So…who do you decide which celebrities should keep their opinions to themselves? Is there a certain amount of money or movies or albums? Do they have to be performers (actors/singers) to be mute, or do writers and painters count to? If not, what’s the distinction between artist and celebrity? If Allen Ginsberg were still alive, would he be expected to keep his mouth shut too?
Suppose the impossible were to happen and I became famous about the 2008 election…would I be allowed to post my opinions here or would that be inappropriate and obnoxious too? I’d still be regular ol’ pepper, but more people will know what my face looks like. Would that make a difference?
Actually we did no such thing. We got sidetracked into a debate as to whether it was appropriate or justified for celebrities to attempt to use their celebrity to sway people to their way of thinking by dint of nothing but their celebrity itself.
I thought your original post to me was sincere and I took the time to answer it accordingly. Your post in response made it clear you were only interested in picking out a word here, a phrase there, and playing word games to make it appear you had either won points you hadn’t, or that I had lost ones that I hadn’t.
The amusing thing here is that you actually seem now to believe your own misrepresentations. What fun!
Okay, li’l 'ol pepper, now this thread is degenerating into just being silly. I would draw no line whatsoever. And I’ve said nothing here to indicate otherwise. To say something is arrogant or unfair or inappropriate or whatever is not the same thing as saying no one should be able to do it. This is something most of the posters to this thread appear to find it very hard to understand. Of course, everyone has a right to speak their mind. Everyone also has a right to get pissed off about it if they don’t like it. I came into this thread to explain why I thought people get pissed off when celebrities voice political opinions but seem not to get pissed off when “entertainers” such as Limbaugh and Hannity do it. That’s all I did, so spare me the snide questions implying I said something I didn’t, mmkay?
(I think I may have to adopt as my sig line Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s famous comment: “You said what I didn’t say so shove it!”)
It happens on this board time after time after time after time after time after…well, you know.
Wow. A third version of your argument.
Let’s review:
People expect political speech from Rush, but not from other entertainers, therefore it is justified for him and not for them.
Countered: People also expect political speech from Streisand, and Springsteen’s tour is clearly advertised as political in nature.
Rush is a “professional political commentator”, and thus by virtue of that title he is justified in political speech.
Countered: It would be wrong to limit political speech to “professional political commentators”, they are in many (most?) cases no more qualified than others, and in Rush’s case they too are entertainers who use their celebrity to push opinions on people.
Celebrities shouldn’t try to convince people merely by virtue of their celebrity.
Countered: You don’t think people like Rush convince people by the power of their celebrity? I didn’t take you for being that naive. Rush is no expert on many of the opinions he pushes on his followers.
Not to mention that you make no room for celebrities who actually have a reasoned opinion.
Surely you agree that, while being a celebrity is no guarantee of a reasoned argument, it is also does not make such an impossibility.
I can, of course, show you your posts in which you make all three of these arguments. In all honesty, your first argument was your strongest, and the one you have ended up with is the most hypocritical. I await the fourth incarnation.
Is anyone else detecting mind control paranoia from Starving Artist?
Somehow, Linda Ronstadt telling people to see F-911 = Linda Ronstadt using her “celebrity mind tricks” to force her opinions into the vulnerable brains of the audience.
Seriously, if liberal celebs had these mind control powers, Bush would not be president.
A much better argument could be used to show that Rush, because of how he is looked up to by many hardcore fans, is able to make them believe things without good evidence.
I’m not making that argument, just saying that SA’s own arguments are more damning to Rush and his like than to Ronstadt and hers.
Starving Artist, you’ve changed the subject so many times in this thread, even you have no idea what you’re talking about!
AHEM!..
That’s what my story has to do with! You made a contention, I refuted it with contradictory evidence, showing that not everyone takes the kind of offense you seem to at these “unexpected” outbursts at concerts.
Except that this is not Springsteen’s concert series, and the purpose isn’t to convert people to his point of view. It’s a fundraiser that’s actually being organized by two political groups, no different from any other fundraiser where the organizer hires either an entertainer or a speaker or someone to draw the crowd, and he’s just the headliner. Given that that’s what I do for a living, I feel qualified in stating that their target audience are more likely than not to already share their politics. And if someone who isn’t a Democrat decides to buy a ticket to one of the concerts, they’ll be doing so fully informed up front that there will be politics discussed at these events, so the performers can’t be accused of an “unexpected” ambush, which seems to have been another one of your primary complaints.
I take it you’ll be retracting your objection to these concerts, now that you know they’re actually political events being put on by honest-to-goodness political organizations?
Since its inception in 1986, The Streisand Foundation has made grants totaling more than 13 million dollars to national organizations working on the preservation of the environment, voter education, the protection of civil liberties and civil rights, women’s issues and nuclear disarmament.
