I've been wondering and thinking about this for awhile. It doesn't make sense.
Look at many actors in Hollywood, they have made their lives glorifying violence and guns, sexualizing women, and they are part of the wealthy elite who live lives that many on the left disapprove of.
Matt Damon made some great movies, but take away the guns and the violence and what do you have left? Same with the avengers cast, lots of violence and weapon play, take all that away and you have not much left.
I don't fault them for the things they have done, I enjoy the movies, I just don't understand how most of Hollywood is left leaning, when most of the movies they produce involve things they themselves stand against.
Let's talk about corporate ceos and other left wing wealthy people. There are many company CEOs out there who make tens of millions each year, just as their salary, not to mention other perks and bonuses they may get. Now, for them to vote liberal would seem to be against their own interest.
Sure, I know there are some very philanthropic people like Bill gates, and I'm sure many of these wealthy ceos donate to charities, but, at the end of the day, a vote for the left is a vote to reduce their own pay, raise taxes on themselves, establish a wealth tax, not to mention many of these wealthy types live lives that are counter to what the left believes in. Lavish homes...often multiple homes, private jets, yachts, gas guzzling suvs and high performance sportscars.
I don't blame a rich guy for being rich, but I do question how it is they vote for people who would do their very best to limit their wealth, or even take it away.
??
First, to your question of actors. If I'm getting your premise right, you find it odd that people can be against guns and make action movies?
First, doing something fake that depicts something that you are against in principle in real life doesn't seem all that bizar when you are an actor. By your logic no actor could play a Nazi, or a serial killer or basically any "bad guy". When it is your job to entertain people by pretending to be somebody else, why should your real life principles be relevant?
As to corporate CEO's voting liberal. I can think of a myriad of reasons.
- The CEO can figure that the difference between liberal and Conservative isn't that big in economical terms as to weigh up to perceived ethical differences.
- The CEO can figure that even if he thinks he has to pay more taxes, that his wealth allows him to afford it and that the benefits to weaker fellow citizens outweighs his needs (civic responsibility)
-The CEO can come from a family that raised him liberal.
The point is that I can come up with a myriad of reasons. Reasons I would argue make more sense than an elderly person in Missisippi drawing a pension and needing medical care voting for a party that wants to cut social security and gut medical care.
I suspect though that you can come up with reasonings for that without as you put it "wondering and thinking about it for a while"
My question as to the actors was, you have all of these liberal actors to align themselves with liberal policies, such as being in favor of gun restrictions, but those actors make a living out of making movies that glorify guns, and violence. Just seems odd.
And the ceos, many whom make tens of millions each year, are the 1% that liberals rail against so much. It's just that if they align themselves that way, they are essentially railing against themselves and their own self interest when they vote for that stuff.
If those were the premises than I answered both.
Actors can and do play roles all the time that don't agree with their ideology. You understand that unless you want to claim that you believe Anthony Hopkins for instance condones canabalism.
By the way, as an aside, are you claiming that you believe that Hollywood isn't "woke" enough, since you seem to believe that ideoligy means you can't even pretend to be someone who doesn't share your ideoligy even when it's your job, without being a hypocrite?
As to CEO's. A political party is more than their economic program. Something I'm sure you understand considering the millions of people who vote for the GOP when on social security of one kind or another because their pro-life stance.
No, I'm saying Hollywood is a bit hypocritical speaking out against the things they themselves portray in most of their movies, I was actually asking WHY is Hollywood so liberal considering they are against most everything they do.
Yes, I understand they can "act" to make a movie in something they don't believe in, but, wouldn't you say its wrong to tell everyone else that guns are bad, but then make a living using guns in your movies?
Again, I'm not faulting them for making the movies, I just don't understand why Hollywood is firmly in the liberal camp, considering most of the movies they make are about things they hate.
Its not just about guns either, there are other things they make movies about, and make money from, that go against the things they criticize other people for.
Hollywood is a business. If people would not pay to see movies that depict violence Hollywood would not make movies that depict it.
And no I don't think it hypocritical. Since they are pretending to do something, not actually doing it. Everybody knows they are pretending too.
I used to play Cowboys and Indians when I was young, does that mean I'm a hypocrite when I think that what the white man did to the Indians was an atrocity?
An 8-year-old Florida boy was suspended after using his finger as a pretend gun while playing cops and robbers with his friends at school.
www.foxnews.com
A 7-year-old Maryland boy was suspended from school for two days for shaping a breakfast pastry into what his teacher thought looked like a gun.
www.foxnews.com
Hmm, these kids were just acting too...yet they suffered consequence.
You say if people would stop seeing the movies then Hollywood would stop making them. Thats kind of a cop out really. If Hollywood has convictions, then they should stand by them. If Hollywood doesn't make the movies, then nobody will see them. They won't do that though because they make way too much money off of it.
As for your cowboys and Indians, no, I wouldn't think you would be remorseful for things you did as a child, however, as an adult, and as a liberal, if you went on a campaign against the violence against Indians, and then made movies about violence against Indians, and made millions off of it, well, that would be wrong, wouldn't it?
Nope, not really. If anything depecting the reality of what happened to the indians would bring in to focus how wrong what happened was. Just like Shindlers List brought into focus the reality of the Holocaust.
As to the links you provided. I'm a liberal, and as a liberal I find it idiotic to suspend a kid for pretending to shoot a gun. Most if not all of my friends who are liberal find it ridiculous too I'm pretty sure. So if you want to pretend that such nonsense is a liberal stance I can tell you it is not. I think it is a minority of liberals who would agree with that suspension.
I would like you to do me a favor and examine the irony of you trying to argue that an actor can't pretend to fire a gun without you calling him a hypocrit and at the same time pointing out the ridiculousness of suspending a kid for pretending to fire a gun.
The examples aren't great, I admit that, but you made the comment
And no I don't think it hypocritical. Since they are pretending to do something, not actually doing it. Everybody knows they are pretending too.
My response was to that, these kids were pretending, but that didn't matter to the liberal teachers (and i say liberal because I doubt any right wing teacher would have made a big deal of it), they wanted them out of the classroom. But I digress, that doesn't have anything to do with Hollywood, my apologies.
Ok, there are historically accurate movies about history, then there are satirical movies where they stereotype them. There's a difference.
My point, again, isn't about then being able to make the movies, its the hypocrisy of supporting a group that says that guns, violence, sexualization of women is bad, but then makes movies glorifying those things, and making millions from them. I don't see how you can't understand that irony.
Let's take sexualixing of women. Now, I think Scarlett Johansen looks great in her avengers cat suit, but her playing that role in that way is very hypocritical. The left, often, rails against sexualizing and objectifying women, and rightly so, so, when people like Scarlett Johansen, gal Godot, brie Larsen, etc...get in their skin tight, leather or spandex, or very revealing outfits....it kinda makes their support of the "women's power" movement....ironic.
You'd think if they have any conviction of their beliefs, they'd say "sorry, im not wearing that, let's do something different", but they don't, because, either they don't care, or, the role requires it, and they want to make that money.
I don't blame them for wanting that money, again, my stance is, how can you be a part of a group that would tell you thats not right, when your job is to break the tenants of your own ideology.
Also, again, how is it that Hollywood became so liberal in the first place? Its very odd that, in the entertainment industry, Liberian has taken over so much that, if you show any conservative leanings, they want to black list you. I guess I don't get it. How Hollywood became that way.
