Community >> View Thread
1 2  >> All
Author
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,319


https://www.yahoo.com/news/brunei-invokes-laws-allow-stoning-gay-sex-adultery-074919015.html

...is to be lauded. BUT. Why don't they do this with all the similar countries and leaders that are doing these terrible things as well?


What's happening in Brunei is horrible...but there are many other targets...even much bigger targets they should be calling out. It smacks of virtue signaling since this is a relatively small country.
Any ideas why?


Hopefully the UN can put some pressure on though and revoke this new sharia law...anyone have a good idea on how they could? Sanctions? Anyone think they actually will?


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,635



    Quote:
    ...is to be lauded. BUT. Why don't they do this with all the similar countries and leaders that are doing these terrible things as well?


First, celebrities criticize stuff all the time (https://www.thewrap.com/hollywood-activism-helen-gahagan-douglas-harvey-telethon/), but if you're asking why Hollywood doesn't condemn everything there is possible to condemn, well, that's ridiculous because no one does that. There's not enough time in the day to tackle every single evil in the world.


    Quote:
    What's happening in Brunei is horrible...but there are many other targets...even much bigger targets they should be calling out. It smacks of virtue signaling since this is a relatively small country.
    Any ideas why?


Yeah, this JUST happened is why. Also, virtue signaling is a far more complicated phenomenon than your condescension merits:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/opinion/sunday/virtue-signaling.html





THE POWER OF EMPATHY IN THE MCU:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy1zKcddbNk
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,319


My question was which you sidestepped...there are many examples they could target.
Why this one and not many of the others? Some of which are BIGGER.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/brunei-invokes-laws-allow-stoning-gay-sex-adultery-074919015.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/nicki-minaj-and-more-stars-who-hang-with-dictators

a blast from the past...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-clooney-sudan_b_1353817


So yes they cant go after everything...but the question is why Brunei for example but not Saudi Arabia?


P.S. In response to your defense of virtue signaling...

"Psychological studies reveal that a person’s authentically experienced outrage is inherently interwoven with subconscious concerns about her reputation. In other words, even genuine outrage can be strategic."

All this really does is call into question even genuine outrage. That doesn't make it any better that "virtue signaling" has taken place. If anything it makes a larger percentage of anyone "outraged" more selfish.


Also...that study could be questioned...maybe those that were not given the money were outraged not because they didn't get the chance to virtue signal...maybe they were upset that they weren't given the chance to have some money to give...or mad they didn't get money for their time. The "test results" could simply be a projection of the testers.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,635



    Quote:
    My question was which you sidestepped...there are many examples they could target. Why this one and not many of the others? Some of which are BIGGER.


I didn't side step it at all. I specifically stated the reason that Brunei was targeted is because this just happened. It's the news of the moment, which is why it's being reacted to.


    Quote:
    So yes they cant go after everything...but the question is why Brunei for example but not Saudi Arabia?


Hollywood stars have gone after Saudi Arabia in the past, but they can't be vocally going after Saudi Arabia every day:

https://screenrant.com/hollywood-saudi-arabia-gerard-butler/

You seem to want to point out hypocrisy, but the demand that celebrities speak out about every evil in existence is absurd on the face of it. Some of them are activists, but that's not their primary job, and second, everyone is selective about what they speak out against because no one has that much time. No one monitors every bit of news every single day. Sometimes jobs, family life, illness, and who knows what else gets in the way of pointing out the latest evil in the world. Third, activists who get outraged by everything would quickly lose any activist power they have. Sean Penn has virtually become a caricature in this respect. Yours is just not a realistic standard.


    Quote:
    "Psychological studies reveal that a person’s authentically experienced outrage is inherently interwoven with subconscious concerns about her reputation. In other words, even genuine outrage can be strategic."



    Quote:
    All this really does is call into question even genuine outrage. That doesn't make it any better that "virtue signaling" has taken place. If anything it makes a larger percentage of anyone "outraged" more selfish.


You're missing the point. If all genuine outrage has a selfish component, then most accusations of virtue signaling isn't meaningful. The accusation is saying the person isn't being genuine but trying to portray themselves as virtuous, but if the latter is an evolved component of all outrage, then you often can't meaningfully differentiate genuine and false outrage.


    Quote:
    Also...that study could be questioned...maybe those that were not given the money were outraged not because they didn't get the chance to virtue signal...maybe they were upset that they weren't given the chance to have some money to give...


That's not how psychological experiments are conducted. The people who weren't given money were not told about the people who were. That would obviously introduce a factor into the experiment the psychologists wouldn't want. So the people who weren't given money would have no expectations of this money in the first place.


    Quote:
    or mad they didn't get money for their time.


