Celebrities And The News (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

It seems odd, doesn't it, that every time some left-wing celebrity opens their mouth about politics, we're told or asked these things by the left-of-center in the political threads:

1. He or she does not speak for the left
   
2. Why do you care anyway? You must be insecure
   
3. It isn't really news, so you shouldn't get all your dander up about it 
   

Well Jussie Smollett, for me, has finally blown this out of the water. It was tirelessly covered by mainstream press, everybody felt free to weigh in on it (and by extension, Trump's America) and its ramifications, and it was unavoidable. 

So here's my topic: Left wingers, you own your celebrities just like you've ascribed ownership on the right to its more outspoken pieces (pieces of what?). Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, and Bruce Springsteen, and Robert De Niro, and all that rot, they're yours. 

Get over telling us to get over it. They suck. They're news. They're part of your political movement.  

-RA

 

[rockaction]

I too, like free booze.

I'm in the ornery three-quarters of a Sober February (Month) and I await March 9th with great expectations.

eta* Okay, I lied. There's no March 9th. I'm telling myself that. I'm going dry. Ooooooooooooooooooof.   

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

What exactly does it mean for us to “own” these celebrities?  

 

[rockaction]

What exactly does it mean for us to “own” these celebrities?  

Well, yeah, that's kind of a colloquialism. Every time some Hollywood actor or actress shoots off his/her mouth, we're told that it's not news, that person doesn't speak for our political movement writ large, there's the requisite hand-wringing over conservative hand-wringing, etc. 

By ownership I mean that there's an understanding that they are fellows in the larger political calculus/caucus that is the left. That there is no monopoly on news and the left by serious political commentators alone, but that it certainly is shaped by other elites in some fashion or another. Celebrity has a megaphone that the best PACs, charities, etc. don't even have, and they're not afraid to use it as a cudgel. 

I mean that there's really no way for a modern American leftist to distance himself from the cult of celebrity and its politics, which often comes from a dreamy left-wing worldview that is certainly helped along by gobs of fame and money, not to mention a willing press that makes their political musings

1. Ubiquitous 
   
2. Unavoidable
   
3. News
   

 

[badmojo1006]

It seems odd, doesn't it, that every time some idiot left-wing celebrity opens their mouth, we're told or asked these things by the left-of-center in the political threads

1. He or she does not speak for the left
   
2. Why do you care anyway? You must be insecure
   
3. It isn't really news, so you shouldn't get all your dander up about it 
   

Well Jussie Smollett, for me, has finally blown this out of the water. It was tirelessly covered by mainstream press, everybody felt free to weigh in on it (and by extension, Trump's America) and its ramifications, and it was unavoidable. 

So here's my topic: Left wingers, you own your celebrities just like you've ascribed ownership on the right to its more outspoken pieces (pieces of what?). Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, and Bruce Springsteen, and Robert De Niro, and all that rot, they're yours. 

Get over telling us to get over it. They suck. They're news. They're part of your political movement.  

-RA

I'd rather have all them, then one Ted Nugent 

 

[rockaction]

I'd rather have all them, then one Ted Nugent 

That's what I mean by ownership. If we're told that we -- as conservatives -- have to own or explain away The Nuge and Duck Dynasty, you guys at least gotta be responsible for Jussie and Ellen Page and the rest of that rot.  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

That's what I mean. If we're told that we -- as conservatives -- have to own the Nuge and Duck Dynasty, you guys at least gotta be responsible for Jussie and Ellen Page and the rest of that rot.  

Doesn’t it make more sense for neither side to own these celebrities?  Do you actually want to have Nugent and the Duck Dynasty guys speaking for you?

Also, there are probably like twenty times as many left wing celebrities as right wing ones.  Doesn’t really seem fair for us to have to own that many more.

 

[rockaction]

Doesn’t it make more sense for neither side to own these celebrities?  Do you actually want to have Nugent and the Duck Dynasty guys speaking for you?

Also, there are probably like twenty times as many left wing celebrities as right wing ones.  Doesn’t really seem fair for us to have to own that many more.

I'd love to. Please.

But we can't. The disproportionate power that the elites wield is impossible to ignore. So long as the press is willing, there will always be a sociopolitical megaphone for the artist/celebrity to use. It would be nice if people like us on this board were concerned with and only with the latest quarterly of Foreign Policy or something of its domestic ilk, but that's not how the modern news works and isn't how we get our information. 

To fully drop out is not only very hard, it can be very dangerous to be wildly uninformed. 

