I don't get political, but curious as to why
- Thread starter Dean Jay
- Start date
Also factor in some changing dynamics on the back end. With the distribution of wealth becoming historically lopsided, appealing to your actual fans is not as important as it used to be. It sounds nonsensical, but I'll give an example. Look at LOTR on Amazon, or several new Star Trek series, or the Oscars. In each case, (other than the LOTR which hasn't aired yet, and as such can't be appraised) Shows get low ratings with the public, but if your political views march in lockstep with the financial powers at network x, you can have a show that people don't like renewed over and over. People are now literally going to entertainment conventions and giving speeches about how doing their jobs comes second to parroting twitter. Make a simple, entertaining film with no political ideologies, and you'll be fighting tooth and nail for table scraps. When someone pitched an LGBQTRIXFVREIW+ version of LOTR, they got 400 million dollars up front, and a guaranteed second season before the first episode aired. If you unhide the dislikes on the trailers for it, it's negative response 3 to 1, but everyone involved will be rich for life, even though their actual performance at keeping the audience happy is 34%, or F-. Conversely, shows without backers motivated by political bias are often cancelled after one season with 80% positive feedback. In example, Family Guy, one of the most popular and longest running shows in history, was cancelled twice and had to be brought back by fan campaigns.
With music, Indietalk's comment is more relevant, with many genres of music having a disproportionate amount of fans in one group or another. Hank Williams Jr or Cardi B don't have to sweat who is in their audience the way Spielberg does.
Lastly, if you think every pop musician is sitting in a war room plotting out strategies and hashing analytics data, you are giving them too much credit. Half of these people just get drunk and yell out whatever they heard someone say the day before.
With music, Indietalk's comment is more relevant, with many genres of music having a disproportionate amount of fans in one group or another. Hank Williams Jr or Cardi B don't have to sweat who is in their audience the way Spielberg does.
Lastly, if you think every pop musician is sitting in a war room plotting out strategies and hashing analytics data, you are giving them too much credit. Half of these people just get drunk and yell out whatever they heard someone say the day before.
Everything I write and/or produce is influenced by my views. I don't make/haven't made movies that are blatantly political, but my views are in there if you look for them.
And I think that one of the great things about having so many streaming outlets is that no one has to appeal to everyone.
I don't mind if someone uses an acceptance speech to promote their views, even ones that may piss me off. I'm free to turn it off if I don't want to listen.
And I think that one of the great things about having so many streaming outlets is that no one has to appeal to everyone.
I don't mind if someone uses an acceptance speech to promote their views, even ones that may piss me off. I'm free to turn it off if I don't want to listen.
It doesn't bother me, but I could understand how some in the audience would feel uncomfortable or confronted when they expected a regular speech. Like I said, I am only saying I can understand his position more here. It's the confrontation thing. Not the music and movies.
I don't worry too much about talking politics, simply because I know that my opinions have no effect. I think that the reason things get heated and uncomfortable is mostly because of the thinking that these discussions actually matter. I have friends that angrily debate politics online every day like they were leading the troops at Gettysburg. Since 1 guy from Australia can beam out 10,000 versions of his one view on air 365 days a year, I don't think my idle chatter on some forum with 10 people is making a dent anywhere.
The next time you get annoyed at someone for posting some pointless political view, think of this video. Here's what it is. One billionaire wrote a script, accusing others of using their platform to push their political ideas. Then he used his platform, sinclair media, to push his political ideas by forcing every talking head on every channel he owned nationwide to read that script, on threat of loosing their jobs. These scripts are called "must runs" In each individual instance, a local newscaster appears to be giving their own personal opinion, talking directly to the audience conversationally. Watch what happens when they are all shown simultaneously. This is quite effective, to the extent that nothing any of us say will ever really matter. This stuff is a workaround to buying votes, and as long as Rupert and his ilk can game the system, I won't be attacking anyone for their opinion, whether I agree or disagree, nobody out here in genpop is actually making any difference so who cares. I'd like to think that I could say "we don't have real justice as long as people can pay to influence the outcome of a trial (by hiring a better legal team)" and it would make some difference, but that's not realistic.