These people volunteered for the experiment. They may or may not have been paid for it, but they weren't forced into it and would have no expectations of greater reimbursement for their time than they agreed to.





THE POWER OF EMPATHY IN THE MCU:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy1zKcddbNk
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,319


Yes...but did Butler get as much support from Hollywood as Clooney is?
I sure didn't hear much about it.
There are a lot of recent "just happened" things. So your defending it by saying Hollywood just goes after the bright shiny new things, and not long standing entrenched more powerful countries like China?

I think much of Hollywood is full of hypocrisy. Can you honestly say you think they are purely altruistic?

And can we say Clooney is turning into Penn...especially since by his own words he thinks his efforts on Brunei wont amount to much? I am not saying this....but Clooney sure shows up a lot like Penn does in his activist statements.

First if ALL genuine outrage has a component of virtue signaling that has ZERO effect on negating the effects of accusations of virtue signaling. That really depends on "how much" of a selfish component it is composed of. You argument says it doesn't matter if its 99% altruistic or 99% selfish which is ridiculous.

Second the point was to show there could be other factors...ok the money part wasn't known. Doesn't mean those that were given money were not affected by the very fact they were given money. Perhaps a few of them (since the difference cited was small) were able to justify to themselves keeping it just made sense. And those that didn't get money didn't have that option of self-justification...there are many other possible perturbations. This one study by itself proves nothing. Psychological studies are almost always carried out with a bias already in mind...especially when they only come to one likely conclusion.

You seem to want to negate virtue signaling as a bad thing. I'd ask you...why do you want to see it as OK to be a person that virtue signals even if it is 99% based on selfish reasons? Since you stated "then most accusations of virtue signaling are not meaningful."


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,139



    Quote:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/brunei-invokes-laws-allow-stoning-gay-sex-adultery-074919015.html



    Quote:
    ...is to be lauded. BUT. Why don't they do this with all the similar countries and leaders that are doing these terrible things as well?


Honestly, I don't know why they do it at all. I mean, I do know. They love to be the center of attention. What I don't know is why people care one iota what George Clooney thinks about much of anything. He's an actor. I'd be interested in his insights into what it's like to be an actor and what it takes to excel as one. His insights into the Middle East? Nope, don't care. And if nobody else cared either, he would stop talking, because no one would be listening. But a lot of people do care. I just don't know why.


    Quote:

    What's happening in Brunei is horrible...but there are many other targets...even much bigger targets they should be calling out. It smacks of virtue signaling since this is a relatively small country.
    Any ideas why?


All outrage is virtue signaling. As far as I can figure out, any way. I don't do the whole outrage thing.


    Quote:

    Hopefully the UN can put some pressure on though and revoke this new sharia law...anyone have a good idea on how they could? Sanctions? Anyone think they actually will?


The UN is ineffectual by design. As far as I can figure out, any way. Neither Russia nor China, for example, would be a part of the UN if the UN had the ability to apply real leverage. Actually, the UN is virtue signaling gone global. We just need to remember that one culture's virtue is another culture's vice. (Incidentally, I consider some cultures to be utterly atrocious and I reserve the right to judge them so.)









Posted with Google Chrome 73.0.3683.86 on Windows 10
atrimus


Location: Saint Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,185



    Quote:

      Quote:
      https://www.yahoo.com/news/brunei-invokes-laws-allow-stoning-gay-sex-adultery-074919015.html

      Quote:

        Quote:
        ...is to be lauded. BUT. Why don't they do this with all the similar countries and leaders that are doing these terrible things as well?



    Quote:
    Honestly, I don't know why they do it at all. I mean, I do know. They love to be the center of attention. What I don't know is why people care one iota what George Clooney thinks about much of anything. He's an actor. I'd be interested in his insights into what it's like to be an actor and what it takes to excel as one. His insights into the Middle East? Nope, don't care. And if nobody else cared either, he would stop talking, because no one would be listening. But a lot of people do care. I just don't know why.



    Quote:

      Quote:

      What's happening in Brunei is horrible...but there are many other targets...even much bigger targets they should be calling out. It smacks of virtue signaling since this is a relatively small country.
      Any ideas why?



    Quote:
    All outrage is virtue signaling. As far as I can figure out, any way. I don't do the whole outrage thing.


I disagree. A parent can be outraged at the latest school shooting, for fear of having to send their own kids to school in a system that inadequately tackles gun violence. My wife (who's white) often gets outraged at police brutality against blacks, for fear of my safety and that of our biracial kids. As a black man I share this outrage, mostly for the same reason. Virtue signaling has nothing to do with either of these cases.