I think it's best to take a page out of the playbook of the left-libertarians circa 2006 and say, "you know what, we have an imbalance of power that's impossible to be corrected without the acknowledgment of an intractable problem that requires pragmatic solutions." In this case, the overwhelming amount of influence that the elites wield can be mitigated by admitting that each ideology's political platform takes shape, in part, from the ideas and proclivities of these elites. 

In other words, one "owns" them as one's fellow travelers. The right already must do this in the court of the news and public opinion. It's time for the left to start.  

I see no other way.  

eta* For the right, it would seem that the "celebrities" are often businessmen and donors. The phrase "follow the money" arises from this. "Follow the celebrity or artist" would be a good mantra for the right to use on the left. I know that twenty years ago I began following far-out celebrities or artists to figure out where the left would be in the future, and often, it came to fruition.  

 

[Dickies]

If a celebrity does something I agree with, regardless of prevailing thoughts on any given subject I’ll be happy to “own” it, but I’m not seeing why I need to own a fake hate crime by an actor I’ve never heard of, or blackface that wasn’t common knowledge at election time by a politician that’s not in my state. 

If a politician admits to something awful, like sexually assaulting women, and I vote for him anyways then I should own it

 

[eurotrashman]

I currently don't own any celebrities.  

 

[rockaction]

If a celebrity does something I agree with, regardless of prevailing thoughts on any given subject I’ll be happy to “own” it, but I’m not seeing why I need to own a fake hate crime by an actor I’ve never heard of, or blackface that wasn’t common knowledge at election time by a politician that’s not in my state. 

If a politician admits to something awful, like sexually assaulting women, and I vote for him anyways then I should own it

Yeah, you know, I'm not talking about feeling responsible for political acts and deception, nor am I talking about having to "own" sexual assault, fake hate crimes, racism, sexism, or the like. 

I'm talking about broader notions of sociopolitical views that wind up in the political zeitgeist writ large. 

"Ownership" was the wrong word to use. I think I really mean admitting that there are some crazy, or at the very least, non-traditional ideas being proffered by those that are otherwise fellow travelers. What I'd like to see is this:  

1. An acknowledgment that the crazy or non-traditional idea is coming from an otherwise fellow traveler
   
2. An agreement or disagreement with the crazy, non-traditional idea
   
3. A discussion about how much sway that non-traditional idea has within the party ideology that best fits the purveyor's worldview
   

Mea culpa on "ownership," which is a loaded word in some respects and should have been better used rather than as a colloquial on my end. 

 

[rockaction]

I currently don't own any celebrities.  

Which, when one thinks about it, is probably good considering the laws we have against specific performance.  

 

[[scooter]]

It seems odd, doesn't it, that every time some left-wing celebrity opens their mouth about politics, we're told or asked these things by the left-of-center in the political threads:

1. He or she does not speak for the left
   
2. Why do you care anyway? You must be insecure
   
3. It isn't really news, so you shouldn't get all your dander up about it 
   

Well Jussie Smollett, for me, has finally blown this out of the water. It was tirelessly covered by mainstream press, everybody felt free to weigh in on it (and by extension, Trump's America) and its ramifications, and it was unavoidable. 

So here's my topic: Left wingers, you own your celebrities just like you've ascribed ownership on the right to its more outspoken pieces (pieces of what?). Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, and Bruce Springsteen, and Robert De Niro, and all that rot, they're yours. 

Get over telling us to get over it. They suck. They're news. They're part of your political movement.  

-RA

The Duck Dynasty guy was brought on to a prominent Fox News program to espouse his thoughts on health care legislation.

Jussie Smollett has not been given such a platform.

Trying to tie Smollett to celebrities who advocate for any cause (whether they are liberal or conservative) is a stretch.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

As modified I think I generally agree with your premise.  When a lefty celebrity says something it’s pretty likely that at least some other lefties think it too.

 

[rockaction]

The Duck Dynasty guy was brought on to a prominent Fox News program to espouse his thoughts on health care legislation.

Jussie Smollett has not been given such a platform.

Trying to tie Smollett to celebrities who advocate for any cause (whether they are liberal or conservative) is a stretch.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. 

I was using him as an example of how celebrities/artists and their interesting politics are concretely becoming nightly network news fodder.  

I would say that environmental advocates like DiCaprio and others have gotten due coverage on MSNBC, Fox's counterpoint. 

 

[rockaction]

As modified I think I generally agree with your premise.  When a lefty celebrity says something it’s pretty likely that at least some other lefties think it too.

