Log in:  

Register

U.S. Politics

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

17 Oct 2017 03:16

Anyone catch this?
I had a lot of trouble containing my laughter and throwing a brick at the tv...

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/hillary-clinton:-the-interview/9055256
User avatar Archibald
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,701
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 17:03

17 Oct 2017 03:38

Since we are dissuading causes of death, has anybody seen the deaths attributed to opioid overdose?

Pharmaceutical companies got rich (continuing to rake it in) and now tax payers will pay the bill.
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,413
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

Re: Re:

17 Oct 2017 07:57

Merckx index wrote:
red_flanders wrote:[Sam Harris's] entire point is to follow what he sees as logical conclusions in the event an islamist state gets long-range nuclear weapons and to use that logic to point out how incredibly important it is to prevent such states from getting such weapons, so we can avoid such an unthinkable tragedy.

Comparing him as a thinker to Ben Affleck is absurd. Disappointing that this needs to be pointed out.

Certainly many pundits have used this passage to attack him. Given the actual text, do you take issue with his logic or statements?


I wasn’t comparing him to Affleck, and I really don’t see how someone would read that into my post. I said I agreed to some extent with Hitch’s take on Affleck vs. Harris, then pointed out that Harris has contemplated a nuclear first strike on Muslim countries. Which he has.

Your point, and that of many of Harris’ defenders, is that it may indeed come to that. Well, I don’t agree. Harris’ own words, as quoted in your post, indicate that if we did conduct a first strike, it would be without having much of a clue whether a strike against us was imminent, and also without knowing where exactly to strike. Apparently Harris thinks we would bomb the entire populations of several countries indiscriminately, hoping that a few of the strikes hit their intended military targets, because otherwise I don’t see how such an attack would kill “tens of millions in a single day”, let alone how “much of the world’s population could be annihilated”.

For someone usually so measured and careful with his words, that sounds awfully inflammatory to me. The immediate death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is estimated to be about 100,000. In a link I recently posted in the World politics thread, it was estimated that if N. Korea aimed its nuclear weapons at Seoul and Tokyo—large urban areas with two of the highest population densities in the world--maybe 2 million would be killed. But the U.S. is going to kill tens of millions of Muslims? In one day? All of them collateral damage, just because it has no idea at all where the nuclear weapons are, or even if there are any? There is no alternative to that? Really?

This is Harris’ logic: Islamists acquire enough nuclear weapons to destroy most of the U.S., and the missiles to send them there. N. Korea, which has been pumping virtually all its resources into the project, isn't there yet, might soon be able to target a single American city, but Islamists are going to be able to target every American city, such that our "survival" is threatened. They do this all while managing to hide them so that the U.S. has no idea where they are. America thus has no way to defend itself except to wipe out virtually the entire population of every country where the missiles might be hiding. As a result of this, there will be retaliation from some unspecified source, such that most of the world’s population is killed.

You don’t see any problems with this logic? Well, I do. I’m not belittling the threat, but if Harris would step outside the logic of what might be remotely possible, he might see that merely suggesting that we might do this has effects, too.

It wouldn’t be obvious from this or my previous post, but I have a lot of respect and admiration for Harris, and have written positively about him elsewhere. I reviewed one of his books. I especially like his honesty in pointing out the flaws underlying belief in free will. But no one is above criticism.


Harris's opinions on the first strike are another thing. i have my problems with him as well. Though if I get what you say above your problem is that he miscalculated how many people would die?

On the programme with Affleck, Harris was willing to meet Affleck in the middle, and be reasonable. He said it clearly that most muslims are good people. He shouldn't even have gone that far because there was no reason for anyone to think that Sam believes otherwise.
If Chris had been alive and been on there with affleck instead of Sam, he would have fired back straight away and would have embarrassed Affleck the same way he embarrassed another celebrity on the show 5 years earlier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuzio7Zz1M8

But Same was reasonable. He made this "concession" to Affleck. He basically gave Affleck amnesty for the first round of insults, in the interest of having a conversation

But affleck sarcastically retorted "thats very rich of you". He seemed to think he was talking to Richard Spencer. The arrogance and closed mindedness here was incredible and the fact that hes just an actor with no political experience, really shames the notion of inviting actors to discuss politics with experts.

