Small Talk: Take It Outside! Carryover Conversations

[Palimelon]

Mine too, but goalposts that seem to be moving aside, that shouldn't be a reason for them not to express their opinions or beliefs when they want to.

Edited October 30 by Palimelon

[Annber03]

3 hours ago, Palimelon said:

Mine too, but goalposts that seem to be moving aside, that shouldn't be a reason for them not to express their opinions or beliefs when they want to.

 This. They're citizens, too, and thus allowed to express their views just like the rest of us. Not like your average non-famous person is any more informed or knowledgeable about the issues, after all. 

And if people want celebrities to stay out of politics, then maybe stop, y'knwo, electing them to political offices. 

(To say nothing of how the "shut up and sing/act" side only ever seems to say that about celebrities of a particular political persuasion,.)

[bluegirl147]

5 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Well, I don't base my decisions on a celebrity's choice or judgement. I have a mind of my own and prefer to make decisions based on what is best for me.

I also have a mind of my own and choosing to not watch/read/listen to people who I think have offensive beliefs is what I feel is best for me.

22 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

(To say nothing of how the "shut up and sing/act" side only ever seems to say that about celebrities of a particular political persuasion,.)

This all day every day.  I'm not going to go into specifics but I see an athlete being lauded by some people for wearing a hat. While another athlete was called a son of bitch and worse for speaking out about his beliefs.

[Dimity]

4 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Choosing to be solely influenced by a celebrity's choice and/or opinion is beyond my comprehension.

You've been more successful than I at avoiding the news in recent years then. Following a celebrity blindly has led more than a few to jail.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Choosing to be solely influenced by a celebrity's choice and/or opinion is beyond my comprehension.

Which is valid, but that would include Michael Stipe, Bruce Springsteen and U2's Bono. There's others, but people have mocked Bono for years because of his activism, his involvement in political causes far beyond anything that's about music. 'Course, they're all old, rich white dudes, so that could play into it just a tiny bit. Maybe?
 

3 hours ago, Annber03 said:

(To say nothing of how the "shut up and sing/act" side only ever seems to say that about celebrities of a particular political persuasion,.)

There's a piece in there where it becomes about wanting an echo chamber, and I mean that for both sides. If you (the general You) already agree with what someone else is saying, you (again the general You) are way more likely to say, Hey, keep talking, I like where you're going with this. The stuff about COVID is an extreme example since it's proven to be deadly, a threat to public health, but there's other stuff that's way less serious, and yet it can elicit the same reaction. There's a reason there were all those memes in the wake of Justin Timberlake's arrest, even though DUI is a thing that happens to people who aren't celebrities and there's no real fuss over it. It's easier to make fun of him for being an idiot than it is to consider he might have a problem with drinking, and I was guilty of it too. The echo chamber effect.

[Dimity]

1 hour ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

It's easier to make fun of him for being an idiot than it is to consider he might have a problem with drinking, and I was guilty of it too.

In Timberlake's case a lot of the mocking wasn't because of his DUI but because of the way he and his handlers chose to react to his arrest and to the charges. 

But that said unlike Timberlake there are so many instances of   the double edged sword of being a celebrity.  Sure you can be in situations where you get away with things regular folk won't but on the other hand there is also a rush to judgement where you are tried, convicted and hung often based solely on an accusation not on the preponderance of evidence, let alone a trial.

Edited October 30 by Dimity

[bluegirl147]

22 minutes ago, Dimity said:

In Timberlake's case a lot of the mocking wasn't because of his DUI but because of the way he and his handlers chose to react to his arrest and to the charges. 

Yes.  "This is going to ruin the tour" and the response "What tour?" made it easy to mock.  At least Justin didn't use the term "sugar tits" unlike another celeb arrested for drunk driving.

25 minutes ago, Dimity said:

But that said unlike Timberlake there are so many instances of   the double edged sword of being a celebrity.  Sure you can be in situations where you get away with things regular folk won't but on the other hand there is also a rush to judgement where you are tried, convicting and hung often based solely on an accusation not on the preponderance of evidence, let alone a trial.

Do I think there are celebs that have been convicted in the court of public opinion without ever being legally charged?  Sure.  But I think a lot more celebs have gotten away with some really bad things.

[proserpina65]

On 10/28/2024 at 3:16 PM, Affogato said:

Yes, but presumably the serious and/or sincere ones feel the vaccinations do actual harm. And probably feel you aren’t reachable. This is not the way out of the maze. 

I don't care what they think about me.  They are dangerous and should not be coddled.  Honestly, I think the worst of them should have their children removed because they are unfit parents.

9 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Agree to disagree. The other side is not totally pure and devoid of mistruths.