<snip>
At this time, The Streisand Foundation [offers grants to] organizations that are working on a national level to promote and support: [ul]
[li]Environmental issues [/li][li]Women’s issues including choice and health-related concerns [/li][li]Civil liberties and democratic values [/li][li]Civil rights and race relations [/li][li]Children’s and youth-related issues with a focus on the economically disadvantaged (Los Angeles-based only) [/li][li]AIDS research, advocacy, service and litigation [/ul][/li][/quote]
Now, what, exactly, do you think politicians do? Have you seen the “issues” links on the Presidential candidates’ websites? Paid attention to the news? Does the environment, healthcare, Social Security, education, nuclear disarmament, the budget, the global economy or tax reform ring any bells to you? Do you really want to stand by your contention that Barbra Streisand isn’t working to do something about these issues?
Nightime, with your propensity to put your own spin on the words of others, I’m guessing you must be a television journalist, talk show host, or other form of liberal lackey since these are the ones who usually seem to feel the need to provide people with an analysis of what they just heard.
As for myself, I’m quite content to let my words as posted throughout this thread speak for themselves. I’m also quite content to let those who read them decide for themselves their true meaning.
SA:I came into this thread to explain why I thought people get pissed off when celebrities voice political opinions but seem not to get pissed off when “entertainers” such as Limbaugh and Hannity do it.
Fourth hypothesis:
4) The people who get pissed off tend to be conservatives who don’t mind hearing entertainers voice political opinions as long as they’re conservative political opinions.
I don’t know whether this is actually true, but the whole “entertainers should shut up about politics” attitude does seem to be much more of a conservative phenomenon than a liberal one. I have never heard a liberal complaining, for instance, that Britney Spears wasn’t “qualified” to say that we should all support the President on the invasion of Iraq. Or that Mel Gibson isn’t “qualified” to criticize abortion rights, feminism, or Bill Clinton.
I may not agree with the entertainers who stump for conservative positions, but I’d never consider that they are somehow not “qualified” to use their celebrity status to express their political opinions. I think many, if not most, conservatives are similarly tolerant of entertainers who stump for liberal positions.
But it does seem to me that the minority like SA who would argue that entertainers don’t have the “qualifications” to engage in public political debate are much more likely to be conservatives than liberals. And naturally, when those people hear conservative entertainers talking politics, it doesn’t bug them so much.
Shayna, Shayna, Shayna…I hardly know where to start. Oh, how about here:
I’ve changed the subject? All I’ve done is answer posts directed at me and tried to explain away the intentional and unintentional misrepresentations of what I said. The subject changing has all been on your side, my dear. I’ve merely followed suit.
You attempt to impale me with a false premise. I never said nor implied that everyone takes offense at celebrity evangelizing.
Perhaps. What are the two political groups? Left and lefter? If left and right in equal amounts, I will certainly eat my words, humbly and with salt.
Why, I think they run for office. I think they tell people what they believe and what they’ll work to try to accomplish. I think they wait to see if people are pleased enough with what they hear to vote for and elect them. Then, if elected, I think that politicians are beholden to and answerable to the public (at least in theory). I think politicians lose their jobs if the people they serve don’t think they’re doing a good job or the right kind of job.
While I truly do appreciate the time and effort you put into your post, I do have to say yes, I still stand by it. Why? Because once again I didn’t say what you claim I said. I never said she didn’t work to try to accomplish changes she is in favor of. I said (by implication, and with more added below for clarification) that if she ran for office, made her positions and beliefs known to the public where they could be challenged and she could offer rebuttals, got elected, and worked for the public good in order to effect changes she believed in, I would have more respect for her. I’ve seen nothing to make me think I’m wrong.
It’s no great shakes for a pampered, willful, rich celebrity to put her money to work behind the scenes, where she’s responsible for nothing and answerable to no one, to try to accomplish things she herself wants to see accomplished. It isn’t noble and it isn’t admirable. Let her put her butt out there where she has to answer for her actions (probably for the first time in her life), and work with people on the other side of the aisle who have their own constituencies and sets of problems to contend with, and try to accomplish change through the framework set up by our founding fathers, and then actually accomplish it, and then and only then would she, in my opinion, be worthy of praise as a celebrity who is putting her butt where her mouth is (you’ll pardon the tortured metaphore, I’m sure ) and working for change in such a way that is both admirable and carries weight. You know…like Arnold and Ronnie, and yes, even Sonny. (Have you noticed that it’s usually the celebrities on the right who are willing to get down and dirty and take on the mundane, unpleasant and frustrating day-to-day activities of the real life politician in order to make a difference, while it’s usually those on the left who prefer to throw only words and money?)
SA:Have you noticed that it’s usually the celebrities on the right who are willing to get down and dirty and take on the mundane, unpleasant and frustrating day-to-day activities of the real life politician in order to make a difference […]
I wouldn’t agree with your take on the left/right difference here, but I must say it’s heartening to see a conservative with such a sympathetic, positive view of politicians doing their jobs. The viewpoint I generally hear from conservatives (and from some liberals too) is that politicians are venal greedbags who pander their way into power in order to tell other people how to run their lives.
Okay, this is your opinion although I’m at a loss as to what it pertains to. You apparently directed this at me but I’ve certainly never said any such thing. I’m sure the people who get pissed off have a wide variety of reasons.
