 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
The reason Republican actors are discriminated against is because they are terrible actors.
To be a good actor you need a high degree of empathy with other human beings: not the Republican strong point. |
Actually a better indicator of acting potential is a personality disorder, typically the inability to set / recognize boundaries. Hence the tendency for actors to marry serially and get overly involved with every weepy left-wing cause that comes along. They don't just think of the children, they are the children, and the crying mothers, and the do-gooder hero simulataneously. For every great actor who can usually summon the determination / mental health / discipline to perform up to Hollywood's inexacting standards for actors, there are probably 20 great actors who can't keep it together.
Of course that is only one type of acting, people like John Wayne, Bruce Willis, Tom Cruise, Arnold make a living by playing a popular character type over and over. This is still acting for the most part, as in real life these guys don't kill 25 others in 15 minutes. But in this case the characters created by this sort of actor tend to be closer to their real personnae. Probably this is in part a case of the actor's deep personality moving toward his popular persona to some degree as it becomes associated with him.
This group tends to be much more stable emotionally and tend to have far more successful personal lives and business interests. They also vary quite a bit in their acting ability, but few of this type are so skilled that they are going to be compared with DiNiro in their ability to completely disappear within a character, (a skill which in some cases can be more of a distraction than benefit).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
What a joke. Of course the typical rightwingers are going to agree with Ming. That makes them just as irrational.
Would anyone else like to continue the argument since Ming has bailed?
I repeat: it is one thing to boycott Shell Oil because the company is killing Nigerians, and another to boycott Shell Oil because their CEO expresses a political preference for George Bush. In the first case the aim is to prevent the company from doing something that you think is wrong. In the second case the aim is to prevent someone saying something you think is wrong.
Similarly, boycotting the Dixie Chicks because you think their music is an evil influence on children (!) is different from boycotting it because their singer says that she doesn't like George Bush. In the first case your aim is to prevent harm coming to children, whereas in the second case your aim is to prevent someone saying something you disagree with.
The first kind are justifiable boycotts, the second kind are an odious attempt to prevent free political expression.
Last edited by Agathon on 26-07-2004 at 14:30
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
What a joke. Of course the typical rightwingers are going to agree with Ming. That makes them just as irrational.
Would anyone else like to continue the argument since Ming has bailed?
I repeat: it is one thing to boycott Shell Oil because the company is killing Nigerians, and another to boycott Shell Oil because their CEO expresses a political preference for George Bush. In the first case the aim is to prevent the company from doing something that you think is wrong. In the second case the aim is to prevent someone saying something you think is wrong.
Similarly, boycotting the Dixie Chicks because you think their music is an evil influence on children (!) is different from boycotting it because their singer says that she doesn't like George Bush. In the first case your aim is to prevent harm coming to children, whereas in the second case your aim is to prevent someone saying something you disagree with.
The first kind are justifiable boycotts, the second kind are an odious attempt to prevent free political expression. |
Nonsense. The aim in the second cases is to withdraw your financial support for something one disagrees with not to prevent their ability to speak as they like.
Last edited by SpencerH on 26-07-2004 at 21:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
On the flip side, if you invest or spend money only with earthy-crunchy hippie-dippy animal friendly leftist businesses or products, why aren't you then effectively engaging in an "odious attempt to prevent free political expression?" You're still choosing to spend money and apply economic power where you want  based on ideological preferences. I know that's probably a shocking concept out there "left of Lenin" but in the regular universe, it's a pretty standard concept. You spend or invest your money where you want, based on whatever criteria you want, end of story. |
In defense of Aggie, he does allow for boycotts just doesn't think that ones specifically targetted to political speak is a justified use of them.
So in the example you gave MTG, the earthy-crunchy hippie-dippie products may have an evnironmental benefit that he could claim as a reason to use them over the capitalistic earth killing, neo-nazi, corporatist scumbag product alternatives. 
The point I made earlier tho' regarding boycotts is that they are not punative as that assumes the company/person/entity is entitled to ongoing rewards of you buying their product. This is clearly not the case. Any future sales are based upon merit of the product and included in that is the merit of the supplier being offered and does go to your point that the decision to invest in that product is based upon your discretion only. This is completely different than say incarceration, damaging property, threat to life and limb as these are real and true damages.
I find it interesting that there is no mention of indivdual accountability in the actions of the supplier. Were we to use the Linda Ronstadt example she as a supplier of entertainment must know that her product is not simply her music but her presentation. To offer a displeasing presentation is to offer an inferior product.
To use the example of the Shell CEO, his mission is to convey the best possible image to his investors and act as a salesman to the market. If by choosing to engage in political discourse this causes a negative impression of the company and/or cause lost sales he should be held responsible.
Further, and this goes to the heart of your and Ming's points, to hold the gerneral public to continue to have to purchase these products if they wish not to is a larger infringment on many peoples rights to free speach.
To have free speach is and should be guaranteed, to have tact and civility should be encouraged else one should pay the personal consequences of social stigma.
 Interesting concept civility and tact during discourse.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
|
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
That's part of my point. I think we as a society should be mature enough to separate someone's employment from their personal politics and to accept that someone's support of a mainstream political party isn't really relevant to the worth of their products. After all, none of us would like to be discriminated against in this way, and if we can accept each others' difference and save resolution of our political differences for the ballot, without trying to threaten anyone into silence, I think it would be a better world.
|
It does raise an issue. One that universally seems to be held but not necessarily correctly. It is generally believed that public personailities sacrifice their private life once held in the public eye. The paparazzi following public figures spying on them etc. is an indication that all is fair once in the public eye. The price of fame as it were.
Knowing this is inevitable tho' public figures (entertainers, CEO's politicians) need to understand their actions and words carry much more weight than the little man (to use Ming phraseology). As a conseqeunce their choice to voice controversial statements is in fact their choice and will have intended or unintended consequences. There is little that can be done regarding this unless they choose to pull a Johnny Carson and retreat from the world or otherwise yield their fame.
Moreover, the distinction between political issues and other issues becomes blurred and is not readily discernible. In the example, MtG posed the use of lefitist companies over right wing leaning companies may on the one hand be a decision to help the environment or it could also be a decision based upon politics. If we follow the saying everything is politically motivated this then doesn't allow for boycotts at all, which you have repeatedly stated is not necessarily what you espouse.
quote:
I agree with you that the person is not simply entitled to your custom. My point is that it would be better from a free speech perspective if we chose not to make our buying decisions this way, since people could speak freely without fear.
Let me say that it's not a left/right issue. I find it just as odious when my side does it (and they do). |
Wrt freedom of fear or reprisal, I think it appropriate to understand that ability to voice one's opinion should always be maintained but likewise one should always remember your stated views then allow others the oportunity to likewise voice theirs. If you fear confrontation of ideas how is this any different, it in effect muzzles folk from voicing their opinion?
People here have tried to make the arguement that boycottting is an opportunity for others to utilize their right to free speach in reaction to a voiced issue. It would be nigh impossible IMO to segregate political ideas from others.
Even in the case of Ronstadt, the displeasure may have been the invoking and hatred of leftist Moore or may have been a more gutteral reaction that was more along the lines of "Can't I just go to one damn Vegas show without having to listen to political messages". In the first case one could easily argue the political leanings of the crowd were the base motive while in the second it would be much more difficult, IMO.
Finally, even if one were able to separate political ideology from more mundane issues what makes political issues more sacred to protect than those of a more mundane nature. Isn't the purpose of free speach to protect all topics of speach, not just those of particular importance to specific people?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-07-2004 22:32
ACK!
Ming wins! 
|