    Quote:

      Quote:

      Hopefully the UN can put some pressure on though and revoke this new sharia law...anyone have a good idea on how they could? Sanctions? Anyone think they actually will?



    Quote:
    The UN is ineffectual by design. As far as I can figure out, any way. Neither Russia nor China, for example, would be a part of the UN if the UN had the ability to apply real leverage. Actually, the UN is virtue signaling gone global. We just need to remember that one culture's virtue is another culture's vice. (Incidentally, I consider some cultures to be utterly atrocious and I reserve the right to judge them so.)






Posted with Google Chrome 73.0.3683.90 on Linux
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,635



    Quote:
    Yes...but did Butler get as much support from Hollywood as Clooney is? I sure didn't hear much about it.


Now you're just moving the goal post. You cited Saudi Arabia, I gave you an example of outrage over Saudi Arabia, but now you won't accept it. Sean Penn is now working on a documentary on Saudi Arabia's killing of Khashoggi. John Cena and Daniel Bryan also refused to work a WWE event there. All this was just as public if not more so after the Khashoggi murder as the Brunei stuff right now.


    Quote:
    There are a lot of recent "just happened" things. So your defending it by saying Hollywood just goes after the bright shiny new things, and not long standing entrenched more powerful countries like China?


Hollywood stars have long protested China over its treatment of Tibet.


    Quote:
    I think much of Hollywood is full of hypocrisy. Can you honestly say you think they are purely altruistic?


Actually, I just said the opposite with the article I linked to, that even genuine outrage has a selfish component to it, but that doesn't make it less genuine. In any case, sure, there's hypocrisy in Hollywood, but there's hypocrisy everywhere. I don't see the harm in Hollywood stars protesting some evil in the world, but it's nonsensical to expect them to protest EVERY evil in the world or else they're illegitimate. No one on Earth can meet that standard.


    Quote:
    And can we say Clooney is turning into Penn...especially since by his own words he thinks his efforts on Brunei wont amount to much? I am not saying this....but Clooney sure shows up a lot like Penn does in his activist statements.


I don't know the answer to this question and I really care about the answer to this question. It's a matter of public perception. You can answer it with a poll, not that anyone's going to devote the time and resources to doing one because it's not important whatsoever.


    Quote:
    First if ALL genuine outrage has a component of virtue signaling that has ZERO effect on negating the effects of accusations of virtue signaling. That really depends on "how much" of a selfish component it is composed of. You argument says it doesn't matter if its 99% altruistic or 99% selfish which is ridiculous.


What you don't get is that you can't quantify it. Unless you prove the person is lying, you don't know, and motivation is extremely hard to prove. For example, it would be easy for me to say, MysteryMan is really concerned with celebrity hypocrisy, but I've never seen him protest Rwandan genocide. Man, Mysteryman really doesn't have his priorities in order. Or I can give you the benefit of the doubt that you can't possibly protest everything and that I shouldn't make sweeping judgments about people I don't know. I'd say you should do this with Hollywood celebrities.


    Quote:
    Second the point was to show there could be other factors...ok the money part wasn't known. Doesn't mean those that were given money were not affected by the very fact they were given money. Perhaps a few of them (since the difference cited was small) were able to justify to themselves keeping it just made sense. And those that didn't get money didn't have that option of self-justification...there are many other possible perturbations. This one study by itself proves nothing. Psychological studies are almost always carried out with a bias already in mind...especially when they only come to one likely conclusion.


Some psychological studies indeed have problems, but to generalize that they "almost always" do is your pure speculation and it's only your speculation that there's something wrong with this study.


    Quote:
    You seem to want to negate virtue signaling as a bad thing. I'd ask you...why do you want to see it as OK to be a person that virtue signals even if it is 99% based on selfish reasons? Since you stated "then most accusations of virtue signaling are not meaningful."


For the simple reason that it's an easy dismissal of other people on your part. You can't read someone else's mind, you don't even know these people, but you think you can without evidence, be judge and jury to their motives? It's about as meaningful as the term SJW or your calling others NPCs. It's just an ad hominem used as a blanket dismissal.






THE POWER OF EMPATHY IN THE MCU:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy1zKcddbNk
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,319


That's disingenuous. It's NOT moving the goalpost. I said Hollywood from he beginning. It's in the title.


Hollywood has or a few people. I see a lot of Hollywood movies trying not to PO China so they can sell their movies there.


An article I still don't think has been proven at all. As to Hollywood. Did I ask them to protest every evil? Or did I question their targets of choice they make sometimes...BIG difference.

It was important enough for you to cite Penn as part of your argument. So I will consider the Penn part of your argument as unimportant as well to be fair.

