Poll of the Day > I've never really understood the argument that an entertainer 'should stick to

(+) Yeah! (+)

sports/music/whatever when they talk about politics. I understand being extremely wealthy and successful can really detach people from the issues of the common working person but its not like theyre automatically clueless. A lot of musicians, actors and athletes are informed and are also not extremely rich.

How come no one says stick to plumbing or being a doctor when they give out their shitty political takes?

DirtBasedSoap posted...

How come no one says stick to plumbing or being a doctor when they give out their s***ty political takes?

Not a lot of highly public plumbers or doctors... other than Mario and Mario.

They're generally just annoyed that someone with a sizeable audience is spreading/boosting an opinion they're against. A doctor or plumber isn't gonna get their word out quite as far as an entertainer.

yeah but what about doctor Mario like lok said

Dr. Mario has no opinions. He's a people pleaser.

I dont think its wrong, although I think a lot of entertainers make themselves look like idiots talking about politics.

I do think its wrong to make politics into entertainment, from Limbaugh through current late night TV.

i think a lot of people in general make themselves look like idiots talking about politics. myself included.

The world would probably be a better place if more people kept their stupid political opinions to themselves.

Thanks, Obama.

It's just a coward's way of saying "I don't like that famous person's opinion."

Using your example, I just want to watch people play a game and hear about the game - not some political opinion. I don't care about politics and if you are on one side or the other you are probably a horrible person.

I don't watch people plumbing or being a doctor and if either were trying to talk politics with me I would just nod and smile until the subject changes.

Just look at Russel Brand

11110111011 posted...

Using your example, I just want to watch people play a game and hear about the game - not some political opinion. I don't care about politics and if you are on one side or the other you are probably a horrible person.

I don't watch people plumbing or being a doctor and if either were trying to talk politics with me I would just nod and smile until the subject changes.

Translation: "The status quo generally benefits me and I don't want to have to think about how it's hurting other people."

adjl posted...

Translation: "The status quo generally benefits me and I don't want to have to think about how it's hurting other people."

"People who play video games professionally know more about politics than actual politicians"

11110111011 posted...

Using your example, I just want to watch people play a game and hear about the game - not some political opinion. I don't care about politics and if you are on one side or the other you are probably a horrible person.

I don't watch people plumbing or being a doctor and if either were trying to talk politics with me I would just nod and smile until the subject changes.

Who cares what you want though? Lol. Why are you so important that people who don't know you need to adjust their behavior to satisfy you?

adjl posted...

Translation: "The status quo generally benefits me and I don't want to have to think about how it's hurting other people."

Oh, but let's be fair. Everything in the world is politicized at the moment and there are very few places you can go to escape political dialogue. Is it necessary to think about the rights and wrongs at the world? Absolutely: someone who wants to escape and be entertained 100% of the time is not being a good citizen.

But do we need to agonize over the politics of the world 100% of the time? No: that is not healthy either. It is fair to want some entertainment that creates a safe, politics-free zone. That doesn't mean that an athlete/entertainer can't talk about politics: they can do what they want. But if they make politics a heavy part of their act I may choose not to watch them if I'm not in the mood: that is my right (so long as I am appropriately involved elsewhere).

At a higher level, we aren't going to convince anyone of different beliefs to agree with anything we are saying by pushing our views in their face constantly. That is, instead, the easiest way to drive society further apart. If a civil war is the only way to go, well, then have at it: there might be enough people out there who want nothing less that there's no other choice. But healing common ground is still my approach...and politics-free spaces has a place in that.

wpot posted...

Oh, but let's be fair. Everything in the world is politicized at the moment and there are very few places you can go to escape political dialogue. Is it necessary to think about the rights and wrongs at the world? Absolutely: someone who wants to escape and be entertained 100% of the time is not being a good citizen.

But do we need to agonize over the politics of the world 100% of the time? No: that is not healthy either. It is fair to want some entertainment that creates a safe, politics-free zone. That doesn't mean that an athlete/entertainer can't talk about politics: they can do what they want. But if they make politics a heavy part of their act I may choose not to watch them if I'm not in the mood: that is my right (so long as I am appropriately involved elsewhere).

At a higher level, we aren't going to convince anyone of different beliefs to agree with anything we are saying by pushing our views in their face constantly. That is, instead, the easiest way to drive society further apart. If a civil war is the only way to go, well, then have at it: there might be enough people out there who want nothing less that there's no other choice. But healing common ground is still my approach...and politics-free spaces has a place in that.

is it for you to decide who gets to talk about politics and when? like you address this and still typed so much. lol

Jen0125 posted...

is it for you to decide who gets to talk about politics and when?

