celebrities' anti-gun messages vs the scenes that have made them famous

Originally Posted by mistrzmiasta

sort of like candy cigarettes?

yes exactly. If little kids watched mad men then yes.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

I've got no problem with actors spouting off about pervasive violence.

What bugs me is that they making millions of dollars creating media that glorifies it, and in the same breath make a commercial condemning it.

If Hollywood wants to talk to us about how terrible our culture of violence is, they need to start with the man in the mirror.

The problem is that actors aren't special people - they aren't policy makers or legislators or real leaders. We see them in the movies and our brains are tricked into thinking that we KNOW them personally. It's why celebrity culture and People magazine are so popular - our brains are tricked into thinking we have a personal connection with them. Imagine if you saw your favorite actor eating lunch at the table next to you - you would probably try to talk to them and tell them how much you enjoyed their movies - your brain is telling you that you know them and that you can talk to them just like someone you know in real life. But it's not real. And actors exploit the crap out of that psychological phenomenon.

There should be a law that says that any time an actor goes on tv as an individual asking for something, they should be required to say "you may have seen me on tv or the movies - but in real life I'm a complete stranger to you - you don't know me and I don't know you".

Originally Posted by Silver_Surfer

I don't think actors should be blamed for other peoples actions. That's the problem, everyone wants to put the blame on someone else. Instead of saying, "Man, that guy is Fk'd up for shooting all those people, what a bastard" they say, "The mother should not have had guns in the house or he listened/watched/played to many (insert edgy music/movies/video games)." However, I do see the irony of some actor protesting what he just glorified in the latest summer blockbuster. Which is another issue, society puts too much weight in the words some actor or musician preaches about their flavor of the month cause.

But that's America for you...

People are sue happy in this country too.

Yeah, they can go fvck themselves for their hypocrisy and publicity stunts feeding off dead children.

The bottom line, there is no correlation with the video and the actors personal opinion. They're actors, they're paid to act like someone else.

Move along, just conservatives reaching for an argument.

A little consistency would also be nice.

If a smoking cartoon camel makes kids smoke, why does seeing violent television not contribute to violent kids?

If seeing violence on TV, movies, or in video games has no negative impact on kids, then seeing pornography in the same places also shouldn't have an effect, right?

Either images in media affect those experiencing them (especially kids in various stages of development), or they don't. Don't sit there and try to tell me, though, that only some things have an effect, and others don't. Don't tell me that a ten year old can watch UFC and have no negative effects, but a glimpse of sex will ruin them.

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

The bottom line, there is no correlation with the video and the actors personal opinion. They're actors, they're paid to act like someone else.

Move along, just conservatives reaching for an argument.

No, it's a perfectly valid argument. You don't get to portray two completely different opinions on and off the screen without getting called out in it.

Did I see Jamie Foxx in that video? Didn't he just star in a Quentin Tarantino movie glorifying violence as a solution to a problem?

Didn't he also have a famous quote recently about how great it felt in that movie to kill white people?

And now he wants to tell me how bad gun violence is and how we need to put a stop to it?

Please, Jamie, explain to me why you think gun violence is so bad yet you're willing to take millions of dollars of people's money to glorify it. Go ahead, we're waiting. Insert condescendingwillywonka.jpg.

ban entertainment

Looks like Nova's pretty much got this thread covered.

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

Looks like Nova's pretty much got this thread covered.

Like a hobo on a cheese sandwich

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

No, it's a perfectly valid argument. You don't get to portray two completely different opinions on and off the screen without getting called out in it.

Two different opinions?

Edit: every role doesn't depict their opinion.

What they do on screen is fake. If seen otherwise, it isn't their problem. What they say on camera for an audience like advocating for their opinion on gun control isn't. I don't agree with their opinion, but I don't see how having a fake weapon in their hands during a fake movie, contradicts their real life opinions.

Edit: I could see come contradiction with a major action star that had guns in every movie, but Amy poehler holding a fake weapon is hardly contradiction.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

A little consistency would also be nice.

If a smoking cartoon camel makes kids smoke, why does seeing violent television not contribute to violent kids?

If seeing violence on TV, movies, or in video games has no negative impact on kids, then seeing pornography in the same places also shouldn't have an effect, right?

Either images in media affect those experiencing them (especially kids in various stages of development), or they don't. Don't sit there and try to tell me, though, that only some things have an effect, and others don't. Don't tell me that a ten year old can watch UFC and have no negative effects, but a glimpse of sex will ruin them.

By that reasoning I should be a mass shooter tentacle rapist.

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

What they do on screen is fake. If seen otherwise, it isn't their problem. What they say on camera for an audience like advocating for their opinion on gun control isn't. I don't agree with their opinion, but I don't see how having a fake weapon in their hands during a fake movie, contradicts their real life opinions.

Edit: I could see come contradiction with a major action star that had guns in every movie, but Amy poehler holding a fake weapon is hardly contradiction.

kids don't have the capacity to tell make believe from reality at a young age. It's not their fault, it's the fact that they haven't developed that abstract distinction yet.

If they're so anti guns, stop making movies that glorify them and their use, stop making them into big jokes.

Most of those were hardly that. Randomly hunting as a guest of someone, just holding one in a room, etc. Most of those were not clips what made them famous. It's stretching for an argument, and moot at best.

Originally Posted by 'busa

"The scenes that made them famous"? Jon Hamm was made famous by that movie with Ben Affleck? Amy Poehler was made famous by a scene in Parks & Rec where she once shoots a gun?

In that Parks & Rec episode--in which they tag Amy Poehler, Aziz Ansari, and Rashida Jones--they're on a hunting trip, and someone gets shot because they weren't handling the gun carefully.

Sarah Silverman? It was a parody about the fact that it's easier to get a gun permit than it is to register to vote.

But yeah, I think that many of actors and actress have to look in the mirror and use their clout to say no to scripts which glorify gun violence.

Have I missed something here?

All I see is a load of celebs asking for a plan to try and avoid all these mass shootings? How can this in any way be construed as a bad thing?

Aren't they just asking for a debate on the matter, i.e. everyone has their say and then a plan is developed on the back of that?

Does the US psyche really not have the fortitude to try and get to the bottom of what's happening here?

Originally Posted by Goughie

Have I missed something here?

All I see is a load of celebs asking for a plan to try and avoid all these mass shootings? How can this in any way be construed as a bad thing?

Aren't they just asking for a debate on the matter, i.e. everyone has their say and then a plan is developed on the back of that?

Does the US psyche really not have the fortitude to try and get to the bottom of what's happening here?

U.S. citizens are ignorant and while sidestep any and all preventive measures as well as a logical approach.