Sam was the one who wrote "letter to a christian nation". He's always criticized all religions. Moreover the points he was making was simply that some Muslims can be intolerant to other minorities, reading out the statistics of intolerance to homosexuality in some muslim nations.

I guess a multi layered power system like that is too much of a red pill to swallow for someone like affleck who's mind has already laid out the world into a simple - white americans = oppressors, all muslims= oppressed.

Its a horrible thing to do because we see here in the UK for example how in some more extreme Muslim communities women are killed in honour killings by conservative fathers who people like affleck would condemn as "the patriarchy" if they hadn't already decided that all muslims are victims. Or how gay people in these same communities are disowned by their friends and families, sometimes worse.

Sam was willing to meet Affleck in the middle and have a conversation about these things. But Affleck was way too emotional and way too uneducated about the subject.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,705
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re: Re:

17 Oct 2017 08:09

Merckx index wrote:
The Hitch wrote:
I will never forget hearing that the supporting actor guy from the Killing fields who won the Oscar, was someone with 0 acting experience.

This could never happen in any sport. No one is going to win MVP in any sport they never played before. In fact, no one is going to become professional (forget about being the best) without devoted years of their life to the craft.

There are of course plenty of other examples. HBO when they made OZ and then the wire, hired manypeople who never acted before and those shows were known for high quality acting.

How many rockstars or rappers become succesful professional actors because they meet producers when they are famous?
tons.

How many of those rappers end up playing in the NBA - 0.

That's why I don't buy the hype around the acting profession. If people with 0 experience can time and time again build successful careers in the industry and even get critical acclaim, when joining it in middle age, then i don't think its as hard as it seems.


I think the issue here is that in sports the standard is very clear, physical performance can be measured unequivocally. That is not the case in the so-called arts, including not only acting and singing, e.g., but also writing. I'm fairly sure you would agree with me that many books become best sellers despite being poorly written, logically flawed and/or saying nothing new or creative. That's not because "anyone can become a best selling author"; it's because the formula for appealing to a mass audience of readers is very poorly defined.

In this sense, I think writing, along with acting and singing, is sometimes even more difficult to succeed in than sports. At least in sports you know what you have to do to make it. In those other professions you often don't. Sometimes people with little or no talent (defined in some traditional way) succeed because they appeal to the taste of others, and taste, of course, is notoriously difficult to predict, explain or rationalize. The converse, which I think you are missing, is that sometimes people with great talent go unnoticed. That is not the case in sports.

Here's the bottom line, IMO: there is a limit to the number of the elite or successful in any profession. In sports, the limits are set by a bar that can be defined fairly precisely mathematically or quasi-mathematically. In the arts, the limit is still there--there are only so many people who can succeed--so if some people with relatively little talent succeed, it must be at the expense of others with much greater talent.


I agree with what you say. There is a limit in both proffessions. In sport it is almost a meritocracy- there is of course doping politics and a lot of backdoor dirty stuff, and for sports like NBA and NFL you need to be born in the top 1 and top 10 percentile for height so its more complex, but ostensibly, if I can throw a ball well enough or run fast enough at a particular discipline, no one is going to beat me out just because their daddy is famous. Its not a meritocracy but its as close as we have to one.

Acting is far less of a meritocracy. There is no reason for anyone to devote resources to finding the best person in the world for a job. You can just settle for the best person available. So talent is very important but other variables are also very important.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,705
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re: Re:

17 Oct 2017 08:26

The Hitch wrote:
Merckx index wrote:
red_flanders wrote:[Sam Harris's] entire point is to follow what he sees as logical conclusions in the event an islamist state gets long-range nuclear weapons and to use that logic to point out how incredibly important it is to prevent such states from getting such weapons, so we can avoid such an unthinkable tragedy.

Comparing him as a thinker to Ben Affleck is absurd. Disappointing that this needs to be pointed out.

Certainly many pundits have used this passage to attack him. Given the actual text, do you take issue with his logic or statements?


I wasn’t comparing him to Affleck, and I really don’t see how someone would read that into my post. I said I agreed to some extent with Hitch’s take on Affleck vs. Harris, then pointed out that Harris has contemplated a nuclear first strike on Muslim countries. Which he has.

