“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”- Frank Herbert
This video reminds me of the time Emma Watson went to the UN and said a bunch of stuff feminist scholars have been saying for ages and a bunch of folks said “this is so important” and “she’s so brave!”
Yeah 😂 I also remember the #heforshe moments after that. At least Emma Watson is an highly educated individual and she is more or less equipped with knowledge
@@nehcooahnait7827I mean… she’s educated through the elitist education system, yes. I think that type of education is very well repressed in positions of power, and I don’t think we really needed her voice. We need the voices of people who have been educated in ways the public doesn’t know about or respect. Those are voices that should be lifted up. Elitist feminism should not represent nor should be considered “feminism,” it needs the “elitist” descriptor to identify that it has a distinct ideological position and project. And I’ll clarify that being from an elite background doesn’t invalidate your perspective, it’s just that the dominance of elite perspectives means that each additional elite perspective is only marginally as unique and distinct (aka revelatory to the public discourse) compared to totally unrepresented perspectives.
>Feminist >Scholar Lolwut? Hating men isn’t a school subject. Anyway that’s when Emma lost all her star power too, wild how saying you hate half the entire world will do that to you
@@nehcooahnait7827what kinda beta soyboy cuc bs is that? Imagine being that much of a simp , being down that bad, and those guys still didn’t get a crumb of pussy smh
I don't blame celebs for staying silent. Their politics aren't your business. They are paid to do their job (act, dance, sing, etc.). People expect way too much of celebrities these days and then get disappointed when--surprise, surprise--they share an opinion you don't agree with. Wouldn't you have been better off not knowing, then? Smh. You're not entitled to know about their personal views. Stop being so invested in parasocial relationships, people
"I understand the absurdity of a rich rock star standing next to a vulnerable child. But being a celebrity is a currency that should be used to bring change.” - Bono
I think Plato would be saddest about Kim Kardashian, because she's a woman and she isn't of greek ethnicity and therefore he would not have viewed her as a full human being. Let's not pretend all of Plato's beliefs were palatable.
Cancel culture is so dumb. A lot of the world's greatest philosophers, artists and scientists were prolly racist af. But they were people of "their" time. That certainly doesn't discount or dilute their contributions to the world.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Genius is an act, not a state of being. Being a talented actor or director helps you produce works of genius in film or theatre. It does not facilitate genius in producing great works in public health or policy. I believe using the word genius in this way will make a big difference. Furthermore, when it comes to experts, even they need to greater face scrutiny, particularly from those within their area of expertise. This is a real issue for me, as a scientist, because of the nature of how big name scientists (read: lab managers) are more or less in bed with the high impact journals, and smaller up-and-coming researchers have little to no shot at climbing upwards if the bigger names feel their work threatened even a bit.
Genius is a label people attribute to others to make themselves feel better about themselves. They see a quality in the genius they envy and rather than trying to emulate it, they give up and say it’s impossible.
Part of the problem is that celebrities have a great deal of money and for better or worse money is directly tied to political power especially in America.
Yeah, that’s the tricky part for them…I’m definitely not one of those people who think celebrities have no business being in politics but the danger for them personally is losing trust amongst the public for being so political and having a lot money tied to politics so they’re kinda setting themselves up to be perceived at as corrupt politicians :/
What's the difference between a celebrity and a public intellectual? I see no difference between a noam chomsky or jordan peterson, or even a channel like wisecrack. All 3 the same.
@@amazin7006well, Chomsky has academic credentials and expertise, also pretty well informed and involved in politics. JP has some interesting thought in the field of psychology, but politicaly very naive and kinda misguided. The wise crack team seems politically well informed, proficient in the field of philosophy but Im sure they aren't perfect and has their own blind spots like we all do. These three are far from being the worse sources to consider when you looking for opinions to build your own.
