Further Lessons from Morally Superior Hollywood Progressives


Dishonest and dissembling:

18 Comments for “Further Lessons from Morally Superior Hollywood Progressives”

  1. posted by mike king & David Bauler on

    Again. i’d like some consistency here. i dont see it from the political right.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      You do not see any hypocrisy on the part of Hollywood people on the center-left (Woopi Goldberg) through right (or wherever Nick Searcy is) or minor opinion commentators on the center (Chadwick Moore) through right (Guy Benson, or whatever Steven Miller is). The only reason you posted the accusation that you did is so that you have something to say in opposition to an attempt to hold misconduct accountable that you do not believe actually is misconduct.

      Reply
      • posted by mike king & David Bauler on

        jorge

        if people have a First Amendment right not to associate with the Dixie Chicks, then why not also a same right not to associate with fascist MAGA campaign.

        Reply
        • posted by Robert on

          They have a first amendment right — no one is saying they don’t. The issue is whether it’s good to refuse to work with people, and to encourage others not to work with them, because you don’t like their politics.

          No one in Hollywood would blacklist Messing and McCormack for supporting Democrats because the Hollywood monoculture is dominated by the left. But Republicans are vulnerable, and many feel, with some justification, that they have taken career hits for not marching in lockstep.

          Reply
          • posted by Robert on

            And if you think Trump and his campaign slogan are fascist, then you have absolutely no idea what real fascism is.

        • posted by Jorge on

          I don’t understand the connection you are making between the Dixie Chicks statements during the course of their official business and Hollywood actors’ campaign contributions as private citizens. I would appreciate it if you could explain it.

          I don’t know what fascist MAGA campaign you are talking about and I don’t think you are functioning at a basic level of perceptual awareness if you are making such a comment.

          Reply
  2. posted by mike king & David Bauler on

    and another point: this aint fascism. Its a private business and the free market doing its thing.

    Political party membership is rarely covered by equal opportunity laws. i think it should be, but the status quo would seem to be in line with what conservatives and libertarians praise.

    Reply
  3. posted by JohnInCA on

    This just makes me think of the Brendan Eich thing all over again.

    Yes, you are free to donate to, support, and so-on whatever politician you want.

    And I am free to acknowledge this and refuse to work with you.

    The important difference between this and garden-variety discrimination is that I am not refusing to work with a person because of some trait (race, religion, sex, etc.), I am refusing to work with a person because of their actions. It’s the difference between a diner refusing all black patrons, and a diner refusing a specific diner because they’re a known dine-and-dasher.

    The important difference between this and McCarthy-era blacklists, is that this is individuals setting standards for themselves, whereas the McCarthy-era blacklists were industry-wide collusion that was instigated by fear of the federal government.

    So simply put… at it’s worst, this is still an acceptable expression of people’s Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association, and nowhere close to McCarthy or Jim Crow. This is not an accounting firm refusing to hire Jews. This is a plumber losing business because he has an application to the KKK framed in his office.

    Reply
    • posted by Robert on

      Not like Jim Crow, which was government mandated discrimination, but it is like what we broadly call McCarthyism. The government did not order the studios not to work with communist (and yes, they were CP members, several high ranking). The studios decided to blacklist on their own, although in response to public pressure.

      Reply
      • posted by mike king & David Bauler on

        Robert;

        The difference is Cold War film and TV studio owners had an institutional policy against radicals and queers.

        Very unlikely that an institutional policy against Trump supporters would exist.

        As a practical matter, their are ways around the big studios now.
        i.e. Independent films, online streaming services.

        Reply
        • posted by Jorge on

          Discrimination is bad when people do it every single time, intentionally, deliberately, but not when people, looking at things on a case-by-case basis, do it repeatedly and consistently. An example of the first is Jim Crow. An example of the second is racial profiling.

          I accept that reasoning. I consider appearances more important than substance.

          Reply
      • posted by JohnInCA on

        The key detail of McCarthyism is the federal government threatening to step in if the studios didn’t self-censor.

        This? Is not like that. At all.

        A few weeks back when that studio pulled that “liberals hunt conservatives” movie because Trump was threatening them? That’s much closer to McCarthyism.

        But this? Is not.

        Reply
        • posted by Robert on

          Any evidence that the government was threatening to force the studios to blacklist if they didn’t do so on their own? I’ve never encountered that and I’ve read quite a bit about the era. And I can’t imagine a legal framework that would have made that feasible.
          What the studios were afraid of was that publications such as Red Channels would cause the public to boycott them.

          Reply
          • posted by JohnInCA on

            […] I’ve read quite a bit about the era.

            And somehow managed to avoid reading about the House Un-American Activities Committee?

            That’s… not credible

          • posted by Robert on

            And somehow managed to avoid reading about the House Un-American Activities Committee?
            That’s… not credible

            Excuse me, but HUAC did not order the studios to blacklist actors. HUAC held hearings and called suspected communists and others to testify, and held in contempt those taking the 5th Amendment. Some of them were jailed for contempt. All bad, but not the same as ordering a blacklist be enforced, which the committee would have no authorization to do.

  4. posted by mike king & David Bauler on

    1. The second Red Scare actually did more harm to gay people.

    2. You didnt need to be a CP member to be targeted. Anyone with liberal views, or had democratic socialist views could be suspect back in the day.

    3. jorge. i think you are questioing first amendment rights

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      3. jorge. i think you are questioing first amendment rights

      I am provoking you in order to draw out concrete incidents, so that your line of thinking is more exposed, requiring you to spend energy defending it. The endgame is to create more of a focus on principles and values for their own sake, rather than a focus on people as either “good” or “bad.”

      I think you are hiding behind provocative-sounding labels to distract from being held accountable for knee-jerk, simplistic, biased thinking.

      The reason I’m telling you this is because I have a short attention span.

      Reply
  5. posted by mike king & David Bauler on

    jorge;

    you have a “short attention span”? is that you being rude or is that code for your bedroom antics?

    Reply

Leave a Comment for Jorge

Click here to cancel reply.