Much like The Nuge and Duck Dynasty guys can be found in the conservative right somewhere. I think it's a premise that was worded with a little bit of populism. As refined, I'm glad you think it holds. I don't want people to constantly have to apologize for nefarious and/or hostile acts committed by those they agree with on other things, but when worldview and policy are implicated, I think it's valuable to have a discussion and search for how much influence that idea holds within the respective party platform/ideology.  

 

[The General]

I guess we’ll at least have all the good music, movies, comedy, books.

Enjoy your town hall hosted by Dennis Miller discussing the latest “Killing So and So” word salad from Bill O’Reily followed by a Ted Nugent show. Maybe play some catch with Curt Schilling.

 

[rockaction]

I guess we’ll at least have all the good music, movies, comedy, books.

Enjoy your town hall hosted by Dennis Miller discussing the latest “Killing So and So” word salad from Bill O’Reily followed by a Ted Nugent show. Maybe play some catch with Curt Schilling.

Two words: 

David. Mamet. 

Hah! We're all going to see the newest right-wing play on Broadway.  

 

[The General]

Two words: 

David. Mamet. 

Hah! We're all going to see the newest right-wing play on Broadway.  

Is it a one man show staring Jon Voigt?

 

[Dickies]

Yeah, you know, I'm not talking about feeling responsible for political acts and deception, nor am I talking about having to "own" sexual assault, fake hate crimes, racism, sexism, or the like. 

I'm talking about broader notions of sociopolitical views that wind up in the political zeitgeist writ large. 

"Ownership" was the wrong word to use. I think I really mean admitting that there are some crazy, or at the very least, non-traditional ideas being proffered by those that are otherwise fellow travelers. What I'd like to see is this:  

1. An acknowledgment that the crazy or non-traditional idea is coming from an otherwise fellow traveler
   
2. An agreement or disagreement with the crazy, non-traditional idea
   
3. A discussion about how much sway that non-traditional idea has within the party ideology that best fits the purveyor's worldview
   

Mea culpa on "ownership," which is a loaded word in some respects and should have been better used rather than as a colloquial on my end. 

I guess I misunderstood you based on your first post and I don’t want to speak for everyone, but there are very few people in this world that perfectly match my world view, and I can’t think of a single celebrity or politician that does. 

Likewise, I may share many of the same political beliefs as a politician or celebrity and think they are a moron when it comes to life in general. I’m sure Gwyneth Paltrow is liberal politically, but I don’t think shoving metal balls up into vaginas provides health benefits, nor do I think Kevlar stickers alter anyone’s energy  She’s certifiable  

i wish we could stick to one issue at a time and not label X issue as crazy because Y issue is also crazy. 

 

[rockaction]

Is it a one man show staring Jon Voigt?

It's a childhood upbringing and sexual tell-all, taking a page out of Billy Crystal and John Leguizamo's playbill.  

 

[The General]

It's a childhood upbringing and sexual tell-all, taking a page out of Billy Crystal and John Leguizamo's playbill.  

Ok. I’d probably want to see this.

 

[Franknbeans]

I avoided it. It wasn't hard.

 

[rockaction]

I guess I misunderstood you based on your first post and I don’t want to speak for everyone, but there are very few people in this world that perfectly match my world view, and I can’t think of a single celebrity or politician that does. 

Likewise, I may share many of the same political beliefs as a politician or celebrity and think they are a moron when it comes to life in general. I’m sure Gwyneth Paltrow is liberal politically, but I don’t think shoving metal balls up into vaginas provides health benefits, nor do I think Kevlar stickers alter anyone’s energy  She’s certifiable  

i wish we could stick to one issue at a time and not label X issue as crazy because Y issue is also crazy. 

Yeah, I agree. That's why when a non-traditional idea that implicates policy or worldview is implicated, we can discuss it and generally ascribe it to one political ideology. 

This is a general thought, though. There are issues and instances that don't apply or would be impossible to ascribe to a particular ideology or "side." For example, the anti-vaccination movement is darn nigh impossible to separate out from the Hollywood/Ultra rich liberal left and the religious/uneducated right. One side mistrusts pharmaceutical companies, the other side mistrusts the science behind it.  

Stuff like like that. But see? The exercise itself -- knowing from what demographic and what worldview the policy belief comes from is important.  

 

[Dickies]

Yeah, I agree. That's why when a non-traditional idea that implicates policy or worldview is implicated, we can discuss it and generally ascribe it to one political ideology. 

This is a general thought, though. There are issues and instances that don't apply or would be impossible to ascribe to a particular ideology or "side." For example, the anti-vaccination movement is darn nigh impossible to separate out from the Hollywood/Ultra rich liberal left and the religious/uneducated right. One side mistrusts pharmaceutical companies, the other side mistrusts the science behind it.  