Nah, I just genuinely think celebrities should stay out of politics. Due to their ivory tower lifestyles, they typically know nothing of the real world, and consequently they tend to advocate for whatever makes them appear virtuous according to the current zeitgeist, often directly at the expense of ordinary people. Lately, celebrities invariably echo regime, WEF narratives (anti-free speech, anti-populism, pro globalism, etc).
Nah even if a celebrity tells me they are a libertarian or ancap I am not going to clap for them, because everything they do is designed to birth viewership or increase their clout. If they support an ideology its for an audience and even if they agree with you assume its for nefarious purposes because all of them have handlers who rule over their choices.
Exactly it. The same goes with sports. If a team or league supports any cause then people always say 'keep politics out of sports.' Despite the fact that organized sports have always been linked to politics, but I digress. But then when it's a cause they like, they're all for it.
"Being noticed can be a burden. Jesus got himself crucified because he got himself noticed. So I disappear a lot." - Bob Dylan. More celebrities should be like Bob.
@@FirestormX9 Well, his fame brought the attention of the Roman empire to him which ultimately led to his crucifixion. I also appreciate the ability to remain unnoticed by the wider public, especially since that's becoming a rare luxury in this day and age with how prevalent social media is. There is great value in being able to blend into the masses and remain largely anonymous, not just for individual peace of mind but because it's much easier to engage in more direct and impactful change without becoming a target for either the public or the powers that be (at least for a while).
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out. Because I was not a socialist" not sure how the rest of that quote ends but it probably ended well. Things just work themselves out everything is fine.
Ngl celebrities who didn’t mind being seen with Bernie had my respect. Bernie is too spicy for Americans, as can be seen. But I’ll never forget that he filibustered all night so my spouse, who works for the govt, would be able to get his paycheck when the gop threw a tantrum about Obama
As an American I believe it is a tragedy that Bernie isn't being recognized as the hero he is. Maybe decades down the road we will understand our mistake and future generations will emulate his ideas.
I've been trying to find what she recently said...I've seen a few people mention it lately but I can't find anything! I'm so out of the loop. Google is not helping.
Plato was very much the analog of a reality tv star for his time. There was a huge amount of drama between all the schools of thought, and the people showed up for the philosophizing, sure, in part; but you know everyone loved it when Diogenes the Cynic shows up in the middle of a somber talk throwing plucked chickens at people. It was entertainment and drama and a topic to gossip about. And yes, someone threw wine in someone else's face. Often.
At the most basic level imaginable, celebrities and politicians are still just people. The difference is: some of them are capable of using their potential influence to change the world, and the rest of them actually have that power but would rather do everything they can to either NOT use it, fight each other, or just make things much much worse... often, all 3. Let's also be honest: most of the celebs we're pushing to run for public office have absolutely no business in politics.
I think we can all agree David Bowie was the exception, a celebrity who actually had great points and used his platform to uplift those less fortunate than himself.
To be fair, David Bowie was always an activist before fame. His first appearance on TV was as the leader of a civil rights group protesting discrimination against boys with long hair.
@@Pantsinabucket I absolutely love the fact he was such an advocate for long-haired men. Bowie really was an icon and a great man when it came to supporting others and their artistic expression.
no. just because we agreee does not mean we make exceptions. which was the entire point of the entire video. this comment is how you end up with nancy pelosi doing a knee
@@chads.1726 there’s uplifting those less fortunate than yourself And then shitting on minorities because you feel they are being *too* represented. And then call that woke.🤣🤣 You losers are so full of hate, we won’t feel bad about what will be done to you when that time comes.
@@chads.1726In that one instance, he was protesting the lack of black artists on MTV - as a prominent artist himself, he was actually qualified to talk about it, and he had the leverage to directly force MTV to enact change. I’m not a fan of celebrities talking about stuff they know nothing about. However, when the subject directly concerns them or their area of expertise, and when they actively be a part of the change, why not?
Bun in the oven is a classic euphemism in my book. And glad to hear a shoutout to Wisecrack Live! 🤘 There you will hear the host preach about satanism and the viewers participate in a creepy ritual of seeking raw dome?
