Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

But when you are in a position where people idolize you, you can influence popular thought.

Which brings me back to the purpose of this post.

If you are going to use that power of stardome position to push your political agenda (no one would give these people the time of day were they not stars), then you have the responsibility to act upon your political agenda.

If you don't want to get involved in politics and don't spout your rhetoric - then I don't expect you to live a certain way.

As I said - in the original post:

Start a trend that will actually help this country.

If you don't - stay out of politics.

Thank you for playing.

smurfing WHO???

Seriously, care to make grand generalizations wihtout any substance or backing?  Give us some names.  A few names.  ONE NAME for God's sake, just to give some ACTUAL substance to this argument!

And FYI, if you really wanted to know, you could just ask: Most celebs arrive to premieres in Limos, a good number request that the limos run on CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) since they spend so much time idling on the way up to the red carpet.

Arnold in his hyrdrogen Hummer setting an example

StaticAge wrote:

resedit wrote:

Which brings me back to the purpose of this post.

If you are going to use that power of stardome position to push your political agenda (no one would give these people the time of day were they not stars), then you have the responsibility to act upon your political agenda.

No Res, thats your failure of an argument to me. These people arent responsible for political influence because thats not what their job is. Any clout they get beyond their own personal voice is lended from people who are more enchanted with movies than elections, not from government. Actors are only responsible for their own person, just the same as you are, or anyone else placing their faith in them.

I'll start by saying that I'm always a bit hesitant to say "they should be doing this and that" about public figures, I have to agree with Res with this one...in a general sense.

I submit that anyone that has the ears of an audience, however it happens that they have the spotlight, has at least a nominal responsibility for what they espouse. 

Take it in a different context.  Teachers (my favorite).  Technically, as a teacher I'm purely contracted to teach the curriculum to my students and to follow the school handbook.  Nowhere in my contract or job description does it say anything about teaching the high schools kids to be young men and women, but as someone in a position to influence young minds, isn't it kind of a moral obligation?

On that note, shouldn't athlete's promote an image of good sportsmanship and fair play?  You know, set an example for young athletes in general?  (and yes i know a buttload of them don't do so...but isn't it kinda stupid that they dont?).  They aren't legally obligated to do anything but play the game.

Hell, we decimate public officials for being hypocritical, especially on this board.  Are they legally required to set a good moral example?  Not as far as i know.  It seems to me like they should though. 

So why aren't actors with huge followings(and put under a much larger microscope) held to the same responsibility?  Just because we resent their celebrity status, should we assume they're all completely free of any sort of responsibility to how their actions might influence people?

Last edited by Sir Jarlsburg (2006-05-08 4:47 pm)

Sir Jarlsburg wrote:

I'll start by saying that I'm always a bit hesitant to say "they should be doing this and that" about public figures, I have to agree with Res with this one...in a general sense.

I submit that anyone that has the ears of an audience, however it happens that they have the spotlight, has at least a nominal responsibility for what they espouse. 

Take it in a different context.  Teachers (my favorite).  Technically, as a teacher I'm purely contracted to teach the curriculum to my students and to follow the school handbook.  Nowhere in my contract or job description does it say anything about teaching the high schools kids to be young men and women, but as someone in a position to influence young minds, isn't it kind of a moral obligation?

On that note, shouldn't athlete's promote an image of good sportsmanship and fair play?  You know, set an example for young athletes in general?  (and yes i know a buttload of them don't do so...but isn't it kinda stupid that they dont?).  They aren't legally obligated to do anything but play the game.

Hell, we decimate public officials for being hypocritical, especially on this board.  Are they legally required to set a good moral example?  Not as far as i know.  It seems to me like they should though. 

So why aren't actors with huge followings(and put under a much larger microscope) held to the same responsibility?  Just because we resent their celebrity status, should we assume they're all completely free of any sort of responsibility to how their actions might influence people?

The way I see it, you have every right not to abide by any set of moral standards, especially if its not in the contracts. On the other hand, you care about the relationship you have with the parents and the administrators enough that you probably have a good idea that behaving in certain ways will hurt you being able to keep your job. You realize your dependence upon eveyone else shapes the way you behave.

Stars however are what the industry relies upon. The relationship is reversed to a great extent. Stars have power that you do not, and thus less social impediments in certain areas, although they may have greater risks in other areas. Regardless of the particulars, stars behave in a relationship with their surroundings also. The social phenomena that set out the parameters of how all that works is also not self dependent- they also depend on everybody else and it also shapes the way they behave.

One of the most important things to remember in show business is that success depends on recognition. I think ignoring things you dislike about stars serves that end much better than getting upset about them. They require attention in order to command power.

But outside of coming to terms with the way pop culture opperates, at base, they are still only people. You cant go about making different sorts of laws for different people. If OJ kills someone, I want him just as accountable as anyone else. But if OJ is being hypocritical, I dont think he deserves legal punishment anymore than a bum does if he acted hypocritically. So legally, its all the same in democracy. Businesswise however its a different ballgame- your job is only going to hold you resposible for how you do your job. If hypocricy doesnt hurt a star's fame, its not a problem. And like I said, giving them a special amount of attention for their behavior, good or bad, is part of that problem.

Last edited by StaticAge (2006-05-08 5:30 pm)

SUVs, unlike pickups and vans, got progressively larger. That was particularly galling with the fact that most SUV drivers didn't need the off-road features.

user wrote:

SUVs, unlike pickups and vans, got progressively larger. That was particularly galling with the fact that most SUV drivers didn't need the off-road features.