You say you cant quantify it...sure...but you can qualify it. I am sure I don't have all my priorities in order. No one does. But virtue signaling is a problem. At a certain point it's insincere BS. By your argument Trumps bursts of outrage are ok right? You cant judge the quantity...so they are sincere and shouldn't be called out no matter how wrong others think what he says is BS?

They almost always do because people are involved...those people each have their own issues etc...And 1/2 of them do not agree. Let me mitigate it to "many of them do". Heck some people still stick to Freudian thought and others think he is stone age is an example of problems with even some of the methods used to setup the studies.


There is plenty of evidence of other peoples motives and actions...especially when they are public figures. However I never said they were bad people or actually said WHY they didn't tackle the big countries...I asked for opinions and thoughts...you ascribed the motives to me on judging them. Did I say Clooney was a bad guy...I even flat out stated I did not.

So your going to negate the possibility of virtue signaling being a bad thing all because I used words like NPC which you find offense. I would say look to your own words...you sling a lot of negative comments and words out there yourself which are just as dismissive as others.

Anyways...you have started to turn this thread personal between us and that's not my goal. I bid you goodbye on this thread.


Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,319


I agree...people shouldn't care what they think just because they are famous but they do...maybe it s sheep/herd mentality thing? That said if they make good well reasoned points I'd listen.


I can understand outrage...you get frustrated...or truly feel something atrocious is being done. I just think people resort to it far too easily these days. Maybe due to all the heightened feelings of entitlement many people in the USA now have?


True...the UN is a paper tiger...but there should be some way to bring political power to bear on Brunei for this. They arnt the worst out there...but that doesn't mean they should face some repercussions. I just don't think boycotting a hotel will amount to a hill of beans.


Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 10
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,139



    Quote:

    True...the UN is a paper tiger...but there should be some way to bring political power to bear on Brunei for this. They arnt the worst out there...but that doesn't mean they should face some repercussions. I just don't think boycotting a hotel will amount to a hill of beans.


The only way to defeat a repugnant culture (other than genocide) is from the inside through a fifth pillar.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fifth%20pillar







Posted with Google Chrome 73.0.3683.103 on Windows 10
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,139



    Quote:
    I disagree. A parent can be outraged at the latest school shooting, for fear of having to send their own kids to school in a system that inadequately tackles gun violence. My wife (who's white) often gets outraged at police brutality against blacks, for fear of my safety and that of our biracial kids. As a black man I share this outrage, mostly for the same reason. Virtue signaling has nothing to do with either of these cases.


You're right. Outrage on your own behalf or on behalf of your own family or your own people is probably not virtue signaling. It's these people who broadcast outrage on behalf of people in other countries - I just can't take them seriously. Deep down they just want attention, I think.

Another caveat would be for people who've dedicated their lives to people in other countries or people all around the world. The genuine saints and heroes of our modern civilization. Not internet warriors. If a modern Albert Schweitzer broadcasts outrage, I'll take it at face value.







Posted with Google Chrome 73.0.3683.103 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,635



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Yes...but did Butler get as much support from Hollywood as Clooney is? I sure didn't hear much about it.

      Now you're just moving the goal post. You cited Saudi Arabia, I gave you an example of outrage over Saudi Arabia, but now you won't accept it. Sean Penn is now working on a documentary on Saudi Arabia's killing of Khashoggi. John Cena and Daniel Bryan also refused to work a WWE event there. All this was just as public if not more so after the Khashoggi murder as the Brunei stuff right now.
    That's disingenuous. It's NOT moving the goalpost. I said Hollywood from he beginning. It's in the title.


John Cena is now a Hollywood actor.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Hollywood stars have long protested China over its treatment of Tibet.

    Hollywood has or a few people. I see a lot of Hollywood movies trying not to PO China so they can sell their movies there.


Well, part of the problem here is that you’re overgeneralizing about Hollywood because now you’re talking about studios and producers and studios and producers are almost never the activists whom you’re accusing of virtue signaling. You can’t very well hold actors accountable for what studios are doing.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I think much of Hollywood is full of hypocrisy. Can you honestly say you think they are purely altruistic?

      Actually, I just said the opposite with the article I linked to, that even genuine outrage has a selfish component to it, but that doesn't make it less genuine. In any case, sure, there's hypocrisy in Hollywood, but there's hypocrisy everywhere. I don't see the harm in Hollywood stars protesting some evil in the world, but it's nonsensical to expect them to protest EVERY evil in the world or else they're illegitimate. No one on Earth can meet that standard.

    An article I still don't think has been proven at all.


Well, no, the experiment in the article isn’t the final say on the matter, but it’s far more empirical evidence for that claim than anything you’ve brought up. All you’re doing is speculating about people you don’t know in the slightest.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        And can we say Clooney is turning into Penn...especially since by his own words he thinks his efforts on Brunei wont amount to much? I am not saying this....but Clooney sure shows up a lot like Penn does in his activist statements.

