Artists you love with politics you hate

[Sarahfeena]

@H3Knuckles

This is what gets me too. I really try to separate art from the artist, especially because their’s a fair amount of stuff I’d have to give up if I didn’t (call me selfish), but that’s the thing that really pisses me off about most celebrities using their fame to push politics. It’s perfectly understandable that they want to use their influence to push a cause they believe in, but the attitude many of them cop while doing it, especially when a lot of them clearly don’t know anymore than the average person who reads the newspaper, drives me up a wall! :mad:

This bugs me, too, but what bugs me even more is when they react to boycotts by crying censorship…boycotts are a perfectly legitimate way of expressing ones’ disagreement. It is when the government tries to repress peoples’ speech that it is censorship…if a regular citizen decides not to go to a Sean Penn movie because they don’t like his politics, that’s just voting with your dollars.

[LonesomePolecat]

I’ve always liked the way Tom Hanks approaches political activism as a celebrity–he quietly donates money to causes he believes in, his activism is low key, and he doesn’t seem to feel the need to shove his political views in other people’s faces all the time. He doesn’t have that “I’m a star so anything I think or say is IMPORTANT” attitude that so many stars of his rank seem to have.

I respect this guy a hell of a lot.

[Sampiro]

@mr. jp

cite?

The one I’ve read is in print, but there’s mention of it on this Wiki entry on dowsing rods. A scientifically supervised test of dowsing rods similar to a much smaller one Randi had organized showed that the vast majority of dowsers did no better with rods than they would by chance, BUT that a minority did do better (to a small but “statistically significant” degree) with rods than by chance. Basically, the study indicated that there may be a very weak advantage to using dowsing rods but an advantage nonetheless, but Randi reported the results of the test as simply upholding what his test had “proven”- that dowsing rods are totally humbug.

[Sampiro]

@LonesomePolecat

I’ve always liked the way Tom Hanks approaches political activism as a celebrity–he quietly donates money to causes he believes in, his activism is low key, and he doesn’t seem to feel the need to shove his political views in other people’s faces all the time. He doesn’t have that “I’m a star so anything I think or say is IMPORTANT” attitude that so many stars of his rank seem to have.

And yet on the subjects that interest him (space exploration and [his kinsman] Lincoln, for example) he comes across as one of the best read and most informed celebrities with knowledge that really is way way above the layman’s and almost always above that of his host.

[commasense]

@Sampiro

The one I’ve read is in print, but there’s mention of it on this Wiki entry on dowsing rods. A scientifically supervised test of dowsing rods similar to a much smaller one Randi had organized showed that the vast majority of dowsers did no better with rods than they would by chance, BUT that a minority did do better (to a small but “statistically significant” degree) with rods than by chance. Basically, the study indicated that there may be a very weak advantage to using dowsing rods but an advantage nonetheless, but Randi reported the results of the test as simply upholding what his test had “proven”- that dowsing rods are totally humbug.

Here’s the relevant paragraph from the Wikipedia article:

Of the 43 pre-selected and extensively tested candidates, at least 37 of them obviously showed no dowsing ability. The results from the remaining 6 were slighty better than chance. The authors concluded that this result is statistically significant and indicative of a weak but real dowsing ability. A number of scientists have strongly and in detail contended that these results are consistent with statistical fluctuations in the absence of any real ability.

(Emphasis mine.)

Disagreeing with the conclusions of the study’s authors (as did other scientists) is hardly the same as corrupting the scientific process and intentionally misleading people, which was the implication of your charge that “Randi has also tampered with some facts and figures.” If you have anything else, please cite it, but this does nothing to alter my high opinion of Randi’s reputation and integrity.