Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,554
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,909
Subj: Re: I have to wonder,,,while the Hollywood condemnation of Brunei's new law...
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 at 01:17:47 pm EDT (Viewed 212 times)
Reply Subj: Re: I have to wonder,,,while the Hollywood condemnation of Brunei's new law...
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 at 10:46:31 am EDT (Viewed 261 times)

Previous Post

    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.

    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:

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.

    "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.

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.

    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.

    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.

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
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software