I think there may be something to the idea that people feel powerless, so they need the people they admire to use their power/influence to make the changes for them.
in other words, "people are lazy and too weak and spoiled to do anything of worth themselves. so they have to rely helplessly on people more powerful than them"
On one hand, we criticize celebrities for being too political; on the other, politicians are running campaign ads like celebrities. Listen, no celebrity wants to risk their career by being political. And likewise, no politician wants to release a sex video to gain attention and support. But when the constituents are stupid and distracted, this unfortunately becomes a necessity. In the end, the most political celebrities and the most entertaining politicians reaches the most people. It's just good business.
Looking foward to the return of the live-feed! Hope the kid is thriving! This kind of substitution of moral purity for political effectiveness also showed up in my least favorite genre of Tweet, "If you follow so-and-so, UNFOLLOW ME." Like ideology is cooties instead of a proposal for social change. But it's the exact same kind of morality by association described here.
I don't think it's about "ideology is cooties". I think it's more about not wanting a certain kind of person associated with you. In an extreme case, and strictly for argument's sake, I wouldn't want Nazis associating themselves with me. Maybe it's because I don't want to see content from them, maybe it's because I want to signal to others that those kinds of people aren't welcome within my sphere either so that they feel safe to be there or some other similar reason, maybe it's because I don't want others to think that I endorse them (like it or not, this does happen). Do I think people can be unreasonable with it? Yeah maybe, but I just don't think it's out this fear of "cooties" and I don't think that it's unreasonable in and of itself.
It's ridiculous that so many people are interested in the opinions and political views of celebrities. Society puts them on a higher pedestal. People don't realize that celebrities are just like regular people, they got flaws too. They just happen to be extremely talented in one particular area of expertise like acting or making music.
Just regular people with millions of dollars and thousands of people hanging on every word and changing their opinions based on things the celebrity says… “regular”.
"So if you do win an award tonight, don't use it as a platform to make a political speech. You're in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg." - Ricky Gervais 2020 Golden Globes.
It seems like he was talking less about lecturing itself and more about how they could sleep at night saying such things while also hypocritically profiting off the things they claim to hate. Good intention is the key. If the conviction isn't there, it comes off as disingenuous.
The bad thing for celebrities getting so intertwined with politics is that if any of them doing anything corrupt involving politics they’ll also lose trust amongst the public…
The moment you have money and forget what it is to worry about paying your bill you suck at politics. That's why Celebrity, Politicians and Capitalist suck at politics.
Can we PLEASE make a distinction between a celebrity and a successful artist??? Art as always been political and it should remain so whenever its needed
I was thinking something very similar (though you put it so succinctly). What's more, you don't have to be an expert in something to be invested valuable to the table. I'm not an expert in a lot of things I care very strongly about, but I'm not a complete novice either. Why should celebrities be excluded from that?
@@Tera_B_Twilight I agree with both you and the original commenter's sentiments here. But, I will add that, while I agree that celebrities shouldn't be excluded from being passionate about certain issues or topics for not being experts, I still think they should be very careful about voicing their thought and opinions on those certain issues or topics simply because of how much influence they have and how easy it is for them to unintentionally lead people to be misinformed or underinformed just from voicing a less-than-expertly informed opinion. It's sad and messed up, but this is the reality of fame and influence and it should not be ignored or forgotten. I think the only thing that could reduce this issue would be a complete societal overhaul of how celebrities, successful artists, and influencers are viewed and treated by wider society. I doubt this will ever happen in my lifetime though.
How good does it feel to have productive conversations online? haha thanks to both of you, refreshing. Agreed fully. Now ill add something, im actually an artist, mildy successful in my field, yesterday got into an online political debate and the very first reply i got was : Shut up and go back to doing music thats what you know. Was funny a few hours after seeing this video 🤣
And btw the whole concept of celebrity is different in that side of the world. Im portuguese and happen to live on the same street as the biggest rock artist of the last 30 years in our country. No one bothers him, he lives in a regular house, goes to the regular cafe etc etc. Not once i have i seen him beeing bothered, the cult of personality dosent exist NEARLY as much as in the US and UK for example.
