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: Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 10:39:13 am EDT (Viewed 212 times)
Reply Subj: Re: I have to wonder,,,while the Hollywood condemnation of Brunei's new law...
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 07:44:43 am EDT (Viewed 238 times)

Previous Post

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

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 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 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 sling a lot of negative comments and words out there yourself which are just as dismissive as others. 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
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