Your point, and that of many of Harris’ defenders, is that it may indeed come to that. Well, I don’t agree. Harris’ own words, as quoted in your post, indicate that if we did conduct a first strike, it would be without having much of a clue whether a strike against us was imminent, and also without knowing where exactly to strike. Apparently Harris thinks we would bomb the entire populations of several countries indiscriminately, hoping that a few of the strikes hit their intended military targets, because otherwise I don’t see how such an attack would kill “tens of millions in a single day”, let alone how “much of the world’s population could be annihilated”.

For someone usually so measured and careful with his words, that sounds awfully inflammatory to me. The immediate death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is estimated to be about 100,000. In a link I recently posted in the World politics thread, it was estimated that if N. Korea aimed its nuclear weapons at Seoul and Tokyo—large urban areas with two of the highest population densities in the world--maybe 2 million would be killed. But the U.S. is going to kill tens of millions of Muslims? In one day? All of them collateral damage, just because it has no idea at all where the nuclear weapons are, or even if there are any? There is no alternative to that? Really?

This is Harris’ logic: Islamists acquire enough nuclear weapons to destroy most of the U.S., and the missiles to send them there. N. Korea, which has been pumping virtually all its resources into the project, isn't there yet, might soon be able to target a single American city, but Islamists are going to be able to target every American city, such that our "survival" is threatened. They do this all while managing to hide them so that the U.S. has no idea where they are. America thus has no way to defend itself except to wipe out virtually the entire population of every country where the missiles might be hiding. As a result of this, there will be retaliation from some unspecified source, such that most of the world’s population is killed.

You don’t see any problems with this logic? Well, I do. I’m not belittling the threat, but if Harris would step outside the logic of what might be remotely possible, he might see that merely suggesting that we might do this has effects, too.

It wouldn’t be obvious from this or my previous post, but I have a lot of respect and admiration for Harris, and have written positively about him elsewhere. I reviewed one of his books. I especially like his honesty in pointing out the flaws underlying belief in free will. But no one is above criticism.


Harris's opinions on the first strike are another thing. i have my problems with him as well. Though if I get what you say above your problem is that he miscalculated how many people would die?

On the programme with Affleck, Harris was willing to meet Affleck in the middle, and be reasonable. He said it clearly that most muslims are good people. He shouldn't even have gone that far because there was no reason for anyone to think that Sam believes otherwise.
If Chris had been alive and been on there with affleck instead of Sam, he would have fired back straight away and would have embarrassed Affleck the same way he embarrassed another celebrity on the show 5 years earlier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuzio7Zz1M8

But Same was reasonable. He made this "concession" to Affleck. He basically gave Affleck amnesty for the first round of insults, in the interest of having a conversation

But affleck sarcastically retorted "thats very rich of you". He seemed to think he was talking to Richard Spencer. The arrogance and closed mindedness here was incredible and the fact that hes just an actor with no political experience, really shames the notion of inviting actors to discuss politics with experts.

Sam was the one who wrote "letter to a christian nation". He's always criticized all religions. Moreover the points he was making was simply that some Muslims can be intolerant to other minorities, reading out the statistics of intolerance to homosexuality in some muslim nations.

I guess a multi layered power system like that is too much of a red pill to swallow for someone like affleck who's mind has already laid out the world into a simple - white americans = oppressors, all muslims= oppressed.

Its a horrible thing to do because we see here in the UK for example how in some more extreme Muslim communities women are killed in honour killings by conservative fathers who people like affleck would condemn as "the patriarchy" if they hadn't already decided that all muslims are victims. Or how gay people in these same communities are disowned by their friends and families, sometimes worse.

Sam was willing to meet Affleck in the middle and have a conversation about these things. But Affleck was way too emotional and way too uneducated about the subject.