Stuff like like that. But see? The exercise itself -- knowing from what demographic and what worldview the policy belief comes from is important.  

Why is that important?  In your example both sides are coming to the same stupid conclusion for entirely different stupid reasons.  I think knowing the actual arguments for or against an issue and the underlying reasons why are important, but I don’t see the point in assigning demographic trends to them. 

 

[rockaction]

Why is that important?  In your example both sides are coming to the same stupid conclusion for entirely different stupid reasons.  I think knowing the actual arguments for or against an issue and the underlying reasons why are important, but I don’t see the point in assigning demographic trends to them. 

I think when public policy is implicated, knowing its intellectual history as it relates to each side's ideology is important in order to craft informational campaigns that effectively target the demographic and address their concerns regarding the issue. It is worthwhile for any ideology to understand its fellow travelers' concerns regarding the crafting and promotion of policy. 

I especially think this informational tactic helps with regard to public health and the spread of disease, infections, etc.   

 

[Dickies]

I think when public policy is implicated, knowing its intellectual history as it relates to each side's ideology is important in order to craft informational campaigns that effectively target the demographic and address their concerns regarding the issue. It is worthwhile for any ideology to understand its fellow travelers concerns regarding the crafting and promotion of policy. 

I especially think this informational tactic helps with regard to public health and the spread of disease, infections, etc.   

This will be my last post and I’ll sit back and read smarter peoples’ posts on this because I can’t tell if I disagree or just don’t fully understand what you are getting at. 

I’m trying to think of examples as they relate to me, and what’s jumping to mind is prison reform and legalizing drugs. I support both, quite strongly. There are some reasons for each that intersect, but fundamentally I want each for different reasons. 

 

[rockaction]

This will be my last post and I’ll sit back and read smarter peoples’ posts on this because I can’t tell if I disagree or just don’t fully understand what you are getting at. 

I’m trying to think of examples as they relate to me, and what’s jumping to mind is prison reform and legalizing drugs. I support both, quite strongly. There are some reasons for each that intersect, but fundamentally I want each for different reasons. 

Okay. It just started out as a gripe about the distancing the left does from its more non-traditional or crazy elements while watching the left magically ascribe the ideology of the right to its more non-traditional or crazy elements as representative of its overall platform.

It's a gripe that is getting a little bit gussied up in its discussion. What I'm really trying to say is what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Owning celebrities seems fine, but we shouldn’t all own the same ones. That would be chaos. When it comes to owning other people, I think we should be as orderly and egalitarian about it as possible.

I guess I’ll start.

1.01 - Britney Spears.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Owning celebrities seems fine, but we shouldn’t all own the same ones. That would be chaos. When It comes to owning other people, I think we should be as orderly and egalitarian about it as possible.

I guess I’ll start.

1.01 - Britney Spears.

Yikes.  You're the guy who drafts a kicker in the fourth round.  

 

[urbanhack]

I’m actually a celebrity. 

 

[rockaction]

Owning celebrities seems fine, but we shouldn’t all own the same ones. That would be chaos. When it comes to owning other people, I think we should be as orderly and egalitarian about it as possible.

I guess I’ll start.

1.01 - Britney Spears.

1.02 Sarah Jessica Parker

I mean, she has all the Triple Crown qualities and look at the purse she'll bring me down the homestretch.  

 

[wikkidpissah]

Once again, i have to pound on sumn a lotta y'all can't see. We are, by & large, not leftists. We are not-rightists. We don't want or need to agree with each other, it's live & let live.

You need to be in a club. You need to know the rules. You need an enemy at the gates to make you feel that you're serving a cause instead of just being scared and/or selfish.

We're cool. We hate Hillary as much as you. We love Hillary for how long she tried and how far she got. We want to punch snowflakes sometimes. We love to watch snowflakes try to find their way. At least they care. We want everybody under the American tent, but that don't mean we'll do anything they want. We know the environment is already lost to climate change because we can't tell emerging nations not to be as piggy as we are so anything we do will be too late. We still care about our footprint. We don't watch Rachel Maddow. We wish things were simpler. We revel in complexity. We are conservative til our own are taken care of, then as liberal as we can afford to be. We all may be the enemy but we are not a foe. We're everybody else. Hi -

 

[Dedfin]

Okay. Alex Jones is the right's anchorman and has been for a decade now.

 

[kface]

Okay. Alex Jones is the right's anchorman and has been for a decade now.

And the right's mouthpieces actually have 'news' shows.  comparing that to someone's twitter account is a little disingenuous.