Hmm…I wonder why that is. Oh, I know…it’s because almost every time you have a big mouth celebrity either telling people what to think, or criticizing Americans for being stupid, or apologizing for America, it’s a liberal who’s doing it! Let’s see who comes to mind here, shall we? How about the Dixie Chicks? How about Linda Ronstadt? How about Michael Moore? How about …well, you know, the list goes on and on.
If Britney Spears was the only one proselytizing for the left (or hell, even Christina Aguillera) you wouldn’t be hearing much complaint from the right I’m sure. And Mel Gibson did what? Make a movie? Big deal. I don’t see him showing up at political rallies and conventions and ranting and raving about how crappy life in America is and/or how crappy America itself is.
You seem to be focusing on the “qualifications” aspect of my posts. My complaint is 90% that it’s conceited and arrogant for them to try to use the fame and good will their careers have provided them to tell their fans and audiences what to think. And this is made even more offensive by virtue of the fact that they also don’t know any more what they’re talking about than does Joe Blow next door, but they think their words will carry more weight and influence their fans just because they are such wonderful, luminous stars!
As I’ve said before and absolutely no one has refuted, there is no other reason for them to be evangelizing in this way. Again, their knowledge doesn’t make them any kind of authority so what other reason is there? The simple fact that they believe they are so cool/beautiful/talented/popular/whatever, and that because they are so wonderful, people will look at things the way they want, or vote the way they want. And there are those of us who find that kind of arrogant conceit presumptious and offensive.
Oh, is that what it is? And here I thought it was Big Steamin’ Piles of Weasly Evasive Bullshit™, just like the stuff he shovels into most other threads where he “participates” in. :rolleyes:
Damn! I thought I was gonna get through a whole night in which I didn’t have to read any of your inane and invariably wrong bullshit. Oh, well…c’est la vie.
And by the way, you never did apologize for your mischaracterization of my posts in the Diogenes thread. You had the chance to prove yourself a man of character and class, but, predictably, you didn’t.
What on earth qualifies you to determine or judge that someone who’s achieved a level of celebrity due to a talent in a specific art doesn’t know what they’re talking about with regard to politics, let alone to judge their motives??! Are you a politician by education, training and trade? If not, what the hell qualifies you to give your opinion on politics or to try to sway people to come to accept your viewpoint? I submit that it’s you who is arrogant!
And the reason they are “evangelizing” :rolleyes: in this way is exactly the reason I gave you in my first reply to you on page 1 of this thread – because they’re citizens of the United States and because they have the right to speak their mind on matters related to their government and how it’s being run! How thick are you?
I was going to post something about how SA had reached new heights of hypocrisy by claiming that Streisand, unlike Rush, should be silent on her political views because she is not running for office. Unlike senator Rush, of course.
Then I was going to post about how it is the pinnacle of anti-democracy to claim that it is inappropriate for non-elected officials to have anything to do with politics (with inexplicable exceptions for people like Rush).
But when someone posts things like : “Big deal. I don’t see him showing up at political rallies and conventions and ranting and raving about how crappy life in America is”, they are admitting that it is the content of the political speech they despise, rather than the fact that it is a celebrity doing it.
I’m glad we finally got that sorted out, and I look forward to the day when the Republican party will no longer be plagued with those like
who deem political speech that he disagrees with to be “inappropriate”.
In fairness, I recognize that most Republicans disagree with his view, and that his view seems to be shaped in large part by resentment towards celebrities, as evidenced by quotes like: “The simple fact that they believe they are so cool/beautiful/talented/popular/whatever, and that because they are so wonderful, people will look at things the way they want”
Such a criticism could well be levelled at those such as Rush, who use their image and popularity to manipulate their followers. But it rings false when used against those such as Streisand, who have no comparable followers, and who in fact achieve their ends through political contributions and activism - integral parts of democracy.
First of all, if you want to get ugly and condescending, I’m probably more up for it than you. But be that as it may, I submit two things. One is that you should calm down. You have your health to think of, you know.
The other is that this is the SDMB. This is where people are supposed to go to voice their opinions. And as you are so fond of pointing out when it’s aimed the other way, everyone has a right to their own opinion. And whether you like it or not, that includes me.
And just how thick are you, dear?
Again, (sorry about the upcoming caps but you don’t seem to be getting the message) I NEVER SAID, NOR DO I BELIEVE, THAT THEY DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK THEIR MINDS!
Shall I say it again, sweetie?
I NEVER SAID, NOR DO I BELIEVE, THAT THEY DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK THEIR MINDS!
What I am saying is that they are full of it for thinking they can influence events simply by virtue of their celebrity, and similarly, that they are not (and should not be) immune to criticism or vitriol should they choose to display their arrogant conceit in this manner. We all have rights, you know, and my right to disdain and condemn them is every bit as valid as their right to speak up, or your right to take up for them.
Okay, calm now? Ready to get down off the old high horse now? Uh…I’m listening?
) and working for change in such a way that is both admirable and carries weight. You know…like Arnold and Ronnie, and yes, even Sonny. (Have you noticed that it’s usually the celebrities on the right who are willing to get down and dirty and take on the mundane, unpleasant and frustrating day-to-day activities of the real life politician in order to make a difference, while it’s usually those on the left who prefer to throw only words and money?)