Discussions like that are really more chess with pidgeons, shitting on the board and flying away happily. Having these discussions with huge audiences where uneducated people are just spreading their wilful ignorance is terrible for how public opinion is determined. I feel that people watch that and then learn that they're right if they can just repeat themself often enough and refuse to listen to other arguments.
Kwibus wrote:So much quesions they have. Answers they will never get.
So why questions? If no answers?
-Kwibus, one of the great philosophers of the 21st century
User avatar Red Rick
Moderator
 
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 18:15
Location: Un Año Más

17 Oct 2017 12:35

The discussion about actors and athletes getting involved in politics is just a sign of the times. Sheeple will listen to people who are 'famous'. They don't have to really know what they are saying, they just have to be recognizable. It probably won't be long until we have a reality TV actor in the whithouse. :rolleyes:
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,413
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

Re: Re:

17 Oct 2017 13:16

Archibald wrote:
djpbaltimore wrote:Considering that 2.5M die in the USA every year, does it even sound credible that over a quarter would be caused by a doctor's actions? Heart disease doesn't even kill 700,000 people a year.

http://www.snopes.com/doctors-kill-more-people-than-guns/

figure I recalled was 710,000 not the one in your article.
I rechecked the post/quote - the 710k was heart disease. The figure for "preventable medical errors" was 200,000+.
As I said, I don't know when that was made, nor how accurate it is.

Either way, it's not the actual figures that I was getting at, but that there are other 'types' of death in the US that are larger in number than gun deaths (with or without including suicides). The same point as MI was making, as to people's priorities regarding those 'types'...
Heart Disease and Medical malpractice do not seem like they would be easy to confuse. It should also be noted that raw death figures do not tell the whole story. If you are in your 20s or 30s, gun violence is likely to be more important to you than heart disease. I would also argue whether gun violence is actually receiving more priority than heart disease or cancer. I routinely get calls on the phone asking for donations to those causes. And events drawing thousands and thousands of people raise awareness for them. That is not the case for guns.
Donald Trump: "We are getting near that beautiful Christmas season that people don't talk about anymore."
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,896
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

17 Oct 2017 13:40

I find the reaction to the Weinstein mess completely laughable on every level.. first the casting couch culture being a new thing.. giggle out loud.. very few are coming forward to say.. I did this and it equalled getting the part.. that would be honest..we're some people raped or touched unwantedly in Hollywood's history..yes..
The part that is really ugly funny, the exact.. not similar.. the exact behavior that everyone is outraged that Weinstein used as standard business practice is exactly,word for word action the our President,Donald Trump said he did to women..he even explained in detail how to pick up a woman.. not in a car or in a bar..but literally pick them up by the genitalia ..he spoke causally about sexualized habitual abuse..he did it before he was elected..his behavior was endorsed as "all American" his treatment of women was seen as a way to "make America great again"..his grabbing women by the pussy was observed as " Christian values".
Our President said that if someone does some of the things Handsy.Harvey has done in the workplace you " should find another job".. both men are complete pieces of #hit.
Unchained
Member
 
Posts: 354
Joined: 05 Sep 2016 00:24

18 Oct 2017 07:36

User avatar Jagartrott
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,156
Joined: 15 Apr 2014 13:37

Re: Re:

18 Oct 2017 09:29

Scott SoCal wrote:

On a separate note, approximately 4x as many people in the US are stabbed or hacked to death when compared to being shot and killed with a rifle.

Do the dead care if they were shot or stabbed? Not mitigating anything related to the Vegas terror attack but in all honesty - should we not be talking about knife bans and confiscations too... or is this all about the politics of the 2nd amendment?

It’s a rhetorical question.


I'm unsure why the focus on rifles? And I know you said it's rhetorical but to briefly answer, yes, a discussion on knives would be the next logical step if, as I believe is the case, the restrictions on blades are extremely lax/non-existant in the US.

@KingBoonen- one should be careful what one wishes wishes for. The abolition of the 2nd amendment along with firearm confiscation will be the very end of the USA as the world knows it. Some may see that as a good thing but I don’t think the actuality will be anything like the fantasy.

My opinion.


You'd have to expand what you mean by "end of the USA as the world knows it". I'm assuming you mean in terms of governance and global interaction?
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Moderator
 
Posts: 6,472
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

18 Oct 2017 13:18

Ironically, the banning of switchblades started in the USA in 1954 by legislation authored by James Delaney of NY. From there the concept spread to other parts of the world.
Donald Trump: "We are getting near that beautiful Christmas season that people don't talk about anymore."
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,896
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

18 Oct 2017 13:47

Switchblades are knives that open via a spring mechanism aren't they? Same thing as flick-knives?

