Turn on thread page Beta
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    A number of reasons. Everybody kind of knows who’s going to to win beforehand. From a uk standpoint it is on at a unsocialable time. It is too long and can easily be caught up upon afterwards by quickly looking at a news article. There is copious amounts of moaning (call it what you will) from the celebs there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eunomia)
    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.
    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"?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by generallee)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    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"?
    Their views are not stupid, just because they do not agree with yours. 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. Someone has to tell you how to feel and you don't like that people are able to have their own independent thoughts. You call liberals snowflakes but you are the ones getting offended at a bunch of actors and directors stating their opinions. You're the real 'snowflakes' here.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    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/495085...nsgender-jail/

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/u...ders-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/Clevel..._abuse_scandal
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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/495085...nsgender-jail/

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/u...ders-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/Clevel..._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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 27FT)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    It's just annoying hearing them complain about Trump then using his name for publicity and giving him a platform. I still believe that if Trump hadn't been given a huge platform by the media (despite it being negative) he wouldn't have won. He won on the basis of all publicity being good publicity, and those that continue to give him such publicity have the cheek to cry about at these award shows?

    America loves to be entertained, Trump despite his bulls*** is an entertaining guy. It's all like one big comedy movie if you remove the aspect of it being reality.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    x
    We've had this argument before; you're proposing that people should be against it based on the criminal actions of an incredibly small minority. I doubt you would suggest in (m)any other situations that we judge the collective by the actions of the few. Now, if you have a genuine argument against transgender people in general, I'll continue this debate with you, but if your basis is only on those committing criminal actions, I don't think there's any point in discussing this further.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 27FT)
    I'm sorry but your first link was the tripe that is known as 'The Sun' so I rendered it irrelevant.
    Well, let that teach you a lesson. I also linked you to The Times and BBC but your prejudices must have caused you to step back and have a calming cup of tea instead of reading them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    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.
    Nope, false dichotomy. Both are real issues.

    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    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.
    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.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by generallee)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    if your basis is only on those committing criminal actions
    I have already said that it isn't, but never mind.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    Would you believe it to be an issue of the same level if they were talking about issues you agreed with?
    No and yes.

    I wouldn't regard their views with the contempt I now do intellectually, and wouldn't despise them on a personal level for their vapid virtue signalling. But I would think it was inappropriate to use the Academy Awards to promote their personal political agenda. And unwise.

    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    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.
    Basic decency cuts both ways. It is not basically decent to compel someone to address you in a certain way, through the power of the state.

    Do you support the introduction of hate speech laws on the subject of personal pronouns, out of interest? As they have in Canada I believe (hence the rise of Jordan Peterson as a worldwide internet phenomenon)?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I have never watched an Oscar's. I think it is kind of stupid.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eunomia)
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eunomia)
    So if one of these liberal actors decided to run Presidential campaigns, you wouldn't be against it?
    You don't seem terribly au fait with US politics. There is a lot of speculation that Oprah Winfrey (a billionaire TV star) will run for the Democrats next time round. Of course I am not against that.

    (Original post by Eunomia)
    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.
    The sentence bolded is not my position which was laid out in quite some detail in an earlier post.

    You may disagree with actors and celebrities becoming politicians but it is a thing Stateside. It has been one for for decades. Leaving aside Trump and Oprah, Arnold Schwarzenegger became Governor of the biggest and richest State, California, and Ronald Reagan, another actor became one of better post war Presidents.

    I don't see what is the problem with it?
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.