Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,912
In Reply To

Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,554
Subj: Re: I have to wonder,,,while the Hollywood condemnation of Brunei's new law...
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 at 02:08:23 pm EDT (Viewed 234 times)
Reply 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 213 times)



        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.


      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.



        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.



        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?



        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.

    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.

    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?

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.



        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 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.”

    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...

...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...

..."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."

Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
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