We have very restrictive laws on knives in the UK, I believe flick-knives are banned outright.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Moderator
 
Posts: 6,472
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

18 Oct 2017 14:53

Yes, that is my understanding. 'Automatic' knives. But just like 'assault rifles', the semantics of what constitutes a switchblade is apparently ambiguous. It made political sense to restrict them in the USA as they were associated with gang violence (e.g. West Side Story). There are already a lot of uncontroversial knife laws and regulations in the USA. Guns have always been the politically protected class of weaponry. If the Vegas man had killed 50+ people by throwing knives or ninja stars from his room, I am fairly certain we wouldn't be talking about gun bans.
Donald Trump: "We are getting near that beautiful Christmas season that people don't talk about anymore."
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,896
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

19 Oct 2017 10:59

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration

I'm surprised nobody is talking about this. The FBI had proof of Russian executives bribing their way to growing their nuclear business in the US. This included 145 million being donated to the Clinton Foundation and $500,000 directly to Bill for a speaking engagement. And this was all BEFORE the CFIUS approved the Uranium One deal. Let's not forget that Hillary was Secretary of State at the time.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,468
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

19 Oct 2017 13:09

The Twitterer- in- chief saw it on Fox News this morning, so he is talking about it. It seems to me like the Uranium story has been around for a long time without gaining any traction. The GOP controls all the levers of power, so if they want to uncover wrongdoing, have at it. Otherwise, like the unmasking story, it seems like a convenient "look over there" moment for an administration reeling from a week of disastrous news cycles.

Personally, more scrutiny should be paid to health care and tax policy, where Trump is trying to soak the middle and lower classes so he and his rich friends can get a massive tax cut.
Donald Trump: "We are getting near that beautiful Christmas season that people don't talk about anymore."
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,896
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re:

19 Oct 2017 13:57

ScienceIsCool wrote:http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration

I'm surprised nobody is talking about this. The FBI had proof of Russian executives bribing their way to growing their nuclear business in the US. This included 145 million being donated to the Clinton Foundation and $500,000 directly to Bill for a speaking engagement. And this was all BEFORE the CFIUS approved the Uranium One deal. Let's not forget that Hillary was Secretary of State at the time.

John Swanson

I'm surprised that nobody's talking about this too, which leads me to wonder how much truth there is to it?

Seriously, this should be National news and if Trump caught wind of it he'd be bragging "I told you so" about the Clintons and Obama.

I don't know, if true this is a scandal of epic proportions.

Edit: I just read the next post where djp expands on this, saying that Trump does, in fact, know about it and is talking about it this morning. We'll see where it goes from there.
Darryl Webster wrote:
"Nothing seems to blind peeps as much as patriotism does it!"
User avatar Irondan
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,175
Joined: 30 Apr 2014 02:13
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Re:

19 Oct 2017 14:21

The Hitch wrote:
Merckx index wrote:If anyone could act with “a bit of training”, nearly everyone would be an actor, because just about everyone on earth, with relatively rare exceptions, would like to be. Acting is one of the most highly competitive, cut-throat professions in the world. Yes, sometimes people with very little talent make it big, but they are literally one out of millions.

If there’s one job that probably a great many could do with minimal training, it’s talk show host, and no one gets further in front of the line of political opinions than those.


I will never forget hearing that the supporting actor guy from the Killing fields who won the Oscar, was someone with 0 acting experience.

This could never happen in any sport. No one is going to win MVP in any sport they never played before. In fact, no one is going to become professional (forget about being the best) without devoted years of their life to the craft.

There are of course plenty of other examples. HBO when they made OZ and then the wire, hired manypeople who never acted before and those shows were known for high quality acting.

How many rockstars or rappers become succesful professional actors because they meet producers when they are famous?
tons.

How many of those rappers end up playing in the NBA - 0.

That's why I don't buy the hype around the acting profession. If people with 0 experience can time and time again build successful careers in the industry and even get critical acclaim, when joining it in middle age, then i don't think its as hard as it seems.