When it comes to vaccines, one side is rational and believes in real science and the other does not.  This IS provable.

[Affogato]

21 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

I don't care what they think about me.  They are dangerous and should not be coddled.  Honestly, I think the worst of them should have their children removed because they are unfit parents.

When it comes to vaccines, one side is rational and believes in real science and the other does not.  This IS provable.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7515521-william-roper-so-now-you-give-the-devil-the-benefit
 

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts

Tags: constitutional-law, rule-of-law

[Notabug]

1 hour ago, Affogato said:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7515521-william-roper-so-now-you-give-the-devil-the-benefit
 

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts

Tags: constitutional-law, rule-of-law

If we took every unvaccinated kid away from their anti-vaxxer parents, where would we put them?  There are already far too many kids in foster care and that isn't always better for them than their dysfunctional homelife.  It's not great that a parent makes a choice for their child that could harm them, but we've got to draw the line somewhere.

It's like a candidate for office who claims that millions of undocumented aliens will be deported over just a few months with no consideration as to the cost to taxpayers, let alone who is going to do the rounding up, what we do with deportees minor kids who are citizens, how to locate and pay for housing and transport back to their native lands.  We're going to spend billions and billions deporting millions of people, the vast majority of who are law abiding, work hard and often do jobs that our citizens don't want.  Why?

It might seem like a great idea, but the logistics make it a very bad idea.

Edited October 30 by Notabug

[Makai]

17 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Choosing to be solely influenced by a celebrity's choice and/or opinion is beyond my comprehension.

But it’s a false dichotomy. There a whole series of different reactions to a celebrity voicing their opinion. It’s a small percentage of people who will be solely influenced by a celebrity and, even in those cases, it’s not happening in a vacuum. 

[Makai]

18 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

When someone runs for a political office, by definition they are a politician (i.e. one actively involved in politics). 

Yes, Reagan was an actor...and so was Sonny Bono, among others. Once they hold political office, they become politicians.

But, is that a lifelong designation even once there are no longer in office. My former mayor was an actor. He hasn’t held or ran for any office since, is his opinion now that of the celebrity or politician. Schwarzenegger was my governor but it was the only office he has ever held and it was largely because of clusterfuck. He just made an endorsement and for most people he is primarily considered an actor so how does he fall. 

[Soapy Goddess]

13 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

When it comes to vaccines, one side is rational and believes in real science and the other does not.  This IS provable.

I couldn't agree more! There are diseases we thought were eradicated, only to be making a comeback 😔😷

[Soapy Goddess]

4 hours ago, Makai said:

But it’s a false dichotomy. There a whole series of different reactions to a celebrity voicing their opinion. It’s a small percentage of people who will be solely influenced by a celebrity and, even in those cases, it’s not happening in a vacuum. 

Agree. And it's up to the individual to decipher their own reaction and/or choice

IOW, listening is one thing. Endorsing or agreeing is another.

4 hours ago, Makai said:

But, is that a lifelong designation even once there are no longer in office. My former mayor was an actor. He hasn’t held or ran for any office since, is his opinion now that of the celebrity or politician. Schwarzenegger was my governor but it was the only office he has ever held and it was largely because of clusterfuck. He just made an endorsement and for most people he is primarily considered an actor so how does he fall. 

Well, for Sonny it was...until his untimely death. But I see your point. I was merely answering a question by another poster who was asking for my definition of a politician...also confirmed by my dictionary.

[tearknee]

Both RWR (in both Sacramento and D.C.) and DJT were and are front men for the people in the shadows around them. Petain-like useful figureheads (certainly in RWR's case -- RN in private described him as "mentally limited").

 

 

[JustHereForFood]

IMO, everyone can voice their opinions, but those who have a large number of followers should recognize how much influence they can have over people (some of whom might be pretty stupid and naive and take their advice from their favorite celebrities) and at least think before they post something, especially unverified claims. It doesn't much matter to me if it's anti-vax, anti-trans, antisemitic rewrite of history or some tankie BS. All have capacity to hurt many real people.

Then the next problem is that many people now demand statements from celebrities, so it can be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing. Somebody will be mad at them anyway, even if they never post anything political.

[Dimity]

1 hour ago, JustHereForFood said:

Then the next problem is that many people now demand statements from celebrities, so it can be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing. Somebody will be mad at them anyway, even if they never post anything political.

I am really noticing that in the last few years.  Right now, of course, it's the US election but it's also been the metoo movement, famous celebrity death/arrest,  and so on.  There is an expectation that *insert name here* will speak out.  If they don't the assumption is made that they don't care.  If they do speak out they better choose their words with care because someone is just waiting to jump all over them.

