Oscar's ratings lowest ever recorded

You're the one who was whining about these celebs exercising their right to freedom of expression, Mr Pro-democracy. I was simply pointing out your hypocrisy.

OK, I'll rephrase my last post. People are turning off and you can't admit to yourself the reason they are doing so.

There are few people more interested in politics than me on this website, frankly I am obsessed with it. I know how all important it is, trust me. What turns me off, though, are the kind of campaigns people like you obsess over, in your turn. The transgender bo!!ocks for example.

Why? It is of such small significance in the scheme of things. A tiny tiny percentage of the population has a psychological issue and the other 99% are supposed to reorient reality to accommodate them. The tyranny of a tiny minority. Meanwhile huge, huge challenges confront our societies. The EU is in crisis, the middle east in melt down, Islam is on the march and the west is in decline.

The great issues of our time in a political sense are being ignored while we debate transgender bathrooms. That's why people are turning off.

I am struggling to identify the hypocrisy you claim to be pointing out.

At no time (unlike the left who threaten freedom of expression all the time) have I questioned the right of these stars to express their views. I am arguing that they shouldn't. On several grounds.

First that their views are inherently stupid, vapid and lacking in consequence.

Second that it displays a culpable vanity and disconnection from reality that unwittingly presents them in a very bad light, damaging their reputation.

Third that it demonstrates a lamentable desire to signal their virtue. And we all know that the only way to display virtue is act virtuously, not express a political opinion.

Fourth that in venturing into the muddy waters of extreme political discord they can only (needlessly) make themselves highly unpopular with millions upon millions of their fellow Americans, and since they themselves are the product that is stupidly self harming in a career sense.

And fifth that it was an inappropriate forum for them to talk bo!!ocks. This was an award ceremony, it was meant to be entertainment, not a political rally.

Finally I argued that the consequence of all of the above was a mass switch off. I can't prove that of course, at this stage it is not susceptible to proof or disproof. But it seems highly plausible, let's put it no higher than that.

I get that you may not agree with any of the above, but where is the "hypocrisy"?

you are supposed to accommodate them - it costs you nothing to adapt to things like preferred pronouns,

I'm not so sure. I think it does cost something. Like most people, I don't like being lied to, and I also don't like being taken advantage of or to see people gain a benefit they are not entitled to (and I don't mean that in a financial sense). These are pretty normal human reactions to apparent deception.

When I see a sudden mass of people erupting into view claiming to be men when they are women and, especially, vice versa I am wary. That wariness is emphasised when I see that many of them revert after a period of time.

When I see cases like this that wariness is further increased:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4950858/sex-rapist-transgender-jail/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/up-to-half-of-trans-inmates-may-be-sex-offenders-26rz2crhs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-35726292

To be asked to go along with what appears on the face of it to be either (a) a fraud or (b) simply some kind of mental or social problem does not sit right, and I know that many others feel the same. Despite having a normal amount of compassion for people with genuine problems, I find it difficult to believe that society (and the law) is not in the grip of a fashionable bandwagon of the sort that caused so much trouble to innocent parents in the 1980s when doctors Higgs and Wyatt infamously started using a diagnostic technique for anal rape that incorrectly labelled hundreds of people as child molesters, and removed their children from them. I believe social campaigners are perpetrating a similar atrocity now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_child_abuse_scandal

Oh please, nobody is trying to commit fraud by saying they are unhappy with the gender they are born. It doesn't physically hurt you if someone prefers to be called a different pronoun. It's just a word and it shouldn't personally affect you.

x

It is very generous of you teach me how I should feel. Thank you.

I'm not sure you read any of the links I gave, which point to clear deception.

I'm sorry but your first link was the tripe that is known as 'The Sun' so I rendered it irrelevant.

So it appears the real issue you have with it is not that they're making it political, but that you don't agree with the politics in question - which is an entirely different debate.