The acting profession is extremely, extremely hard to get into if you don't have a name behind you or don't know the right people. There are many incredibly rich actors with not much to very little conceivable talent (Bruce Willis, Dwayne Johnson, Sandler, Cage, Stallone, Vin Diesel, Seth Rogen) and some with absolutley no talent at all but have a famous dad, like Jaden Smith. Madonna is another example. Acting I'd say is one of the least meritocratic professions; I have seen actors in plays or in films who have been outstanding, yet go nowhere with their career. Effectively, Hollywood is a large circle-jerk of the same actors going round and round as they are the big names who can draw in money and audiences. Occasionally some make it big through indie films (Brie Larson), or via the stage (usually british actors) or via comedy (Olivia Colman and Martin freeman) but that's rare; usually it's get lucky and cast in a film, make a name for yourself and you're set. Better actors are eschewed if they're not good looking enough or if they don't have as big of a name as the others as a producer's main goal is to make money, not create a work of art.
Brullnux
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,825
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 14:41

Re: Re:

19 Oct 2017 15:03

Brullnux wrote:
The Hitch wrote:
Merckx index wrote:If anyone could act with “a bit of training”, nearly everyone would be an actor, because just about everyone on earth, with relatively rare exceptions, would like to be. Acting is one of the most highly competitive, cut-throat professions in the world. Yes, sometimes people with very little talent make it big, but they are literally one out of millions.

If there’s one job that probably a great many could do with minimal training, it’s talk show host, and no one gets further in front of the line of political opinions than those.


I will never forget hearing that the supporting actor guy from the Killing fields who won the Oscar, was someone with 0 acting experience.

This could never happen in any sport. No one is going to win MVP in any sport they never played before. In fact, no one is going to become professional (forget about being the best) without devoted years of their life to the craft.

There are of course plenty of other examples. HBO when they made OZ and then the wire, hired manypeople who never acted before and those shows were known for high quality acting.

How many rockstars or rappers become succesful professional actors because they meet producers when they are famous?
tons.

How many of those rappers end up playing in the NBA - 0.

That's why I don't buy the hype around the acting profession. If people with 0 experience can time and time again build successful careers in the industry and even get critical acclaim, when joining it in middle age, then i don't think its as hard as it seems.

The acting profession is extremely, extremely hard to get into if you don't have a name behind you or don't know the right people. There are many incredibly rich actors with not much to very little conceivable talent (Bruce Willis, Dwayne Johnson, Sandler, Cage, Stallone, Vin Diesel, Seth Rogen) and some with absolutley no talent at all but have a famous dad, like Jaden Smith. Madonna is another example. Acting I'd say is one of the least meritocratic professions; I have seen actors in plays or in films who have been outstanding, yet go nowhere with their career. Effectively, Hollywood is a large circle-jerk of the same actors going round and round as they are the big names who can draw in money and audiences. Occasionally some make it big through indie films (Brie Larson), or via the stage (usually british actors) or via comedy (Olivia Colman and Martin freeman) but that's rare; usually it's get lucky and cast in a film, make a name for yourself and you're set. Better actors are eschewed if they're not good looking enough or if they don't have as big of a name as the others as a producer's main goal is to make money, not create a work of art.
Leave Adam Sandler out of it - he's a comic genius.
sienna
Member
 
Posts: 654
Joined: 25 Jul 2010 01:41
Location: australia

Re: Re:

19 Oct 2017 15:20

sienna wrote:
Brullnux wrote:
The Hitch wrote:
Merckx index wrote:If anyone could act with “a bit of training”, nearly everyone would be an actor, because just about everyone on earth, with relatively rare exceptions, would like to be. Acting is one of the most highly competitive, cut-throat professions in the world. Yes, sometimes people with very little talent make it big, but they are literally one out of millions.

If there’s one job that probably a great many could do with minimal training, it’s talk show host, and no one gets further in front of the line of political opinions than those.


I will never forget hearing that the supporting actor guy from the Killing fields who won the Oscar, was someone with 0 acting experience.

This could never happen in any sport. No one is going to win MVP in any sport they never played before. In fact, no one is going to become professional (forget about being the best) without devoted years of their life to the craft.

There are of course plenty of other examples. HBO when they made OZ and then the wire, hired manypeople who never acted before and those shows were known for high quality acting.

How many rockstars or rappers become succesful professional actors because they meet producers when they are famous?
tons.

How many of those rappers end up playing in the NBA - 0.