This video really clarifies what's going on, and why any opinion one of us has will simply be drowned out by someone with no ethics, and inherited money.
This is a news segment about the issue, and includes some interviews with the local anchors that are forced to read the script from this one guy
As far as musicians, I think all the relevant points have been made, but I think as a group, they are guilty of preaching to the choir. Is Lady Gaga really converting a lot of people that bought tickets to the "born this way" tour? I kind of doubt Mitt Romney was in the audience.
When I was a kid, my family was VERY political - like running for office & managing campaigns political.
The guy who ran - and won - for State Assembly in my district won by 57 votes the first time. Just think about how few votes that is.
Now think about how narrow the split is in some (but not all) state legislatures - sometimes 1 or 2 representatives swing the majority to one side or another. That impacts the bills that are passed, laws that are made - think of all the things that people are currently screaming about on both sides of the fence.
Now go back and look at those 57 votes. You change 29 of them, and the outcome changes. If it's a narrow margin for one party or the other in the legislature, that can change the governing of the entire state over the next 2 or 3 years.
If you don't think laws matter, that's one thing - I won't get into that discussion.
But if you don't think changing A FEW votes matters - or getting a few extra people to the polls matters - go back and look at the math.
Very often, it matters a lot.
No, you can't change millions of people's opinions. But you might change 1 or 2. And if your spouse or partner changes another 1 or 2, the next thing you know, you've got 57 votes.
So which ever side you like (or don't like), keep that in mind.
The guy who ran - and won - for State Assembly in my district won by 57 votes the first time. Just think about how few votes that is.
Now think about how narrow the split is in some (but not all) state legislatures - sometimes 1 or 2 representatives swing the majority to one side or another. That impacts the bills that are passed, laws that are made - think of all the things that people are currently screaming about on both sides of the fence.
Now go back and look at those 57 votes. You change 29 of them, and the outcome changes. If it's a narrow margin for one party or the other in the legislature, that can change the governing of the entire state over the next 2 or 3 years.
If you don't think laws matter, that's one thing - I won't get into that discussion.
But if you don't think changing A FEW votes matters - or getting a few extra people to the polls matters - go back and look at the math.
Very often, it matters a lot.
No, you can't change millions of people's opinions. But you might change 1 or 2. And if your spouse or partner changes another 1 or 2, the next thing you know, you've got 57 votes.
So which ever side you like (or don't like), keep that in mind.
I'm not insulting the work of anyone who genuinely cares enough about some issue that they dedicate real time and effort to it, my comments are basically reactive to the people I see in my part of the country, where 2 guys will get into a knife fight in a taco bell parking lot because one of them said that minimum wage should be raised a dollar. That kind of thing is so utterly senseless. There must be a million of these micro debates for every person who actually shows up and takes part in the process, which in my opinion is the legitimate route.
Personally I'm not on either side, and I'm on both sides. Before I was born, both parties said a lot of things I agreed with. Then things kind of went to hell. Now everybody represents themselves, and nobody represents me.
In terms of those 29 people, that number sounds small on paper, until you realize that across one election cycle, each of those 29 hear one argument from me, and what they think are 500 arguments from other people, but are actually 500 echoes of one argument, as illustrated above. Now my influence factor is 29 vs 14.500.
I'm not saying you're wrong, everybody chose a side based on something, some conversation. I'm sure wives convert husbands and the like. Ultimately, there is no one that thinks like me in politics, so I'd always be voting for something I disagreed with. I want actual equality, not rich get richer, not guaranteed outcomes for people labeled as underdogs,. Just a level playing field for all. I want ethical behavior, like in the instance of socialized medicine, we are asking the question "would I let a stranger die to get a tax break?" that's an ethical question so I'm interested.
As far as not caring about laws, of course I do. That's the fabric of civilization.
From my math based worldview, the far more interesting question is "why is it so close so often"? It really shouldn't be that close, ever.