      I don't know the answer to this question and I really care about the answer to this question. It's a matter of public perception. You can answer it with a poll, not that anyone's going to devote the time and resources to doing one because it's not important whatsoever.

    It was important enough for you to cite Penn as part of your argument. So I will consider the Penn part of your argument as unimportant as well to be fair.


Well, you can’t have it both ways. You complained that Hollywood folks are too selective in their protests in that they protest Brunei but not other things. Penn and Clooney protest a lot of things, but suddenly you have to dismiss them because their example runs counter to your argument. So tell me, do you think Sean Penn’s decades of activism are mere virtue signaling or genuine?



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        First if ALL genuine outrage has a component of virtue signaling that has ZERO effect on negating the effects of accusations of virtue signaling. That really depends on "how much" of a selfish component it is composed of. You argument says it doesn't matter if its 99% altruistic or 99% selfish which is ridiculous.

      What you don't get is that you can't quantify it. Unless you prove the person is lying, you don't know, and motivation is extremely hard to prove. For example, it would be easy for me to say, MysteryMan is really concerned with celebrity hypocrisy, but I've never seen him protest Rwandan genocide. Man, Mysteryman really doesn't have his priorities in order. Or I can give you the benefit of the doubt that you can't possibly protest everything and that I shouldn't make sweeping judgments about people I don't know. I'd say you should do this with Hollywood celebrities.

    You say you cant quantify it...sure...but you can qualify it.


Uh, right above, you put percentages on the amount of virtue signaling, thus you’re quantifying it.


    Quote:
    I am sure I don't have all my priorities in order. No one does. But virtue signaling is a problem.


Is it? Is it usually a bigger problem than the problem actually being protested? Is Brunei or George Clooney the bigger problem here? I’d say the answer is very clear, but you’d rather focus on Clooney than Brunei.


    Quote:
    At a certain point it's insincere BS. By your argument Trumps bursts of outrage are ok right? You cant judge the quantity...so they are sincere and shouldn't be called out no matter how wrong others think what he says is BS?


I’ve never called Trump out on virtue signaling. I argue against Trump based on the content of what he says, not on speculative motives. If Trump is a hypocrite, it’s because he holds one standard for his side and a different standard for those he sees as opposition. It’s not because he virtue signals.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        You seem to want to negate virtue signaling as a bad thing. I'd ask you...why do you want to see it as OK to be a person that virtue signals even if it is 99% based on selfish reasons? Since you stated "then most accusations of virtue signaling are not meaningful."

      For the simple reason that it's an easy dismissal of other people on your part. You can't read someone else's mind, you don't even know these people, but you think you can without evidence, be judge and jury to their motives? It's about as meaningful as the term SJW or your calling others NPCs. It's just an ad hominem used as a blanket dismissal.

    There is plenty of evidence of other peoples motives and actions...especially when they are public figures. However I never said they were bad people or actually said WHY they didn't tackle the big countries...I asked for opinions and thoughts...you ascribed the motives to me on judging them. Did I say Clooney was a bad guy...I even flat out stated I did not.


Okay, but you also offered your own opinion. You wrote, “It smacks of virtue signaling.”


    Quote:
    So your going to negate the possibility of virtue signaling being a bad thing all because I used words like NPC which you find offense.


In debates, I don’t take offense at ad hominem attacks. That’s when I know I’m winning because the other side doesn’t have actual reasons for their argument. I’m not declaring victory here and you’re not attacking me, so don’t get riled up. My point is simply this, as per this Guardian piece...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/20/virtue-signalling-putdown-passed-sell-by-date

...virtue signaling is "indistinguishable from the thing it was designed to call out: smug posturing from a position of self-appointed authority." And from Sam Bowman...

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/stop-saying-virtue-signalling

..."virtue signalling is hypocritical. It’s often used to try to show that the accuser is above virtue signalling and that their own arguments really are sincere. Of course, this is really just another example of virtue signalling! Dismissing other people’s false beliefs as virtue signalling means you won’t consider them properly and means they have every right to do the same to your beliefs, which as far as they’re concerned are also obviously false. Sometimes beliefs are honestly, sincerely held, however stupid they seem to you, and if there’s any value to debate at all it requires that we at least consider the possibility that we might be the stupid ones."





THE POWER OF EMPATHY IN THE MCU:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy1zKcddbNk
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Kev Agent of The Shadow


Location: Fair Oaks CA aka Rivendell
Member Since: Tue Jun 01, 2004
Posts: 2,714



    Quote:

      Quote:

      True...the UN is a paper tiger...but there should be some way to bring political power to bear on Brunei for this. They arnt the worst out there...but that doesn't mean they should face some repercussions. I just don't think boycotting a hotel will amount to a hill of beans.