That's why I don't buy the hype around the acting profession. If people with 0 experience can time and time again build successful careers in the industry and even get critical acclaim, when joining it in middle age, then i don't think its as hard as it seems.

The acting profession is extremely, extremely hard to get into if you don't have a name behind you or don't know the right people. There are many incredibly rich actors with not much to very little conceivable talent (Bruce Willis, Dwayne Johnson, Sandler, Cage, Stallone, Vin Diesel, Seth Rogen) and some with absolutley no talent at all but have a famous dad, like Jaden Smith. Madonna is another example. Acting I'd say is one of the least meritocratic professions; I have seen actors in plays or in films who have been outstanding, yet go nowhere with their career. Effectively, Hollywood is a large circle-jerk of the same actors going round and round as they are the big names who can draw in money and audiences. Occasionally some make it big through indie films (Brie Larson), or via the stage (usually british actors) or via comedy (Olivia Colman and Martin freeman) but that's rare; usually it's get lucky and cast in a film, make a name for yourself and you're set. Better actors are eschewed if they're not good looking enough or if they don't have as big of a name as the others as a producer's main goal is to make money, not create a work of art.
Leave Adam Sandler out of it - he's a comic genius.

And Stallone (and to a lesser extent Cage and Willis).
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Moderator
 
Posts: 6,472
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Re:

19 Oct 2017 15:22

sienna wrote:
Brullnux wrote:
The Hitch wrote:
Merckx index wrote:If anyone could act with “a bit of training”, nearly everyone would be an actor, because just about everyone on earth, with relatively rare exceptions, would like to be. Acting is one of the most highly competitive, cut-throat professions in the world. Yes, sometimes people with very little talent make it big, but they are literally one out of millions.

If there’s one job that probably a great many could do with minimal training, it’s talk show host, and no one gets further in front of the line of political opinions than those.


I will never forget hearing that the supporting actor guy from the Killing fields who won the Oscar, was someone with 0 acting experience.

This could never happen in any sport. No one is going to win MVP in any sport they never played before. In fact, no one is going to become professional (forget about being the best) without devoted years of their life to the craft.

There are of course plenty of other examples. HBO when they made OZ and then the wire, hired manypeople who never acted before and those shows were known for high quality acting.

How many rockstars or rappers become succesful professional actors because they meet producers when they are famous?
tons.

How many of those rappers end up playing in the NBA - 0.

That's why I don't buy the hype around the acting profession. If people with 0 experience can time and time again build successful careers in the industry and even get critical acclaim, when joining it in middle age, then i don't think its as hard as it seems.

The acting profession is extremely, extremely hard to get into if you don't have a name behind you or don't know the right people. There are many incredibly rich actors with not much to very little conceivable talent (Bruce Willis, Dwayne Johnson, Sandler, Cage, Stallone, Vin Diesel, Seth Rogen) and some with absolutley no talent at all but have a famous dad, like Jaden Smith. Madonna is another example. Acting I'd say is one of the least meritocratic professions; I have seen actors in plays or in films who have been outstanding, yet go nowhere with their career. Effectively, Hollywood is a large circle-jerk of the same actors going round and round as they are the big names who can draw in money and audiences. Occasionally some make it big through indie films (Brie Larson), or via the stage (usually british actors) or via comedy (Olivia Colman and Martin freeman) but that's rare; usually it's get lucky and cast in a film, make a name for yourself and you're set. Better actors are eschewed if they're not good looking enough or if they don't have as big of a name as the others as a producer's main goal is to make money, not create a work of art.
Leave Adam Sandler out of it - he's a comic genius.
But he's an awful actor, as shown in his latest flop "The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected) ", even Dustin Hoffman could not save this movie from being an awful embarrasment to the people that had to put up with Adam Sandler attempting to be a "serious" actor.

The best thing for Adam Sandler at this point would be to throw his hat into the 2020 election, where he could conceivably run for Congress or the Senate as a Republican with his sights set on 2024. That could be his finest "serious" performance ever...
Darryl Webster wrote:
"Nothing seems to blind peeps as much as patriotism does it!"
User avatar Irondan
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,175
Joined: 30 Apr 2014 02:13
Location: Seattle, WA

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Back to top