure of how well the entertainer is performing. Some entertainers simply work @ their craft - it's hard to tell if they have political opinions @ all. Others are very open in advocating for one side or the other, one party or the other.

It's a mixed bag - some entertainers want to do something useful with their celebrity, & so they adopt causes. I think they're trying to be helpful - but it's tough to make your way through a media-saturated World & pick worthy causes unerringly. So they're @ the mercy of their own media guys, & their agents, & the precise nature of the work they do - how they make a living.

In any event, I don't pick positions based on the people who endorse a given position. I try to look @ any reasonable position - but then, I set what reasonable is, in my own mind.

Hawkeye10 said:

This has nothing to do with me, the question is what would be best for America.

The second place you go wrong is this is not about what they can do, this is about what they should do, and why.

Are we going to see the third attempt to track with the thread from you?

Click to expand...

America has already said what is best for it. I quoted it in my first post. America feels they should be able to say whatever they please.

Hawkeye10 said:

Professional sports labor as well, they are entertainers, and the so-called journalists who follow them such as ESPN.

Down, for what ever reason you believe, however far down you believe, not necessarily to zero.


My Answer: Yes, because what so often happens is that these people actively demean about half the people in the nation, which drives down morale, and because the browbeating has gotten to the point that it is an uncivil act......it has become an assault on the "wrong thinkers" sovereignty.

I think that a 60% reduction would be about right.

Note: This is not about rights to speak, this is about what would be best course of action, however you define that.

tyvm

Click to expand...

How?

Make a law?

Frankly, I consider it a waste of newspaper or eye and ear time when ANY actor jumps into the ring. These are people who have been trained to pretend, that is their occupation. So, in God's good name would anyone give a twiddle about what that person felt/thought about anything?

First, they lead a life so removed from the mainstream, they simply cannot relate to the difficulties of the average individual. These are people who buy designer baby clothes but adamantly refuse to use the same clothes twice. They are pampered, obliged at every turn, and live with 3/4 of their conscience in a fantasy. Clint Eastwood was a good actor, a great director but watching him talk to a chair for an entire night is NOT the stuff of critical decision making....he's also had more affairs and marriages than people who thought his talking to the chair routine was cute. This is not stable behaviour

These are people who marry and get divorced so often there are at least 5 magazines dedicated simply to who's zooming whom. This is not emotional stability, but precocious to the point of being idiotic. I recently read that Jennifer Aniston spends nearly 40 hours a week on looks; two personal trainers, yoga, hair appointments, cosmetics, yada, yada, yada......

Anyone who's opinion is swayed by these pampered pin heads shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Hawkeye10 said:

So this is something you are willing to fight to death for?

America is dying you might have noticed...

The American dream is almost dead.

Click to expand...

I don't share your doom and gloom. We are certainly making bad decisions by promoting garbage people with garbage morals to leadership, but individually if your not lazy and not a quitter the dream is still achievable. Might be too hard for some of the weaker willed but then it always has been.

Hawkeye10 said:

I specifically said that this is not about rights to speak, it is about what is the right thing to do.

Click to expand...

That is subjective.

Hawkeye10 said:

Sure, And I am asking if they are right.

I say that what we have now is wrong.

Click to expand...

Right about what?

Hawkeye10 said:

My memory is that when Reagan was an actor he was an actor, when he was a politician he was a politician.

If this is so he does not belong in this thread.

Click to expand...

your memory seems faulty

Reagan was an actor who was paid to promote political positions.

Hawkeye10 said:

I reject that.....people used to be able to put down their wants/demands when the fight got in the way of the overall health of the community.

Click to expand...

Which is why this nation has never had to suffer through a civil war.

Hawkeye10 said:

So this is something you are willing to fight to death for?

America is dying you might have noticed...

The American dream is almost dead.

Click to expand...

Then it is not worthy of keeping so let the dream die.