I've observed that the tendency to take sides and form opposing teams is so strong that almost any question divides people almost exactly 50/50. If you put it to a vote, "should we release man eating bears into school cafeterias at lunch every day" would be split 51/49 against. No matter how stupid an idea is, or how obvious the solution, it's always around 50 50. Should we do the safety maintenance on active use suspension bridges? That was an argument that divided people, in several instances, they decided against.
At times I think people care more about arguing than they care about the things they are arguing about.
Personally I'm not on either side, and I'm on both sides. Before I was born, both parties said a lot of things I agreed with. Then things kind of went to hell. Now everybody represents themselves, and nobody represents me.
In terms of those 29 people, that number sounds small on paper, until you realize that across one election cycle, each of those 29 hear one argument from me, and what they think are 500 arguments from other people, but are actually 500 echoes of one argument, as illustrated above. Now my influence factor is 29 vs 14.500.
I'm not saying you're wrong, everybody chose a side based on something, some conversation. I'm sure wives convert husbands and the like. Ultimately, there is no one that thinks like me in politics, so I'd always be voting for something I disagreed with. I want actual equality, not rich get richer, not guaranteed outcomes for people labeled as underdogs,. Just a level playing field for all. I want ethical behavior, like in the instance of socialized medicine, we are asking the question "would I let a stranger die to get a tax break?" that's an ethical question so I'm interested.
As far as not caring about laws, of course I do. That's the fabric of civilization.
From my math based worldview, the far more interesting question is "why is it so close so often"? It really shouldn't be that close, ever.
I've observed that the tendency to take sides and form opposing teams is so strong that almost any question divides people almost exactly 50/50. If you put it to a vote, "should we release man eating bears into school cafeterias at lunch every day" would be split 51/49 against. No matter how stupid an idea is, or how obvious the solution, it's always around 50 50. Should we do the safety maintenance on active use suspension bridges? That was an argument that divided people, in several instances, they decided against.
At times I think people care more about arguing than they care about the things they are arguing about.
From a voting & persuasion perspective, I'd just add that part of the challenge is simply getting people to vote and that's where I think there's a big potential to influence people and the final results.
In terms of agreeing with people when you vote, I'm a pragmatist. There's always someone who I agree with more than their opponent. So even if I don't love the person, that's who I vote for. And I really do encourage people to vote - even the people I disagree with
In terms of agreeing with people when you vote, I'm a pragmatist. There's always someone who I agree with more than their opponent. So even if I don't love the person, that's who I vote for. And I really do encourage people to vote - even the people I disagree with
Last edited:
I don't want to put words into your mouth, but you simply must be talking about alienating the audience to the right of Bernie Sanders. As far as the couple or few actors (that I know of) who have run afoul of the left-hegemony? They seem to be outliers who sinned by simply being themselves. Gina Carano is the loudest example I can think of. And she payed for it. But she's on the wrong side of history, so of course.
On this I would like to defer to the brilliant Ricky Gervais and his monologue at the 2020 Golden Globes. Wink wink.
Please don't turn this into a political shit show, but here's a politically charged question.
Laugh. Hey, just teasing ya.
Yes. Ignorance is definitely bliss. I remember Leonardo DiCaprio describing the advice Robert De Niro gave him. He advised him to avoid interviews, I think it was, because an actor revealing too much of himself makes it difficult for the audience to suspend their disbelief. So, maybe it wasn't about taking political sides per se, but it was in the same jurisdiction, in my view. Obviously, De Niro has himself thrown that advice out the window. That advice was golden, in my opinion.
I don't think actors (or musicians) who take these stands -orthodox stands- do pay a price. They're hedging their bets with the winners, with the ruling class. And, the price they may pay for not proactively testifying their allegiance to The Message could be far worse, as in career ending etc. Keeping one's mouth shut really won't cut it these days. You could try, but sooner or later a urinalist at a press junket, or the like, is going to ask you a pointed question to catch you out on any of your heterodoxies. It may be a good idea, as a careerist, to get out ahead of that. Understand the times. It is not enough to keep your mouth shut, be quiet, be discrete, like I might imagine the old De Niro to have cautioned, once upon a time. The preeminent example of the day is: it is not enough to be not racist; you must be anti-racist—and attest to it, demonstrate it. Your active compliance is compelled.
