I pit over-cynicism

The BBQ Pit
1

This pit thread was inspired by this post from Exapno Mapcase, who concludes that Stephen Colbert’s (mock) run for president is motivated solely by “money, money, money”. And, in fact, he states, money is the ONLY thing to take seriously.

Now, obviously, a healthy amount of cynicism is very useful when evaluating people’s motives in a wide variety of circumstances. But it’s also easy to go way overboard. This is particularly true for entertainers like Colbert. Is there some reason to think that Stephen Colbert does not, honestly, enjoy entertaining people? That he is not at least partially motivated by some combination of:
-an actual interest in the issues of the day
-an enjoyment of making people laugh
-a desire to influence the public discourse
-the sheer high of performing

or a variety of other things?

And the nice thing about capitalism in this context is that some or all of those motivations can coexist. If Stephen Colbert wants to make lots of money, he does so by being as entertaining as popular, doing funny interesting things that make people want to watch his show.

I mean, sure, we can be so cynical that we just 100% assume that every decision every human being has ever made in the history of mankind was motivated solely by base evil selfish greed… but is that either an accurate or useful mindset to have?

Another unrelated example is a discussion I had a year or so back with an online acquaintance about the Star Wars prequels. Now, they obivously have many problems, but she basically said that the problems with them (I think we were basically talking about Jar Jar) were due to George Lucas being greedy and wanting to make as much money as possible (presumably because of the marketing?). Which I think is just kind of silly. First of all, there’s at least one nearly-incontrivertibly-strong piece of evidence that George Lucas is NOT just all about the money, which is how long it took him to make the Star Wars prequels. He owned the most beloved, most successful film franchise in history, lock stock and barrel. And yet for 20 years, he just sat on it, NOT milking it for money. (I mean, there were toys and games and so forth, but there were basically 20 years when he was absolutely guaranteed to make $500 million or so any time he wanted, and yet he didn’t.)

Furthermore, it seems pretty clear to me that if George Lucas wanted to do nothing but make as much money as possible from Star Wars prequels, he should have done so by making a movie that the rabid fanboy base loved as much as possible. Which he signally failed to do. But it’s not like it’s even remotely likely that he would end up making a movie that the hardcore star wars fans adored, but which somehow didn’t make him much marketing and tie-in money due to a lack of characters-adored-by-3-year-olds. What’s more logical? That George Lucas could have made the truly kick-ass prequel we all wanted, but instead went for a quick buck? Or that he tried his best, knowing that his legacy was on the line, and just plain screwed up and made mistakes?

There are plenty of things wrong with the star wars prequels, and plenty of perfectly reasonable and justifiable criticisms one can level at George Lucas, but I just don’t see how you can argue that the problems with the prequels are a direct result of George Lucas being greedy.

2

There’s a related syndrome where people say that others engage in certain activities for the sole purpose of impressing people or because they want to be elitists. It could never occur to them that people simply enjoy various activities.

For example: “Dude, you’re playing a 7th level elven cleric just to impress chicks.”

3

A cynic is just a romantic who’s had his heart broken.

4

What a cynical thing to say! :slight_smile:

5

He only said it so people will think he’s cool. Either that, or he said it just for the money.

6

In Colbert’s case anyway, he certainly looks like he having a lot of fun.

And, he’s only campaigning in South Carolina.

7

As I always say, cynics are only cynical because the expect to get something out of it.

8

I often see people alleging that Bush or Cheney have certain policies that are detrimental to America because they will directly benefit financially. Which is nonsense. It’s both too cynical and not cynical enough. It’s too cynical because, you know, the whole blind trust thing. And it’s not cynical enough because it doesn’t take into account the probability that they’re doing the best that they can, but they just routinely make bad decisions. You think Bush appoints someone like Brownie or Harriet Myers because he thought he’d get paid for it? No, he appoints them because they kiss his ass and call it ice cream, and he loves that sort of thing.

There are plenty of other base human motivations besides greed. Sure, people are greedy. But have you ever heard of a little deadly sin called pride? Throw in envy, sloth, lust, gluttony and anger and you’ve got yourself the beginning of a pretty good list.