Hollywood Hypocrites

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**clively**

Let's see here:
Estimated 270,000,000 guns in civilian hands in the US. Comes out to about 89 guns per 100 people.

Nearly 16,000 homicides in 2011 (using anything from hands and clubs to guns).

11,100 of those used guns. I guess the perpetrators figured out how to get by without a bullet for 1/3 of them.

By comparison:
32,367 people died from car related injuries. - almost 3 times as many.
123,000 died from simple accidents like falling off a ladder, etc. - 10 times as many.
600,000 died from heart disease - 54 times as many.

If they really wanted to do something, they'd force healthcare providers to focus on preventative medicine instead of on wracking up bills after the fact ( that is a completely different other topic ).

or, make sure everyone had the appropriate warning labels affixed to every possible thing that might hurt you and then make sure everyone in this country can read.

Either of those things would benefit the citizens much more than banning any kind of weapon.

Data from
CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/acc-inj.htm
Wikipedia (car deaths): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

**BlapBlapBlap**

Breotan wrote:
Ouze wrote:
1.) Hypocrite has an E at the end.
Are you sure? Maybe they're hypocrits means they rolled a natural 20 and are dealing double hypocrisy.

Hypo means lacking in...

**LuciusAR**

Sorry but the logic behind this video is nonsensical. By these standards if an actors have ever played a murder in a film it would be hypocritical for them to condemn murder in real life. That's clearly a ludicrous conclusion to draw. Seriously there are plenty of legitimate reasons to dismiss the opinions of actors on any subject other than acting, but this isn't one of them.

In fact if we apply this same logic to ourselves we would have no right to object to military action in the world because of our hobby. If that sound daft then it's no more so that this video.

Incidentally there is a huge difference between a film featuring guns and a film glorifying guns. In fact plenty of violent films are anti violence, just as a war movie can be anti war.

**Cheesecat**

clively wrote:
Let's see here:
Estimated 270,000,000 guns in civilian hands in the US. Comes out to about 89 guns per 100 people.

Nearly 16,000 homicides in 2011 (using anything from hands and clubs to guns).

11,100 of those used guns. I guess the perpetrators figured out how to get by without a bullet for 1/3 of them.

By comparison:
32,367 people died from car related injuries. - almost 3 times as many.
123,000 died from simple accidents like falling off a ladder, etc. - 10 times as many.
600,000 died from heart disease - 54 times as many.

If they really wanted to do something, they'd force healthcare providers to focus on preventative medicine instead of on wracking up bills after the fact ( that is a completely different other topic ).

or, make sure everyone had the appropriate warning labels affixed to every possible thing that might hurt you and then make sure everyone in this country can read.

Either of those things would benefit the citizens much more than banning any kind of weapon.

Data from
CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/acc-inj.htm
Wikipedia (car deaths): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Maybe it has something to do with ladders and cars being more useful to the modern mam/woman than a gun also the US's gun homicide rates are significantly higher than other high income countries wouldn't the responsible thing for the US government would be to introduce policies

that might decrease gun homicide rates instead of doing nothing about the situation after all isn't it the government's job to provide services and protection to it's citizens.

**Breotan**

BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Ouze wrote:
1.) Hypocrite has an E at the end.
Are you sure? Maybe they're hypocrits means they rolled a natural 20 and are dealing double hypocrisy.

Hypo means lacking in...

So.... their argument is twice as vapid?

**sebster**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that some of the James Bond movies could fit that bill, though I think we would realistically be hard pressed to find movies that have gunfights but don't "glorify" guns. Another one that comes to mind is Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name trilogy.. in it, each gunfight is much more focused on the tensions of the characters and their reactions, than they are on the guns.

You're focusing on the 'gun' rather heavily, and missing the greater issue. The point isn't about the gun as a physical object, but about how gun violence fits within the narrative and how it affects the characters. So is the film like Die Hard, where the good guy's skilful use of guns is basically what sees him win and those bad guys are all utterly awful people and every killing is perfectly moral... then that film is glorifying guns, no matter how much or how little detail it puts in to what guns are used on screen.

Then think of a film like, say, Unforgiven, where the anti-hero at the film's centre is a very skilled gunman, but the film spends a considerable time pondering how much harm his and other's gun use has inflicted. It focuses heavily on the severity of killing. Even though the film ends with an explosion of violent gun play, it's hardly a film that glorifies guns.

**Ouze**

Breotan wrote:
BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Ouze wrote:
1.) Hypocrite has an E at the end.
Are you sure? Maybe they're hypocrits means they rolled a natural 20 and are dealing double hypocrisy.

Hypo means lacking in...
So.... their argument is twice as vapid?

Amusing as the thoughts of what the possible alternate meanings of the non-word "hypocrit" have been, seeing this quoted again anew reminds me - picking on another posters single typo was super lame of me (more so, in this day of posting from tablets and phones) and I've regretted it since about 10 minutes after I posted it. So, for what it's worth, sorry about that.

