- Joined
- Sep 9, 2007
- Messages
- 10,620
- Reaction score
- 3,892
I don't know why they do it unless they feel morally compelled. It never really helps them and can only hurt them.
Is the preaching that bothers people. The insistent preaching from their very unique and comfortable perspective that resembles nothing like the real world.
It's the same as the behavior and attitude of degenerate aristocrats or royals in the past. Rules are for everyone else, they are exempt.
They lectured people on fidelity and passed harsh laws to punish adultery and rationed goods, while openly keeping mistresses and engaging in the most wasteful personal indulgences. They actually believe that such things applies to others, not themselves.
Now we got celebrities and billionaires owning multiple palaces with a fleet of vehicles and private jets while belittling and attacking people for owning an SUV. Advocating for socialist governments that tax people to death while their own accountants take advantage of every loophole and tax shelters when it comes to their own money.
Is the preaching that bothers people. The insistent preaching from their very unique and comfortable perspective that resembles nothing like the real world.
LMAOAt the latest Oscars I hear some people quoted the communist manifesto, I do hope they were trying to be ironic
The Oscars committe didn't have a problem with the opinions so don't know why you are saying it is their perogative to say what is and is not acceptable speech. It is only conservatives who are griping about what was said. T.S. rhetorically asks if Celebs should give their political opinon, to which my answer is why shouldn't they.This is true
Also true. Although I do believe (hope) that those monikers only apply to a few attendees.
Free speech applies to the government limiting speech. A televised awards show for movies can indeed limit, curtail, omit, or edit what makes the airways. The actors speaking their minds is of course permitted, but if I would be more inclined to accept their sincerity if they paid for the prime time themselves when they chose to do so.
This is a very valid point. Hyper-valid? Uber-true?
As I pointed out, freedom of speech only applies to the government limiting speech. The Oscar people can have any rules they want for their show. I suspect ratings might improve if they limited speeches to the topic of film-making and acting.
See above.
Look lets keep it simple. Celebrities can give their opinion if they like. Some may be right, others way off. Funny thing though, when celebrities agree with our individual beliefs, we don't seem to mind do we?Or should they keep it to themselves?
During the Oscars or other award ceremonies are times celebs sometimes discuss political issues. Hell, Joaquin Phoenix upon winning the Academy Award for Best Actor for the movie Joker, did not discuss the movie at all really, he gave a speech on society, humanity, and equal rights.
Brad Pitt made a reference to Trump's impeachment hearing.
Now some may argue: Celebrities have the attention of the entire world, the noble thing to do is to use it to draw attention to causes or social or political issues.
Others may argue: A celebrity's job is to act. We aren't watching them to hear about their opinions on politics or anything else.
Now it seems like most people seem to get upset if a celebrity's political opinion is in conflict with their own beliefs and don't mind as much if the celeb is saying something that they agree with.
It may also appear to some that celebrity speeches are a sort of circle-jerk; a display virtue signalling and repeating safe talking points such as "racism bad", "Donald Trump bad", "Immigrants are human too" and other points that will be popular in a left-leaning Hollywood.
What do you think?
Sure. They're only human, sort of...
What I would suggest however, is that major political parties don't prop them up and treat them like serious political figures and attach themselves to them.
Or elect them president?