[Palimelon]

It's especially annoying when a celebrity dies and close famous friends of theirs are expected to post something within the hour and if they don't it means they didn't care!!! Like, let them grieve for as long as they need to before posting something. And even if they don't end up posting something, that's fine too.

[Quof]

Which is one of the reasons I love Kim Cattrall, who posted (paraphrased). "SJP don't you dare use my brother's death to make yourself look like a good person. Don't be posting condolences as if you and I were friends."

[tearknee]

KC... wonderful person and still a class act after all these years and she's right that SJP should have played Miss Hannigan not Annie (SJP career in-joke).

[peachmangosteen]

14 hours ago, Quof said:

Which is one of the reasons I love Kim Cattrall, who posted (paraphrased). "SJP don't you dare use my brother's death to make yourself look like a good person. Don't be posting condolences as if you and I were friends."

Damn lol.

[RealHousewife]

Almost all the SATC fans on this board are team Kim. I am a Kim fan too and have only heard nice things about her, but I didn't understand why everyone was so quick to take her side. Was it due to the disparity in pay or did I miss other stuff about Sarah? To my knowledge, Sarah is well-liked by everyone from her co-stars to other people in Hollywood who have nothing to do with the show to people who randomly meet her and say she's lovely. 

[Affogato]

21 hours ago, Quof said:

Which is one of the reasons I love Kim Cattrall, who posted (paraphrased). "SJP don't you dare use my brother's death to make yourself look like a good person. Don't be posting condolences as if you and I were friends."

Honestly that is kind of rude of Kim Cattrall, in my opinion. I assume if they were close the condolences would be private.  She is using her brother’s death to snipe at SJP  publicly and it isn’t a good look. 

[Palimelon]

I was on Cattrall's side, to be honest.

[peachmangosteen]

I don't know anything about Kim Cattrall vs. SJP but that tweet is so aggressive. She wasn't beating around the bush at all. I love it lol.

Edited November 2 by peachmangosteen

[Makai]

1 hour ago, Affogato said:

Honestly that is kind of rude of Kim Cattrall, in my opinion. I assume if they were close the condolences would be private.  She is using her brother’s death to snipe at SJP  publicly and it isn’t a good look. 

SJP made a public statement to Extra and KC responded with a public statement on her instagram. 

I was not a SatC fan so I’m not invested in either side. My impression was that they really did not get along and SJP went with a kumbaya approach in the media that KC finds incredibly disingenuous/insulting. 

[Dimity]

1 hour ago, Affogato said:

She is using her brother’s death to snipe at SJP  publicly and it isn’t a good look. 

That was my feeling as well.  I don't know their history but to me she came across as doing exactly what she was accusing SJP of potentially doing.  Making the death of her brother all about her.

[peachmangosteen]

From what @Makaisaid, SJP did in fact make a public statement first.

[Affogato]

2 hours ago, Palimelon said:

I was on Cattrall's side, to be honest.

I don’t know any of the history behind any of this, so I’m not taking sides. I’m not friends with either of them. I was just commenting on Cattrall’s comment, which seems tasteless. 

[Palimelon]

I saw it as honest and brave. Good for her for not taking other people's BS and calling them out on it.

[Makai]

40 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

From what @Makaisaid, SJP did in fact make a public statement first.

At least three times from what I can find. Her instagram comment started with “Dearest Kim” which is eye roll worthy for me given how public their issues were. 

[DearEvette]

1 hour ago, Affogato said:

I don’t know any of the history behind any of this, so I’m not taking sides. I’m not friends with either of them. I was just commenting on Cattrall’s comment, which seems tasteless. 

Apparently they were not friends and in fact Kim felt SJP was a bit of a mean girl. So if the bad blood was as bad as the BTS reports seemed to suggest, and you have no relationship with someone, a public message like that does feel performative, imo.

[peachmangosteen]

Speaking of vaccines, you might want to consider getting literally all of them you can in these next couple months before the option to is taken away from us.

Edited November 7 by peachmangosteen

[Anela]

I don't know if this goes here, the "disappointed" thread, or the "feels" thread in everything else, but Justine Bateman is ranting on twitter,  about having to walk on eggshells for the past four years.

[Makai]

On 11/11/2024 at 1:02 AM, Anela said:

I don't know if this goes here, the "disappointed" thread, or the "feels" thread in everything else, but Justine Bateman is ranting on twitter,  about having to walk on eggshells for the past four years.

I’m already really tired of people thinking that magically something changed and most Americans now agree with them. Anyone that thinks any side has a majority now does not understand how the world works. 

Although I find famous relatives being such polar opposites so relatable.