Oh, you better believe activist Hollywood is alienating many. But those are the deplorables. So who cares? I'm not so sure it has really damaged their profitability much, so far. Many of the alienated like to believe the observation: go woke, go broke. But clearly, if that principle is in operation, it has not dissuaded them from their course. The box office takes of the Disney Star Wars films did drop significantly, for example. But it's speculative and a what if question regarding what might have been. They still pulled in lots of money. The recent Netflix move is interesting, but I wouldn't put much stock in it.
Yes, I'm familiar with the claim these people are mercenary and only conforming for obvious, cynical, or practical reasons. That may be true for some. I, for one, believe plenty are true believers, and, as has been noted, they believe they are in positions of power and have a responsibility, or an opportunity, to use their platforms for what they believe is good/what they want. Barf. I suspect they're willing to alienate as much of the audience as it alienates, and if the box office returns are lower than they otherwise might have been, so be it. That is the power of ideology. And the ascendant ideology is religious and faith-based in nature. What's new? Don't underestimate the power of cult, fanaticism, or conformity.
On this I would like to defer to the brilliant Ricky Gervais and his monologue at the 2020 Golden Globes. Wink wink.
Please don't turn this into a political shit show, but here's a politically charged question.
Laugh. Hey, just teasing ya.
Yes. Ignorance is definitely bliss. I remember Leonardo DiCaprio describing the advice Robert De Niro gave him. He advised him to avoid interviews, I think it was, because an actor revealing too much of himself makes it difficult for the audience to suspend their disbelief. So, maybe it wasn't about taking political sides per se, but it was in the same jurisdiction, in my view. Obviously, De Niro has himself thrown that advice out the window. That advice was golden, in my opinion.
I don't think actors (or musicians) who take these stands -orthodox stands- do pay a price. They're hedging their bets with the winners, with the ruling class. And, the price they may pay for not proactively testifying their allegiance to The Message could be far worse, as in career ending etc. Keeping one's mouth shut really won't cut it these days. You could try, but sooner or later a urinalist at a press junket, or the like, is going to ask you a pointed question to catch you out on any of your heterodoxies. It may be a good idea, as a careerist, to get out ahead of that. Understand the times. It is not enough to keep your mouth shut, be quiet, be discrete, like I might imagine the old De Niro to have cautioned, once upon a time. The preeminent example of the day is: it is not enough to be not racist; you must be anti-racist—and attest to it, demonstrate it. Your active compliance is compelled.
Oh, you better believe activist Hollywood is alienating many. But those are the deplorables. So who cares? I'm not so sure it has really damaged their profitability much, so far. Many of the alienated like to believe the observation: go woke, go broke. But clearly, if that principle is in operation, it has not dissuaded them from their course. The box office takes of the Disney Star Wars films did drop significantly, for example. But it's speculative and a what if question regarding what might have been. They still pulled in lots of money. The recent Netflix move is interesting, but I wouldn't put much stock in it.
Yes, I'm familiar with the claim these people are mercenary and only conforming for obvious, cynical, or practical reasons. That may be true for some. I, for one, believe plenty are true believers, and, as has been noted, they believe they are in positions of power and have a responsibility, or an opportunity, to use their platforms for what they believe is good/what they want. Barf. I suspect they're willing to alienate as much of the audience as it alienates, and if the box office returns are lower than they otherwise might have been, so be it. That is the power of ideology. And the ascendant ideology is religious and faith-based in nature. What's new? Don't underestimate the power of cult, fanaticism, or conformity.
I've never seen any of his films. scrolled through IMDB and only title i even recognized was Million Dollar Baby.The best Mystery Science Theater 3000 I saw was when I was a kid, and it was a black and white Ronald Reagan movie, and they did the voiceovers as if he was pres it was hilarious.
Speaking of MST3k, have you have seen RiffTrax Birdemic?...Rob from Birdemic is an icon now! He is referenced in a LOT of other RiffTrax lolThe best Mystery Science Theater 3000 I saw was when I was a kid, and it was a black and white Ronald Regan movie, and they did the voiceovers as if he was pres it was hilarious.