I didn't say anything of the sort. People can talk about what they want when they want. Anyone else can listen when they want to.

I'm just saying that if people care about the effectiveness (not simply "rightness") of their actions in relation to achieving their presumed political goals then I suggest they could pick and choose their actions better. It is my observation that people don't often consider effectiveness.

i guess i'm confused as to why you think a lay person offering an opinion means they want to be effective or change anything?

Jen0125 posted...

i guess i'm confused as to why you think a lay person offering an opinion means they want to be effective or change anything?

Well, we started off talking about entertainers and athletes. Do I believe filmmakers and athletes are trying to influence societal beliefs when they speak from their movies/platforms? I think they often are, yes...and I think it's more often than not counterproductive.

Again, they can do/say what they want and I often agree with the statements that I'm calling counterproductive. I'm just saying that societies' current habit of yelling political statements in all forums at all times (both left and right) isn't bringing us anywhere good.

wpot posted...

I'm just saying that societies' current habit of yelling political statements in all forums at all times (both left and right) isn't bringing us anywhere good.

how is simply discussing politics or your political leanings where ever you see fit "bringing us somewhere bad" then? just because you want shelter from being inundated by reality everywhere you go? idk i think you can find that in your own home lol.

i get that you keep saying they're free to do so and you're free to say whatever but why even bother getting involved in this conversation if you realize that anyone can talk about whatever they want where ever they want?

Well, there are a few ways to respond to that but I need to leave so Ill just cut to the chase. The talking points (right or left) of politics cover only a small part of reality: the divisive part. Concentrating on those issues at the increasing expense of all others is unhealthy at best.

As for why Im talking about it: there are no forums left for we few moderates and we have to end up somewhere.

People should be talking more about happy and fun things. Politics is not happy or fun, unless youre a politician making a LOT of money arguing about everything,

I think if there is a political opinion that everyone can get behind, it is that most politicians are scum. Left, right, center, up, down, or from the planet Pictolatarian, they all suck.

Everyone's entitled to express their opinion, and I don't know of anyone who's ever been persuaded to question or change their opinion just because they found out that a particular celebrity held a different one.

When I did construction, there was this boomer ass plumber always trying to talk shit to me and I would tell him to shut up and go fix a toilet

kind9 posted...

The world would probably be a better place if more people kept their stupid political opinions to themselves.

The advent of the internet has been huge for fringe politics. It used to be that the people with batshit crazy politics were ostracized by others in their communities, but with the internet these people are able to mingle and actually get shit passed.

wpot posted...

I didn't say anything of the sort. People can talk about what they want when they want. Anyone else can listen when they want to.

While that's all true, that's also not what the topic is about. This topic is about people demanding that entertainers don't say anything political for the sake of maintaining their escapism. Tuning out of political discussions is generally fine (though doing that all the time is harmful and self-centred), but demanding that political discussions stop because you don't want to participate in people trying to make the world a better place is not.

wpot posted...

It is fair to want some entertainment that creates a safe, politics-free zone.

Here's the other thing: What is "politics-free entertainment"? Because 99% of the time, when people complain about media being "too political," it's not that they regularly consume media with no political message whatsoever, it's that they disagree with that particular political message and want to shut it down without thinking about why the disagreement exists and how to argue in favour of their own position (often because their position is pretty indefensible and coming to terms with that requires them to reconcile some considerable cognitive dissonance). The vast majority of media does carry some manner of political message. Finding examples of truly apolitical media is quite difficult.

Revelation34 posted...

"People who play video games professionally know more about politics than actual politicians"

Quite possibly. The only expertise politicians need is knowing how to get elected and how the government works. They're not inherently more qualified than anyone else to discuss any given matter of social significance.

OhhhJa posted...

When I did construction, there was this boomer ass plumber always trying to talk shit to me and I would tell him to shut up and go fix a toilet

Guess he had toilet opinions

adjl posted...

but demanding that political discussions stop because you don't want to participate in people trying to make the world a better place is not.

Sure, it depends upon how broad of a statement is being made. If we're considering only the statement "all entertainers should stick to their entertainment", yes, that's overly broad...particularly if the statement is made in the context of trying to silence a particular individual. I was pointing out that a person saying that could actually mean "divisive politics is taking up too much space in our entertainment", however, which I believe is a fair point.

adjl posted...