Has Fifth Column become Fifth Pillar now? I can't keep up with the lexicon anymore, I should probably just stop trying...




KATS latest read: The Sinister Shadow by "Kenneth Robeson"
Posted with Google Chrome 71.0.3578.98 on Windows 10
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,139



    Quote:
    Has Fifth Column become Fifth Pillar now? I can't keep up with the lexicon anymore, I should probably just stop trying...


"Fifth Column" is the phrase I was racking my brain to remember! I know it from exactly one source: Captain America comics. The closest I came was "fifth pillar" and when I googled it, it came up, so I went with it.

We need a Fifth Column to be active in Sharia countries. This is what rich people who genuinely (instead of just for the cameras) care about oppression can spend their money on.

When I think of a George Clooney, I think of a pampered rich man sitting poolside, sipping a Mai Tai, a supermodel applying sunscreen to his back, and there he is, telling us how bad it is to be a woman in Brunei. You need to Wayne up, George. (As in Bruce Wayne.) Anonymous instead of paparazzi bait, and doing something instead of just talking. Finance a Fifth Column for Sharia countries.











Posted with Google Chrome 73.0.3683.103 on Windows 10
Kev Agent of The Shadow


Location: Fair Oaks CA aka Rivendell
Member Since: Tue Jun 01, 2004
Posts: 2,714



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Has Fifth Column become Fifth Pillar now? I can't keep up with the lexicon anymore, I should probably just stop trying...



    Quote:
    "Fifth Column" is the phrase I was racking my brain to remember! I know it from exactly one source: Captain America comics. The closest I came was "fifth pillar" and when I googled it, it came up, so I went with it.


No you got it right, your link clearly showed that Fifth Pillar is a phrase now.


    Quote:
    We need a Fifth Column to be active in Sharia countries. This is what rich people who genuinely (instead of just for the cameras) care about oppression can spend their money on.



    Quote:
    When I think of a George Clooney, I think of a pampered rich man sitting poolside, sipping a Mai Tai, a supermodel applying sunscreen to his back, and there he is, telling us how bad it is to be a woman in Brunei. You need to Wayne up, George. (As in Bruce Wayne.) Anonymous instead of paparazzi bait, and doing something instead of just talking. Finance a Fifth Column for Sharia countries.


I love Stephen Colbert but sometimes I get ticked when he asks one of his guests "How are you doing in these trying times?" and the guest responds, "I'm trying to maintain my sanity and soldier on" or some such.

Hey we're all stuck with what we have for the next two years but when I hear those conversations all I can think is, "Please! This is one millionaire interviewing another millionaire, and they're complaining about 'trying times'?!"





KATS latest read: The Sinister Shadow by "Kenneth Robeson"
Posted with Google Chrome 71.0.3578.98 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,635



    Quote:
    I love Stephen Colbert but sometimes I get ticked when he asks one of his guests "How are you doing in these trying times?" and the guest responds, "I'm trying to maintain my sanity and soldier on" or some such.



    Quote:
    Hey we're all stuck with what we have for the next two years but when I hear those conversations all I can think is, "Please! This is one millionaire interviewing another millionaire, and they're complaining about 'trying times'?!"


This is a common misperception that wealth equates to happiness and a lack of problems. Studies show that wealth above a certain middle class level (around a $75,000 salary) has little effect on how happy you are.




THE POWER OF EMPATHY IN THE MCU:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy1zKcddbNk
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,635



    Quote:
    When I think of a George Clooney, I think of a pampered rich man sitting poolside, sipping a Mai Tai, a supermodel applying sunscreen to his back, and there he is, telling us how bad it is to be a woman in Brunei. You need to Wayne up, George. (As in Bruce Wayne.) Anonymous instead of paparazzi bait, and doing something instead of just talking. Finance a Fifth Column for Sharia countries.


https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/george-clooney

"Clooney famously founded Not On Our Watch with his Ocean’s 11 co-stars Don Cheadle, Matt Damon, and Brad Pitt, and producer Jerry Weintraub. The organization’s main goal is to stop the genocide occurring in Sudan. Clooney has visited the area personally, and spoken with victims of rape and torture. His charity has donated millions of dollars to help those suffering in the region, with much of the funding going through the United Nations World Food Program."

Clooney also put $20 million into his Foundation for Justice:

https://cfj.org/projects/





THE POWER OF EMPATHY IN THE MCU:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy1zKcddbNk
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
atrimus


Location: Saint Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,185



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Has Fifth Column become Fifth Pillar now? I can't keep up with the lexicon anymore, I should probably just stop trying...