**Relapse**

Ouze wrote:
Breotan wrote:
BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Ouze wrote:
1.) Hypocrite has an E at the end.
Are you sure? Maybe they're hypocrits means they rolled a natural 20 and are dealing double hypocrisy.

Hypo means lacking in...
So.... their argument is twice as vapid?

Amusing as the thoughts of what the possible alternate meanings of the non-word "hypocrit" have been, seeing this quoted again anew reminds me - picking on another posters single typo was super lame of me (more so, in this day of posting from tablets and phones) and I've regretted it since about 10 minutes after I posted it. So, for what it's worth, sorry about that.

No problem, bro. There was never any offense taken.

**Relapse**

Here we go, Selleck attacked again:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50503618/t/odonnell-it-time-question-tom-sellecks-humanity/?lite&lite=obinsite#.UPtnEqN5mSM

**Breotan**

I stopped caring when I saw "msnbc" in the url.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Yep, they make Fox look good

**dogma**

And here I was laboring under the impression that information should always be considered, regardless of the source.

At any rate, the article was a joke, as was the Lawrence O'Donnell piece it was based on.

We're going after Tom Selleck now? I mean, that mustache probably lead to many a friction burn, but Magnum P.I. was a good show...and it even got a final episode.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
And here I was laboring under the impression that information should always be considered, regardless of the source.

At any rate, the article was a joke, as was the Lawrence O'Donnell piece it was based on.

We're going after Tom Selleck now? I mean, that mustache probably lead to many a friction burn, but Magnum P.I. was a good show...and it even got a final episode.

What do you mean, "now"? Tom Selleck's been hit every now and then for over a decade, the most famous example probably being when a certain overweight self-described comedienne ambushed him on her daytime talk show for hausfrauen with a lot of anti-gun garbage when he was there to talk about Mr. Baseball or something.

**Ahtman**

Tom Selleck takes hits for hardly anyone, just a few misguided fools. He is a national treasure, or at the very least the mustache is.

**KingCracker**

Cheesecat wrote:
I didn't realize that actors and actresses had to play characters that reflect there real life values, I don't own any guns but I sometimes watch and enjoy movies that feature gun violence am I hypocrite too?

Well really, yea kindda. If they are truly against firearms and violence, then why the feth is it A OK for them to make loads of money portraying exactly what they are against?

As for you, no. You dont own firearms, but you enjoy violence from time to time, theres nothing wrong with that. NOT owning a firearm doesnt make you automatically anti gun, its just not your thing.

**Ahtman**

The actors and actresses don't make 'loads of money' by being in movies we don't want to see, generally. If we stop seeing movies like that, they will stop making them.

**Ouze**

KingCracker wrote:
Well really, yea kindda. If they are truly against firearms and violence, then why the feth is it A OK for them to make loads of money portraying exactly what they are against?

Well, I guess you have to accept what level of hypocrisy you're willing to live with to make a living. Most people in this country proclaim they'd prefer to have our consumer goods/food/what have you raised or made in places where the workers have clean food, water, and air, a safe workplace, reasonable hours and a living wage, yet as a country we're absolutely unwilling to pay the prices for goods made in those conditions. It's just the way we are. You pick what you can live with, and you do so.

**Mannahnin**

I know one guy who buys all American made, non-sweatshop clothing. He spends a mint to do it, and in general, politically, he makes me look a bit like a Right-winger.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:

What do you mean, "now"?

A behavior exhibited under a particular set of circumstances.

Seaward wrote:

Tom Selleck's been hit every now and then for over a decade, the most famous example probably being when a certain overweight self-described comedienne ambushed him on her daytime talk show for hausfrauen with a lot of anti-gun garbage when he was there to talk about Mr. Baseball or something.

The movie was The Love Letter.

You might also consider that referring to a demographic in a foreign language is generally seen as demeaning.

**Relapse**

Seaward wrote:

What do you mean, "now"? Tom Selleck's been hit every now and then for over a decade, the most famous example probably being when a certain overweight self-described comedienne WHO HERSELF HAS MUTIPLE ARMED GUARDS ambushed him on her daytime talk show for hausfrauen with a lot of anti-gun garbage when he was there to talk about Mr. Baseball or something.

Fixed that for you.

**Ahtman**

I still think one of the stupidest arguments to come out of this whole thing is the pro-gun people acting like people who are under far greater threat of having violence committed against them are hypocrites for needing more security. The idea that someone in a position of celebrity or power that wants a more in depth background check has to also give up a protection detail, which had been thoroughly vetted, makes very little sense; it is specious reasoning, if we dare even call it reasoning. Of course, these tend to be the same people that conflate background checks and research with taking all firearms away, so they aren't very credible to begin with.