Because 99% of the time, when people complain about media being "too political," it's not that they regularly consume media with no political message whatsoever, it's that they disagree with that particular political message and want to shut it down without thinking about why the disagreement exists and how to argue in favour of their own position (often because their position is pretty indefensible and coming to terms with that requires them to reconcile some considerable cognitive dissonance).

Hmm...do I agree with that? No, not fully. I would say that many people making that statement are exhausted by hearing the same divisive talking points and don't want to think about them yet again in the middle of entertainment they are trying to consume. Sure some people are trying to avoid certain issues that make them uncomfortable and/or are going to stick with their political tribe on most all positions regardless of logic, but I'm not sure that intentionally shoving the issues in their faces during entertainment is doing any good anyways. Frankly I would suspect it is hardening their opinion against "the other side" given the associated annoyance. So maybe I am mostly disagreeing about the percentage. Closer to 50%. :)

adjl posted...

Finding examples of truly apolitical media is quite difficult.

Certainly, and it's more and more true every year. People are getting forced further and further into echo chambers given that they effectively have to choose one side or the other when consuming media.

ANYways, my point: there are times when there are issues that are important enough that everyone (including entertainers) can/should speak up. However, the divisive topics are being dragged out too commonly for society's good at the present moment.

wpot posted...

Sure, it depends upon how broad of a statement is being made. If we're considering only the statement "all entertainers should stick to their entertainment", yes, that's overly broad...particularly if the statement is made in the context of trying to silence a particular individual. I was pointing out that a person saying that could actually mean "divisive politics is taking up too much space in our entertainment", however, which I believe is a fair point.

Potentially, but people making this complaint rarely take that approach. It's much more commonly people lashing out at an individual for "being too political."

wpot posted...

I'm not sure that intentionally shoving the issues in their faces during entertainment is doing any good anyways.

It works to normalize it. This is a major part of why you have the sense that modern media is so much more political than historical media: Many of the political stances in historical media that were once considered divisive are now completely ordinary, in large part due to the efforts of entertainers who decided to portray them and establish that basis for ultimately accepting them. When people have a problem with something that is in fact harmless (such as interracial or same-sex relationships, to use a historical example and a closely analogous modern one) exposing them to that thing and giving them a chance to see that no harm is coming of it is a critical part of getting them to accept it. The die-hard opponents aren't necessarily going to be swayed (and, in fact, them getting increasingly angry at the extent to which society has accepted things they don't like is a major reason why politics gets so divisive these days), but enough fence-sitters will to make acceptance the new norm for society as a whole.

wpot posted...

I would say that many people making that statement are exhausted by hearing the same divisive talking points and don't want to think about them yet again in the middle of entertainment they are trying to consume

Not really. When you hear a divisive talking point you already agree with, it doesn't make you think much. You already agree with it, after all. It's either going to provide you with new insights and ideas that you can incorporate into your position (which is generally not very cognitively demanding), or it's going to be immediately accepted without any further consideration. It's things you disagree with that make you think: Why would they say this? Why don't I agree with them? How do their justifications align with the basis for my world view? Should I be considering their position? How can I convince somebody that thinks that way to agree with me?

It is true that people get tired of being reminded how terrible the world is (which is what actually happens when media expresses a political view you agree with: It reminds you that this change that you feel is necessary still hasn't come to pass), but framing that as "media is too political" isn't accurate because the actual issue is "I need to take a break from worrying about the world" (I mean, the actual issue is that people keep doing horrible things that make the world terrible, but we aren't looking that broadly at the matter), and most people who are in that position do express something akin to the latter instead of the former. "Media is too political" is much more commonly the anthem of people who just don't want to have to think about problems or viewpoints on which they haven't already made up their minds.

wpot posted...

Certainly, and it's more and more true every year.

It's never not been roughly as true as it is today. The only thing that's changing is that communities that want to push back against "woke media" have enough of a voice now that you hear them complaining more often, plus historical media generally doesn't seem as politically charged because it aligns well enough with modern culture to seem like it's not calling for change.

As a challenge, see if you can name five different pieces of media from the last 20 years with absolutely zero political connotations. I'll suggest taking that a step further and making sure that whatever you pick does actually try to tell some sort of compelling story, to rule out picks like Tetris or Mario that are devoid of any sort of meaning, but I feel like that should go without saying.

im going to close this topic so adjl doesnt waste hours of his day writing novels that no one is going to read