@@filipeventura2729 That's very interesting and I appreciate your input. I think this highlights another aspect of this issue, celebrities, especially ones that are successful artists, aren't really seen as actual 3d humans by wider society but as vessels for whatever entertainment they specialize in. This leads people to either view a celebrity as an absolutely flawless human being who can do or say no wrong or as an automaton that exists only to provide whatever entertainment they are most well-known to provide that can't have any interests or opinions outside of that specific area. It's this dehumanization of celebrities that needs to be gotten rid of because it just causes almost nothing but harm to both the celebrities and wider society.
Agreed. Anyone who gives any lip service to any major issues going on in the world yet votes for any Republican or any establishment Democrat is a moron at best or a shady sleezeball at worst.
Given to be a leader is a popularity contest at the most basic level..... politics and celebrity status is intertwined now. There is also matter of the how social media has made all talking points be a 30-50word blurb/soundbite people don't want to take the time to listen/read to a informed option from a scientist/researcher as that would take time. Think about how many times you see outrage over a clickbait headline/media post now.
To add to that bit about social media having a word count that has lessened people's ability to listen to a more informed opinion. I think a bigger part of this problem is that word count limits make it impossible to post a nuanced and detailed opinion on something in the first place, even if the person posting does have a detailed and nuanced opinion on that thing. It also erases the ability to have complex and nuanced discussions because everything has to be over-simplified to fit into that 30-50 word limit. As much of a cesspool as it can be at times, at least Reddit doesn't have a word limit so you can get as long and detailed as you want when making an opinion post, no matter how informed (or not) it is, and it allows for actually detailed and nuanced discussion to happen without the need for oversimplification (when they do happen). I wish more social media platforms were like this, letting people go into detail about their opinions so criticism can come from a place of complete comprehension instead of assumptions made from an extremely abridged and oversimplified version of the opinion. It would also allow people that are experts to go into more detail about whatever they are experts in when sharing their own opinions.
I would say Plato would be most saddened by the fact that the people given the most royal treatment and scrutiny in our society are those who belong to a massive guild actors as opposed to the writers who prescribe their legacy.
I feel like people conflate polygamy with cheating too often, that said if we're in a monogamous relationship and you cheat, we're done, if I can't trust you to not do one thing with other people after agreeing to exactly that, I cannot trust you
I think a lot of “polygamists” got caught cheating and can’t take accountability for it, so just enter relationships with the pretense of “I’m gonna cheat so let’s just acknowledge that now.” That’s not all polygamists, but I’ve seen that too many times now.
I think there’s also a desire to see the culture conform to a particular world view since culture often shapes future politics. Not suggesting that legitimizes this phenomenon, but it’s reasonable for folks to want change of some kind
While I may not agree with "celebrities" being all involved in political matters, I also don't agree with electing people who obviously don't care or don't know either. There hasn't been balance in so long that non action is praised more than actual actions.
@@Whodyanikabollockov Well, that just means the entire process needs a complete overhaul from top to bottom. Too spicy for most people, but definitely something that needs to happen.
I think it all comes back to the fact that celebrities have replaced the the role of "tribe leader" in our society. In the old days, the most powerful (and thus, most famous) person would rise to the top to become the leader of the tribe, their aforementioned strength and experience being their qualification for the position. The tribe relied on the leader to keep them safe, now and into the future, so the thoughts and decisions of the leader were something people wanted to hear. In the modern world, the famous and powerful people in our society are celebrities. And since old habits die hard, many people simply swapped to treating celebrities as the tribe leader. Hence, why a lot of people care about the views of celebrities on topics they have no qualifications to speak on. Since in the past, simply being at the top was qualification enough.