They only super huge SUV’s that come to mind are the Ford Excursion and the original Hummer

I bet most if not all of the SUV's (with the exception of the hummer and the excursion) are based on a pickup frame.

It would much much more cost effective to use an existing vehicle frame for SUV's unless you have something that is a completely different animal like the hummer and excursions.....and I bet they count as only a small percentage of all the SUV's sold due to cost.


But this is just guess on my part

StaticAge wrote:

Sir Jarlsburg wrote:

snip

The way I see it, you have every right not to abide by any set of moral standards, especially if its not in the contracts. On the other hand, you care about the relationship you have with the parents and the administrators enough that you probably have a good idea that behaving in certain ways will hurt you being able to keep your job. You realize your dependence upon eveyone else shapes the way you behave.

Stars however are what the industry relies upon. The relationship is reversed to a great extent. Stars have power that you do not, and thus less social impediments in certain areas, although they may have greater risks in other areas. Regardless of the particulars, stars behave in a relationship with their surroundings also. The social phenomena that set out the parameters of how all that works is also not self dependent- they also depend on everybody else and it also shapes the way they behave.

One of the most important things to remember in show business is that success depends on recognition. I think ignoring things you dislike about stars serves that end much better than getting upset about them. They require attention in order to command power.

But outside of coming to terms with the way pop culture opperates, at base, they are still only people. You cant go about making different sorts of laws for different people. If OJ kills someone, I want him just as accountable as anyone else. But if OJ is being hypocritical, I dont think he deserves legal punishment anymore than a bum does if he acted hypocritically. So legally, its all the same in democracy. Businesswise however its a different ballgame- your job is only going to hold you resposible for how you do your job. If hypocricy doesnt hurt a star's fame, its not a problem. And like I said, giving them a special amount of attention for their behavior, good or bad, is part of that problem.

I don't think I said anything about making laws about it.  I'm not a huge fan of legislating morality (with obvious exceptions...you know, murder, theft, marrying toaster, etc). 

I think anyone with influence of any kind has a moral obligation to use that influence responsibly.  That's my opinion.  I don't think we should make a law about it.  I just think it's lame when they don't.  That said, I don't like when anyone is hypocritical, whether they have influence over other people or not.  It's stupid and it annoys me.  It annoys most people from what I can tell.

I don't find celebrities an exception to this opinion.  They do have influence, and I think they have a responsibility to not be retarded with it.

What was it Ben Parker said "With great power comes great responsibility."

On the flip side, I've never done anything because a celebrity did.

OK -

I think I jumped the gun with blaming holleywood for the trend - though I still think that they contributed to it, and I certainly think that they could be pro-active in taking steps to peruade this country to be more fuel efficient.

They don't have to, but if they are going to get into politics where foreign oil is a big issue, then they better walk the talk they are talking.

People in this forum are happy to jump on Rush for his pill popping problem - even though he blatantly acknowledges it was wrong and has (and is) seeking treatment. Like hollywood, he's primarily entertainment (that's the only value I get out of him anyway).

Last edited by resedit (2006-05-09 7:15 pm)

KingFred wrote:

So what's your stance then, res, that "hollywood" (as if that was one singular entity) should set people's standards or not? Cause you just requested that they use their status to do X. In this case, X is to be more fuel efficient.

But you started this thread arguing that they shouldn't be used as role models. Can't have it both ways. Should they or shouldn't they be role models? X is rather irrelevant, whether it's something you agree with or not.

My stance - as expressed in my original post - if they are going to be political voices, then they better damn well set an example - because people DO watch what they do and emulate.

So if they are going to try to influence politics - they have a responsibility to set examples that create real change.

And not just holleywood - but Nashville as well.

I still never get how "Hollywood" can be a singular voice when there's literally millions of people across the entire country (and Vancouver) involved.  I think it's an easy scapegoat for other people who need to have a soundbite. 

When you get down to individuals, the argument breaks down.  There isn't a singular voice, or a singular set of ideals.  Hell, there isn't even a singular political party, they have stars on both.  Yet somehow, people who aren't involved in the Industry tend to be the most vocally assured that there's some type of vast conspiracy inside the Industry.

Guess what, there's not.  We're just a reflection of whatever everyone else finds popular.  You want Earl, we give you Earl.  You want Scary Movie 4, we give you Scary movie 4.  You want Brokeback, we give you Brokeback.  We're your mirror, not your guide.

Spytap wrote:

I still never get how "Hollywood" can be a singular voice when there's literally millions of people across the entire country (and Vancouver) involved.

They can't be a "single voice" - but the prominent actors do have an opportunity to make a difference by setting an example.

Some of them probably do - in fact, as an example, there's that chick who makes a point of adopting kids from third world countries.

In general, though - the example they give is one of self indulgance, is it not?
And then they talk about how bad our dependence on foreign oil is.

They are not the problem, but they are certainly part of it - and choosing to NOT be part of the solution.

resedit wrote:

In general, though - the example they give is one of self indulgance, is it not?
And then they talk about how bad our dependence on foreign oil is.

They are not the problem, but they are certainly part of it - and choosing to NOT be part of the solution.

You missed Spytap's point.

Look at your post.  "They" "they" "they." 

There is no "they."  Surely you can come up with a single, specific example of who you're referring to?

I'm still confused as to what ideal you feel is lacking.  If one speaks about "dependence on foreign oil," must they drive a hybrid?  Or is only driving a SUV hypocritical.  What about being opposed to the war in Iraq (as a solid majority of the country now is)?  Does that suggest what type of vehicle they should drive?