5 ms·

That's not a good explanation to me. Think of Hollywood: dominated by wealthy and out of touch artists. With very few exceptions, they all publicly express pol

That's not a good explanation to me. Think of Hollywood: dominated by wealthy and out of touch artists. With very few exceptions, they all publicly express politically correct and safe ideas that ensures they keep making money comfortably. That's the total opposite of the direction Scott Adams has been going.

muglug 4y ago
Eh I think you’re wrong about Hollywood: the big-name actors generally don’t spend their time talking politics. Most big actors understand that the more they talk politics, the less bankable they are, and the dollar wins out most of the time.
- the_doctah 4y ago
  Are we talking about the same Hollywood? This is sheer denial.
  - objectivetruth 4y ago
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  I feel that you're answering a bit of a straw man argument. The topic wasn't how much of their time they spend talking about politics, it's what kind of opinions they express when they do choose to make some public statement related to politics. And the answer to that is that they know who butters their bread (Hollywood Producers) and whenever they say something political, more often than not it's not going to be something that causes them problem for their employment.
bediger4000 4y ago
Even before 2016, Adams treated the Pointy Haired Boss more sympathetically. I used to buy and enjoy the desk calendars, but Adams' humor had already lost its edge and relevance before he found Trump.
nonameiguess 4y ago
They have to work with a lot of other people. A comic strip writer doesn't. It's a different level. Wealthy celebrities can become out of touch with the working class or rural Americans or whatever, but a solo creator can become out of touch with everybody.
kmeisthax 4y ago
The greatest threat to most rich people is not war, starvation, poverty, or even revolution. It's getting cancelled on Twitter. The reason why Hollywood talks a lot about diversity, inclusion, feminism, gay rights, human rights, etc, is not because everyone in Hollywood independently decided those things were good. Far from it: this is the same town that circled the wagons around Roman Polanski, after all. And their institutions were built on the backs of bright-eyed female actors being drugged up and sexually harassed. They are genetically tainted[0] against social justice. What happened to make Hollywood care about this is very simple: the people who fought for the rights of the oppressed figured out how to weaponize social ostracism and public shame as a political tool. And this is not the first time this has happened, of course. The 50s saw Congress blatantly purge Hollywood of leftists through ostracism; and there's a whole right-wing strain of cancel culture[1] that rarely gets mentioned. Even deep-rooted tendencies have to bend in the face of external pressure. Ostracism isn't unique to rich people, of course. It can happen within any social structure[2]. The difference is where people get cancelled. If you've been fired from your job for going on right-wing rants all the time, you go and get another job. If you've been given the national spotlight by becoming Twitter's Villain of the Day, that reputation will stick to you forever. And that latter scenario is way more likely to occur to people who are already well-connected, well-known, and have something to lose. In other words, famous people tend to seem detached from the rest of us because they are looking down at us from space. In the same way that any one of us might be a little detached from, say, someone growing up in the 1950s. [0] As in, I am deliberately tarring Hollywood with the genetic fallacy. #NotAllMovieMoguls [1] Remember when they cancelled the Dixie Chicks for hating the Iraq War? [2] Which, inevitably, will form into a nested hierarchy of cliques.

muglug 4y ago

Eh I think you’re wrong about Hollywood: the big-name actors generally don’t spend their time talking politics. Most big actors understand that the more they talk politics, the less bankable they are, and the dollar wins out most of the time.

the_doctah 4y ago
Are we talking about the same Hollywood? This is sheer denial.
- objectivetruth 4y ago
logicalmonster 4y ago
I feel that you're answering a bit of a straw man argument. The topic wasn't how much of their time they spend talking about politics, it's what kind of opinions they express when they do choose to make some public statement related to politics. And the answer to that is that they know who butters their bread (Hollywood Producers) and whenever they say something political, more often than not it's not going to be something that causes them problem for their employment.

bediger4000 4y ago

Even before 2016, Adams treated the Pointy Haired Boss more sympathetically. I used to buy and enjoy the desk calendars, but Adams' humor had already lost its edge and relevance before he found Trump.

nonameiguess 4y ago

They have to work with a lot of other people. A comic strip writer doesn't. It's a different level. Wealthy celebrities can become out of touch with the working class or rural Americans or whatever, but a solo creator can become out of touch with everybody.

kmeisthax 4y ago

The greatest threat to most rich people is not war, starvation, poverty, or even revolution. It's getting cancelled on Twitter. The reason why Hollywood talks a lot about diversity, inclusion, feminism, gay rights, human rights, etc, is not because everyone in Hollywood independently decided those things were good. Far from it: this is the same town that circled the wagons around Roman Polanski, after all. And their institutions were built on the backs of bright-eyed female actors being drugged up and sexually harassed. They are genetically tainted[0] against social justice. What happened to make Hollywood care about this is very simple: the people who fought for the rights of the oppressed figured out how to weaponize social ostracism and public shame as a political tool. And this is not the first time this has happened, of course. The 50s saw Congress blatantly purge Hollywood of leftists through ostracism; and there's a whole right-wing strain of cancel culture[1] that rarely gets mentioned. Even deep-rooted tendencies have to bend in the face of external pressure. Ostracism isn't unique to rich people, of course. It can happen within any social structure[2]. The difference is where people get cancelled. If you've been fired from your job for going on right-wing rants all the time, you go and get another job. If you've been given the national spotlight by becoming Twitter's Villain of the Day, that reputation will stick to you forever. And that latter scenario is way more likely to occur to people who are already well-connected, well-known, and have something to lose. In other words, famous people tend to seem detached from the rest of us because they are looking down at us from space. In the same way that any one of us might be a little detached from, say, someone growing up in the 1950s. [0] As in, I am deliberately tarring Hollywood with the genetic fallacy. #NotAllMovieMoguls [1] Remember when they cancelled the Dixie Chicks for hating the Iraq War? [2] Which, inevitably, will form into a nested hierarchy of cliques.