I never liked celebrities commenting politics. Most overestimate their own self-importance and seem to know little of the issue they talk about. I don't even like it when it's an issue I support because often it just embarrasses the topic and works against it. What I hate even more is when interviewers ask celebrities about their politics, specially when it's a celebrity who wouldn't normally have expressed any politics.
its also like the unofficial rule of bar tending, dont talk about spouse or your tips may fall, gotta have the appearance of being available and someone will tip higher to appear a big spender.
At the end of the day people are people and they're entitled to express themselves but the problem is many people don't have the self awareness to know that they're not built for certain conversations
@@RedFlagRevival A little more complicated than that. The reality is not just people not having the time, people often aren't taught critical thinking.
This reminds me of the line from the Janeane Garofalo puppet in "Team America: World Police": "As celebrities, it's our job to read the newspaper, and then go on TV and say what we read as if it was our own idea."
I think it can SOMETIMES be okay for a celeb to bring visibility to an issue. But we have this idea that celebs should be the main voices of movements. We place the rich and famous on pedestals and act like they are our saviours - but they are actually often part of the systems creating those problems in the first place. Can Taylor Swift, a billionaire's daughter and almost billionaire herself who benefits off unequal systems, be the solution to the world's problems? No, because most of those problems are inequality-based. We need to amplify less powerful and less fortunate voices. Exalting the rich for good deeds is often playing into the hands of unequal systems. Maybe not all are bad - but many, if not most, are. Another is when celebs claim they adhere to a value and then don't: Women pop stars who claim they are feminists but align with rapists like Doctor Luke. Who claim they care about the environment then own multiple private jets. Who don't care about bad or bigoted behaviour unless its directed at THEM. Like Lizzo, for instance, who engaged in the same abuse she claimed to condemn.
I think the comedian Josh Johnson did a bit that kind of touched on this and I think he's 100% right. One particular part that stuck out to me, and that ties into your comment was when he brought up the fact that we as a society expect celebrities to also be excellent people and expect them to support and champion social justice causes and put them on a pedestal for this, but completely ignore actual activists that have made it their entire careers to further social justice and make society more equitable.
Who thinks this? I’ve never seen anyone express this view, ever. If anything, almost everyone sounds exactly like you. You and a lot of people apparently think because an actor is successful they should lose their freedom of expression because it makes you uncomfortable. That’s gross.
@@RenSako Literally not at all what this person is saying lol. I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. They're saying that celebrities shouldn't be worshiped as beacons of social change because many of them benefit from the current system, they're also saying that many celebrities are also very hypocritical and engage in behaviors or associate with individuals that are contradictory to their supposed values. Not saying that they should not have freedom of expression.
@@peggedyourdad9560 And I’m saying I don’t see people worshiping celebrities as beacons of enlightenment. I think it’s you who needs to work on your reading comprehension if you can’t understand my very clear and simple comment.
@@RenSako Obviously I’m using hyperbole in order to make my point clear. But there’s is still a prevalent issue with celebrities being expected to also be social activists on a level. I still think you need reading comprehension with an understanding that not everything that everyone says needs to be taken 100% literally and that things like exaggeration and simplification exist and are regularly used.
I think us Americans often feel like our *politicians* are of this rarefied class, and I think that the actual policies they leverage reflect that they see themselves that way, too. Maybe we just want our favorite celebrities to be able to talk to their fellow Rich People and to make them do things that don't suck for the fanbase?
Guy Fieri was actually asked to do the weddings by a close friend, rather than volunteering (though to my knowledge, he wasn't paid). So it wasn't a political thing, it was that he was actually connected to the community.
"Why did celebrity get so political?" 1. "Attention Economy" 2. Lack of real (political) Leadership. 3. Lack of REAL role models and mentors 4. Tribalistic Instincts (evolutionary psychology)
That's a bit unfair, he's great but the others are good, too. Honestly, at the rate these videos come out, I kind of assumed the reason we're seeing more hosts is so that he can have better work-life balance. That's just a guess, but it would make sense.
There's also attachment to celebrities who conform to your line of thinking. Comments on ice cubes video where he declined a well paying role because he would have to get the vaccine included those who were not previous fans of his becoming fans and supporters because he conformed with their belief.