**Relapse**

Ahtman wrote:
I still think one of the stupidest arguments to come out of this whole thing is the pro-gun people acting like people who are under far greater threat of having violence committed against them are hypocrites for needing more security. The idea that someone in a position of celebrity or power that wants a more in depth background check has to also give up a protection detail, which had been thoroughly vetted, makes very little sense; it is specious reasoning, if we dare even call it reasoning. Of course, these tend to be the same people that conflate background checks and research with taking all firearms away, so they aren't very credible to begin with.

I'm not against them having guards, but why not guards with clubs and the like insstead of the guns these people say they so blatently detest?

**Kanluwen**

Relapse wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
I still think one of the stupidest arguments to come out of this whole thing is the pro-gun people acting like people who are under far greater threat of having violence committed against them are hypocrites for needing more security. The idea that someone in a position of celebrity or power that wants a more in depth background check has to also give up a protection detail, which had been thoroughly vetted, makes very little sense; it is specious reasoning, if we dare even call it reasoning. Of course, these tend to be the same people that conflate background checks and research with taking all firearms away, so they aren't very credible to begin with.

I'm not against them having guards, but why not guards with clubs and the like insstead of the guns these people say they so blatently detest?

What good is a club going to do against a shooter?

**Ahtman**

Relapse wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
I still think one of the stupidest arguments to come out of this whole thing is the pro-gun people acting like people who are under far greater threat of having violence committed against them are hypocrites for needing more security. The idea that someone in a position of celebrity or power that wants a more in depth background check has to also give up a protection detail, which had been thoroughly vetted, makes very little sense; it is specious reasoning, if we dare even call it reasoning. Of course, these tend to be the same people that conflate background checks and research with taking all firearms away, so they aren't very credible to begin with.

I'm not against them having guards, but why not guards with clubs and the like insstead of the guns these people say they so blatently detest?

Again, specious reasoning. They don't detest guns, they, at best, detest lack of common sense regulation. One can have a bodyguard and still be for better regulation. No one anywhere has ever stated that guns are not good at what they do on either side of the argument, which is to more efficiently kill and wound other human beings.

**Relapse**

Ahtman wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
I still think one of the stupidest arguments to come out of this whole thing is the pro-gun people acting like people who are under far greater threat of having violence committed against them are hypocrites for needing more security. The idea that someone in a position of celebrity or power that wants a more in depth background check has to also give up a protection detail, which had been thoroughly vetted, makes very little sense; it is specious reasoning, if we dare even call it reasoning. Of course, these tend to be the same people that conflate background checks and research with taking all firearms away, so they aren't very credible to begin with.

I'm not against them having guards, but why not guards with clubs and the like insstead of the guns these people say they so blatently detest?

Again, specious reasoning. They don't detest guns, they, at best, detest lack of common sense regulation. One can have a bodyguard and still be for better regulation. No one anywhere has ever stated that guns are not good at what they do on either side of the argument, which is to more efficiently kill and wound other human beings.

She has already stated her opposition to the second amendment.

**Seaward**

Kanluwen wrote:
What good is a club going to do against a shooter?

Slightly more than a polite sign.

**Ahtman**

Relapse wrote:
She has already stated her opposition to the second amendment.

There is no singular opposition to the Second Amendment, and usually that is a phrase used to mean 'against completely unfettered access to any and all weapons'. The number of American's that want to ban all firearms outright is so slight and insignificant as to be inconsequential, and as such have little to no bearing on national level discussions being made by our democratically elected officials at the highest levels on the issue.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
What good is a club going to do against a shooter?

Slightly more than a polite sign.

A polite sign is just a club with some poster-board attached to it with some writing on it.

**KingCracker**

Ouze wrote:
KingCracker wrote:
Well really, yea kindda. If they are truly against firearms and violence, then why the feth is it A OK for them to make loads of money portraying exactly what they are against?

Well, I guess you have to accept what level of hypocrisy you're willing to live with to make a living. Most people in this country proclaim they'd prefer to have our consumer goods/food/what have you raised or made in places where the workers have clean food, water, and air, a safe workplace, reasonable hours and a living wage, yet as a country we're absolutely unwilling to pay the prices for goods made in those conditions. It's just the way we are. You pick what you can live with, and you do so.

My point still stands. They are completely and utterly hypocrites because of those actions. Im not saying I dont agree with you, but side stepping the fact that they are totally full of gak doesnt mean they are now right because of it

**whembly**

So... the point being that we're all hypocrites to some degree?

**Cheesecat**

KingCracker wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
I didn't realize that actors and actresses had to play characters that reflect there real life values, I don't own any guns but I sometimes watch and enjoy movies that feature gun violence am I hypocrite too?

Well really, yea kindda. If they are truly against firearms and violence, then why the feth is it A OK for them to make loads of money portraying exactly what they are against?

As for you, no. You dont own firearms, but you enjoy violence from time to time, theres nothing wrong with that. NOT owning a firearm doesnt make you automatically anti gun, its just not your thing.

So if a Hollywood actor plays a villainous character they need to live up to that reputation in real-life too?