But yeas, you are supposed to accommodate them - it costs you nothing to adapt to things like preferred pronouns, and there are already unisex bathrooms in various places, so that's hardly an exclusive issue.

Nope, false dichotomy. Both are real issues.

Supposed too? Says who? And what if we don't?

If people want to change their "gender" that is fine by me. But any compulsion to treat them in a certain way, being made to call them zim or zer or face legal sanctions is very much NOT fine.

if your basis is only on those committing criminal actions

Would you believe it to be an issue of the same level if they were talking about issues you agreed with?

Says basic decency, at least in my view; it causes you no harm to call them by the preferred pronouns, where by not doing so you're causing upset or hurt to them.

I am struggling to identify the hypocrisy you claim to be pointing out.

At no time (unlike the left who threaten freedom of expression all the time) have I questioned the right of these stars to express their views. I am arguing that they shouldn't. On several grounds.

First that their views are inherently stupid, vapid and lacking in consequence.

Second that it displays a culpable vanity and disconnection from reality that unwittingly presents them in a very bad light, damaging their reputation.

Third that it demonstrates a lamentable desire to signal their virtue. And we all know that the only way to display virtue is act virtuously, not express a political opinion.

Fourth that in venturing into the muddy waters of extreme political discord they can only (needlessly) make themselves highly unpopular with millions upon millions of their fellow Americans, and since they themselves are the product that is stupidly self harming in a career sense.

And fifth that it was an inappropriate forum for them to talk bo!!ocks. This was an award ceremony, it was meant to be entertainment, not a political rally.

Finally I argued that the consequence of all of the above was a mass switch off. I can't prove that of course, at this stage it is not susceptible to proof or disproof. But it seems highly plausible, let's put it no higher than that.

I get that you may not agree with any of the above, but where is the "hypocrisy"?

The hypocrisy is saying that rich elitist actors shouldn't exercise their right to freedom of expression when it comes to political matters, as they are out of touch with reality. At the same time you support a rich elitist reality TV star occupying the highest office in the world, despite being out of touch with reality. Doesn't take a genius to get it.

It does take a genius to work out what you are saying, as a matter of fact.

First you say that I criticise these actors for being wealthy, like Donald Trump. But I don't! If you read my original post you will see that I specifically DON'T criticise them on those grounds. What I said was as follows:

"I want to watch an actor act. They get very well paid for it, and I don't begrudge them a penny. Good for them."

Secondly you are making an absurd comparison of two totally unalike entities. Donald Trump is in elected office as you say. I recognise that he is the legitimate holder of that office, as I also recognised Obama so to be. The fact that he was a "rich elitist TV star" as you put it is irrelevant now. He is a politician, there thanks to due process, and to be judged on his policies, some of which I support and some of which I disagree with.

These actors are not in elected office, they are not politicians. They are private citizens. Not to be judged in the same way at all. You are comparing apples with oranges.

As I asserted, what you say seems to make no sense unless I am missing something?

So if one of these liberal actors decided to run Presidential campaigns, you wouldn't be against it?

How am I comparing apples and oranges? If anything, Trump should be judged more harshly than these actors specifically because they are private citizens and he is not. The argument that Trump supporters make against celebrities openly voicing their political views (unless they are right-wingers) is that they live in a bubble and don't understand the ordinary people. Such Trump supporters are hypocrites, plain and simple. No one with an ounce of common sense would view Trump as a down-to-Earth individual, capable of understanding the grievances of the average citizens.

So if you are a Trump supporter but think that liberal actors should keep queit when it comes to politics, you are a hypocrite. I don't care for these people and their poltical views either, because I don't think that most of them have a good grasp on reality. But then again, I wouldn't vote for one of them to become a Head of State, specifically for that reason.

This is why I hate you rightwingers, you are never open to discussion, never open to listening other people's opinions and in fact are unable to form any of your own.

I'm sorry but your first link was the tripe that is known as 'The Sun' so I rendered it irrelevant.