Last edited:
It's not 100% clear, but I think we basically agree on viewpoint. I see these movements (all of them) as a very natural and recognizable pattern in human psychology, and therefore I never view any ideology as "magical". Without that magical significance, I just can't get too excited about persecuting anyone for anything. No self righteousness means no heretic hunting, no inquisition, no forced compliance, no need to threaten or harm anyone for refusing to think like I do. The core pattern is tribalism, and it just assumes the form of whatever issue is popular at the time. People think that whatever they latched onto in decade x is ultra significant, and ascribe x a level of importance which then acts as a blanket justification for all manner of evil behavior. So when a 7th day Adventist tells me that they are raising a holy army to combat the evil people who go to church on the "wrong" day of the week, I just laugh at their inability to recognize the dumb trap they fell into.
You can understand ideologies and religions best if you watch them form from a seed. During wars, often the US would ship huge amount of supplies to the front lines by air, and would sometimes mistakenly miss their target and airdrop cartons of Marlboro, etc, in the wrong location. This created "cargo cults" where tribes would begin worshipping the airplanes. The cargo that was dropped was deemed proof of the existence of the gods, and they would form a religion around these beliefs, and begin persecuting anyone that spoke ill of the holy airplane. People would whip themselves into a fervor over their new interpretation of the world, and eventually go murder some neighboring tribe who had questioned or besmirched the holy and divine cartons of cigarettes. No matter how dumb the core ideology was, once it took on this supernatural veneer, it became the most important thing in the world, more important than fairness, more important than reason. People killed each other over an argument about the holiness of a crate of c rations. Priests soon form, seizing power through fear, reinforcing the trend by constantly attacking the "Infidels" who dared to speak out against the holy sky crates. Soon the conflation phase comes, where the power of the cult is extended by conflating any speech that does not align with the holy message as "an attack on humanity itself". Stage 1 - Rape is rape, and needs to be stopped. Ok, good, I agree completely. Stage 2 - Rape is any time you tap someone on the shoulder to ask for directions "ummm" Stage 3 - rape is when you glance at someone who doesn't like you. "well, I'm not sure if that actually qualifies as---" Heresy!, my brothers, I have identified this person as a rapist. They may not have raped anyone, but they questioned our anti rape crusade, and are therefore pro rape. Given the holiness of our cause, any means including violence is acceptable to stop this evil army of pro rape extremists who cast their foul dispersions on our holy word. Pretty soon, someone has been murdered or fired, not for committing the crime in question, but for the crime of questioning the priest.
Does any of this sound familiar? It's only happened 4500 times or so in recorded history. People used to get cancelled for not burning enough incense, or forgetting to sacrifice a goat, or saying that it wasn't important to appease a nearby volcano. Modern cult formation is a little smarter, and usually starts from a good idea, which is then conflated into the same classic pattern via slippery slope linguistics degenerating into garden variety NLP. Step one - You care about fairness, lets make things fair for everyone. Ok, sounds good. Step 2 - the priesthood has discovered while in contact with the supernatural that everyone except us is against fairness, and we can only make life good and right by attacking everyone in sight for heresy. Step 3 - news flash, the infidels are on the march, and it's up to you, the true heroes, to send us money, promote us to power, give us advantages. We are now extending the definition of heretic to include anyone who doesn't do all of these things. Final step, thanks guys, we did it. By putting the infidels in their rightful place as underlings, we have saved the world, and insured that the real people, the only ones that actually matter, are finally free from the tyranny of those foolish enough to speak out against the holy crate.
Cult no 2. Hear me oh brothers of freedom, the infidels from cult no 1 have oppressed us for too long, and it is time for humanity's rightful heirs to take back decency for the sake of patriotic heroes. Send me money, promote me, empower me, worship me, and we will strike down the infidels from cult one together.