Banning or even just a polite “we don’t talk about politics” attitude always means that what you do hear/see is conservative politics. Ditto in society too.
Great timing. I was talking to a coworker earlier about Green Day, well we were generally about punk music but I was listening to said trio. I expressed they caught a lucky break, which made them kings of their genre and though i don't agree with their politics, they still make banger music. Thank you, Billy Joel Armstrong & your brothers in arms, for the decades of cool songs. ✌️ and 👖
Barry Levinson did a documentary in 2009 about this called PoliWood that covered this quite well. It's kinda weird seeing how a lot of this was going on way back than.
What would Plato think about people unable to separate the actor from the role they play. Got people out there thinking Luke Skywalker is someone real. Like, a lot of people.
I think of celebrity endorsements the same way I think of "woke" corporations: their support for progressive causes is a sign of greater public acceptance, but we should never forget that movements are built from the bottom up. The rich are capable of betraying progress when it starts cutting into their material interests.
I wonder what things would look like in a world where all forms of endorsement were somehow illegal and/or heavily frowned upon publicly. Curious if that would effect how many people voted and how well informed those voters were.
Just a thought/question id love opinions on, could it be we accidentally turned to them as thought leaders because we conflate their acting ability to protray and evoke an emotional repsonse out of us with the hard research and writing of the screenwriters who built the story? Not saying lets replace the celebrity political endorsements with screenwriters but maybe take the weight off the celebrities and listen more to what the stories are supposed to be telling us and what the writers/directors want us to take mixed with our own understandings we got from them to better understand our world around us, instead of getting swept up in the way the films/characters made us feel. So we can hopefully gain more than few hours of entertainment and discussion. Because everything is meant to help us grow in some way shape or form right?
The Venn diagram of people outraged at celebrities for not speaking loudly on their hot-button issues and outraged at celebrities for saying the wrong thing about their hot-button issues is a circle.
I once saw a promo for Dancing with the Stars and saw a woman I didn't recognise and when I looked her up, the first thing and only thing listed on her Wikipedia page that she'd done was that she was on Dancing with the Stars. I think they may have made smoke come out of Plato's ears.
It's kind of a weird conundrum, like on the one hand there are definitely some celebrities who think they know a lot more than they do and should probably shut up, but then there are those who have actually raised awareness and helped people using their reach, and like, if you have such a big audience and don't use that for positive change that just feels socially negligent
Is it more socially negligent than just voicing half-baked opinions made from underinformed assumptions, and having that half-baked opinion spread throughout their fan base? I think it's better for celebrities to not say anything if they don't know anything. Ideally, they would spotlight actual activists or organizations that are dedicated to whatever cause since that's bringing attention and support to them instead of the celebrity. Celebrities aren't activists and should not be treated as such IMO. We need to stop expecting celebrities to be social activists when there are actual social activists that deserve support and acknowledgment and are far more knowledgeable about whatever social issue you care about.
@@peggedyourdad9560 and we can just...you know... treat people with basic critical thinking and teach them to form their own opinions and not let popular celebs form it for them?
@@sandygonsalves4646 Oh course, but we’re talking about celebrity involvement in politics/social and issues here. I agree that you’re suggestion is the most ideal, but it’s the most naive and ignores the reality that humans are generally programmed to follow prominent social figures. This is just a flaw in our design and is extremely difficult to eliminate, especially on a wide scale.
@@peggedyourdad9560 it's not a "flaw in our design". i don't believe that. we are definitly capable of critical thought, we were just nurtured against having critcal thought because our school system is designed to raise weak minds on purpose. its a question of culture and nurture, not nature.
@@sandygonsalves4646 I do agree that nurture definitely is a factor in it and that there are ways to counter it, but I'm also saying that humans, being the incredibly social beings we are, are generally wired to follow the ideas and words of someone who has more social status or is generally a public figure. I think this might be a holdover from when humans lived in much smaller groups.