    Quote:
    "Fifth Column" is the phrase I was racking my brain to remember! I know it from exactly one source: Captain America comics. The closest I came was "fifth pillar" and when I googled it, it came up, so I went with it.



    Quote:
    We need a Fifth Column to be active in Sharia countries. This is what rich people who genuinely (instead of just for the cameras) care about oppression can spend their money on.



    Quote:
    When I think of a George Clooney, I think of a pampered rich man sitting poolside, sipping a Mai Tai, a supermodel applying sunscreen to his back, and there he is, telling us how bad it is to be a woman in Brunei. You need to Wayne up, George. (As in Bruce Wayne.) Anonymous instead of paparazzi bait, and doing something instead of just talking. Finance a Fifth Column for Sharia countries.


No offense, but you're illustrating your own lack of knowledge here. Besides your own generalization of what celebrity lifestyles are like, what evidence is there that he's those things you describe? And even if he does enjoy the fruits of his stardom, how does that take away from what he says about Brunei? How does that preclude the possibility that he might do a lot more for the underprivileged than any of us can know?


    Quote:




    Quote:







Posted with Google Chrome 73.0.3683.90 on Linux
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,319


Not quite sure those studies are valid.

Money may not buy happiness...but it sure buys a lot of lack of misery.

I'd be much happier with #75mil/yr than $75,000. The issue is more likely in HOW you earned it and HOW you get to spend it.

Sure your forms of stress may change but there is a lot less of stress for all life security. Money opens up more options...it just does.

A lot of studies say money doesn't buy happiness...but no one...almost no one would not be happier having more.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,139



    Quote:
    Not quite sure those studies are valid.



    Quote:
    Money may not buy happiness...but it sure buys a lot of lack of misery.



    Quote:
    I'd be much happier with #75mil/yr than $75,000.


Me too.


    Quote:
    The issue is more likely in HOW you earned it and HOW you get to spend it.


Or how you THINK you need to spend it.


    Quote:
    Sure your forms of stress may change but there is a lot less of stress for all life security. Money opens up more options...it just does.



    Quote:
    A lot of studies say money doesn't buy happiness...but no one...almost no one would not be happier having more.


I'm with you. Anybody making $75M/year who isn't generally happy is an idiot. Sure, you can still lose loved ones and get sick and all that. But generally if you're not happy sailing around in your yacht, something is wrong with you.






Posted with Google Chrome 73.0.3683.103 on Windows 10
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,139



    Quote:
    No offense, but you're illustrating your own lack of knowledge here. Besides your own generalization of what celebrity lifestyles are like, what evidence is there that he's those things you describe? And even if he does enjoy the fruits of his stardom, how does that take away from what he says about Brunei? How does that preclude the possibility that he might do a lot more for the underprivileged than any of us can know?


Apparently he does spend his own money on helping people in the Sudan, so he gets credit for that. He's not just all talk. Also, since he's actually doing something over there, I'm interested in what he has to say about the region. So Clooney's an exception. It seems he actually does Wayne up.

Generally my attitude about celebrities speaking out about just about anything is captured (and somewhat quantified) in this brief and breezy article:
https://alt923.radio.com/blogs/cane/do-people-actually-care-what-celebrities-think-about-anything







Posted with Google Chrome 73.0.3683.103 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,635



    Quote:
    Not quite sure those studies are valid.



    Quote:
    Money may not buy happiness...but it sure buys a lot of lack of misery.



    Quote:
    I'd be much happier with #75mil/yr than $75,000.


I see the study I was referring to with the $75,000 figure was a global figure and the figure for North America is $105,000:

http://money.com/money/5157625/ideal-income-study/

But here's the point, do you make $75 million? No. Then you only think it makes you much happier. You don't really know. I'm sure if you came into it all at once, you'd be delighted, but after a couple of years with it, it'd just be the new normal. You're really just speculating. Do you make over $100,000? I do, and my wife makes almost as much as I do. It's a comfortable life with no real financial worries unless severe illness befalls my family (because U.S. healthcare is still lame compared to the rest of the world). Would a yacht make me that much happier than a new big screen tv? Not really. All I can think of is how much maintenance that thing would take. I already travel the world. Would $1,000 a night hotels make me a lot happier? They would be nice for sure, but once you get used to them, they'd just be normal, not extraordinary. Basically, once you have a comfortable life, a lot more comfort isn't that important.


    Quote:
    Sure your forms of stress may change but there is a lot less of stress for all life security. Money opens up more options...it just does.


Right, and if you live in North America, you have life security at $105,000. The additional options opened up after that threshold, on average, aren't as important.