Over and over and over and over and over and over, until you just can't understand how people don't see the pattern. Every single time "this time it's different" every single time it's the same. There is no magic here, just garden variety human nature, the act of people creating or seizing any opportunity to promote themselves to a position of supremacy over another group. When someone tells me about a new ideology they just discovered, I look at them the same way I would if a child brought me a rock from the driveway and told me it was special. The whole world is paved with identical rocks. No, no, you got it all wrong, my rock is triangle shaped. Dude, It's still just a rock, quit attacking your neighbors and take off that stupid golden robe with a picture of a rock embroidered on it.
None of this is to say there isn't evil to be fought in this world. There is. I'm just pointing out that as a civilization, we've struggled to fight monsters without becoming monsters ourselves.
Here's my advice to future generations. If a crate of Marlboros falls out of the sky, you should open it, share it with the people around you, and try to enjoy your smoke. Self righteousness, regardless of it's basis, just makes people stupid, crazy, and violent, and that has never, ever changed.
Last edited:
Yup. If we eliminate all that worship of rocks of all types, it would be a step in the right direction.
Agreed. Here is Seth Mcfarlane's classic rendition of world history in 30 seconds.
Pattern recognition begins at Taco Bell. Remember the chalupa, the gordita, the meximelt, the crunch wrap supreme, the big border taco, the beef supreme, the soft taco, the cantina crispy melt taco, the cruchwrap sliders, the fajita gordita?
These people took some corn, flour, meat, and cheese, and played 3 card Monty with us for 20 years. It's all the same thing, they just kept moving the ingredients around in a circle and changing the name.
There's my political statement. I refute the sovereignty of the Baja Gordita, I already got sick of this food when it was called the Southwest beef chalupa supreme.
These people took some corn, flour, meat, and cheese, and played 3 card Monty with us for 20 years. It's all the same thing, they just kept moving the ingredients around in a circle and changing the name.
There's my political statement. I refute the sovereignty of the Baja Gordita, I already got sick of this food when it was called the Southwest beef chalupa supreme.
Last edited:
OK. I can't resist. Here is my political statement:
Both sides see us as mindless puppets easily swayed by the most insincere and superficial acts imaginable. Most of the time, politicians will look straight into the camera and lie. They know that it doesn't matter how absurd the lie is, enough people will believe it to make it worth the effort. I'd call the majority of people lemmings but I think that give them too much credit. Lemmings know what they are. So many in this country imagine they are enlightened and have the answers when in fact, they simply swallowed the pill that seemed most like the image they have of themselves.
In the end, politicians are playing a game and each of them wants to win. it has nothing to do with anything real. It's all about their power over us. They are the nobles and we are the peasants. We don't think we are peasants because we are allowed to own cars and hot tubs and go on vacation for 2 weeks a year, but WE are not THEM. If they didn't need our votes, we would be the farthest thing from their minds.
On the other hand. I've struggled and made a pretty good life for my family and me. If it wasn't for the news telling us every single day that death and destruction is all around and it's just a matter of time before it comes for us, I'd never even know how terrible the world is. To be honest, before 9/11 I never read the news. I didn't know anything about anything, except film making..... I was a much happier person back then.
Both sides see us as mindless puppets easily swayed by the most insincere and superficial acts imaginable. Most of the time, politicians will look straight into the camera and lie. They know that it doesn't matter how absurd the lie is, enough people will believe it to make it worth the effort. I'd call the majority of people lemmings but I think that give them too much credit. Lemmings know what they are. So many in this country imagine they are enlightened and have the answers when in fact, they simply swallowed the pill that seemed most like the image they have of themselves.
In the end, politicians are playing a game and each of them wants to win. it has nothing to do with anything real. It's all about their power over us. They are the nobles and we are the peasants. We don't think we are peasants because we are allowed to own cars and hot tubs and go on vacation for 2 weeks a year, but WE are not THEM. If they didn't need our votes, we would be the farthest thing from their minds.
On the other hand. I've struggled and made a pretty good life for my family and me. If it wasn't for the news telling us every single day that death and destruction is all around and it's just a matter of time before it comes for us, I'd never even know how terrible the world is. To be honest, before 9/11 I never read the news. I didn't know anything about anything, except film making..... I was a much happier person back then.