    Quote:
    A lot of studies say money doesn't buy happiness...but no one...almost no one would not be happier having more.


Really? I'd say any billionaire would not be much happier having more. Is the difference between having $5 billion and $10 billion going to change your life much?





THE POWER OF EMPATHY IN THE MCU:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy1zKcddbNk
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Kev Agent of The Shadow


Location: Fair Oaks CA aka Rivendell
Member Since: Tue Jun 01, 2004
Posts: 2,714



    Quote:
    Money may not buy happiness...but it sure buys a lot of lack of misery.


This is a fantastic turn of phrase you've coined! \:\-P




KATS latest read: The Sinister Shadow by "Kenneth Robeson"
Posted with Google Chrome 71.0.3578.98 on Windows 10
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,139


You've clearly demonstrated that sometimes an actor can be worth googling. I regret that I've been so disgusted by all the Gwyneth Paltrows in the world with their v*g*n*l steaming and their Goop that I just stopped bothering to learn more about these people.

I plan to start a new thread on the overall concept.






Posted with Google Chrome 73.0.3683.103 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,319


Yeah it IS a bit scary indeed. \:\)


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,319


So if you could have 10 times what you make now. You wouldn't be happier? If you didn't have to change a thing and were offered x10more....you'd be like...nah I wont be any happier.

Now if you had to work x10harder sure maybe not, or hurt people etc...

If you make well over 100k yeah most of your worries are gone. But you see it n the millionaires...1M doesn't seem enough...they want 2M then 3M and then Billions. They don't stop.

You might get used to it...jaded is the word I might use. The nicer things might become the norm...but they are still nicer. You can put your big screen TV on a yacht and have dozens of super models serving you some endangered species for dinner. Money is power...and power over your life makes people happy (regardless if you abuse it or not).


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,319


Quickly trademarks it! \:\)


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,319



    Quote:
    I'm with you. Anybody making $75M/year who isn't generally happy is an idiot. Sure, you can still lose loved ones and get sick and all that. But generally if you're not happy sailing around in your yacht, something is wrong with you.


While I don't agree with zvelf people are not happier when they are super rich I do think he has a partial point in that some people do not feel happier. I think this is the key. There is something wrong with them. \:\)


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,635



    Quote:
    So if you could have 10 times what you make now. You wouldn't be happier? If you didn't have to change a thing and were offered x10more....you'd be like...nah I wont be any happier.


I might think I would be happier, but that doesn't mean I will be. I'd take the money because I'd be able to help other people with it, not so much myself. That might make me happier.


    Quote:
    If you make well over 100k yeah most of your worries are gone. But you see it n the millionaires...1M doesn't seem enough...they want 2M then 3M and then Billions. They don't stop.


That you project this type of greed onto others is telling as to why wealth doesn't equate to happiness. If you always believe you'll want more, then you're not happy with what you have. I don't want to own a mansion or a yacht or a luxury sports car or fancy watches or expensive jewelry. That seems more like showing off to other people. Those things might seem cool for a brief time, but repeatedly psychological studies have shown that materialistic goods don't bring about happiness after reaching a certain level of comfort. Materially I'm satisfied as is.


    Quote:
    You might get used to it...jaded is the word I might use. The nicer things might become the norm...but they are still nicer.


They're only nicer relatively speaking. Then you get used to it, and if you want something even nicer, you want even more wealth. That doesn't lead to happiness.


    Quote:
    You can put your big screen TV on a yacht and have dozens of super models serving you some endangered species for dinner. Money is power...and power over your life makes people happy (regardless if you abuse it or not).


That doesn't sound appealing to me at all. I don't want super models serving me endangered species for dinner on a yacht. That just sounds crass. That might sound appealing to you because you can't attain it, but I doubt you'd find it fulfilling after it became routine. Here's an example. I live in NYC where if you have the money, you can have access to practically anything you want. There is really great food in NYC. I go out for $100-$200 per person meals a few times a year, and it is amazing. If I ate like that every day or even every week, then it would not be great. It would not be special. And it would probably make everyday food much less satisfying. It would indisputably be nicer but it would not make me happier.





THE POWER OF EMPATHY IN THE MCU:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy1zKcddbNk
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,635



    Quote:
    You've clearly demonstrated that sometimes an actor can be worth googling. I regret that I've been so disgusted by all the Gwyneth Paltrows in the world with their v*g*n*l steaming and their Goop that I just stopped bothering to learn more about these people.


Lots of celebrities are vain or superficial, but as with the stereotyping of any category of people, things are usually a lot more complicated.





THE POWER OF EMPATHY IN THE MCU:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy1zKcddbNk
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
1 2  >> All

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software