TexasCHLforum.com

That makes nearly all of them think they are experts on everything?

This resent thread LINK got me to wondering. Yes "Uncle Ted" is a 2nd Amendment supporter and a member of the NRA board of directors but, he's still just a musician I see nothing in his resume that makes him an expert on anything other than possibly rock music.

The same goes for the rest of the entertainers who have "causes." Do they think just because they have some small bit of recognition they are now empowered to speak authoritatively about any subject?

Think about it - - - are Ted Nugent, Tom Cruse, Angelina Jole, Rosie McDonald and all the other "Stars" opinions any more important or noteworthy than yours or mine? I say no, and we should ignore the positions taken by these celebrities unless they have documented expertise on the subject they are espousing.

MoJo wrote:That makes nearly all of them think they are experts on everything?

This resent thread LINK got me to wondering. Yes "Uncle Ted" is a 2nd Amendment supporter and a member of the NRA board of directors but, he's still just a musician I see nothing in his resume that makes him an expert on anything other than possibly rock music.

I understand your sentiment.

The only difference between "us and them" is they have access to the microphone due to their celebrity and we don't. Because of this forum, I have "access" to several thousand people. The forum members can choose to read or not read my posts. They can choose to agree or disagree with my posts and they are free to express supporting or opposing views.

This is probably the source of your frustration. The celebrities can expouse their views and no matter how stupid or lame their ideas seem, you don't have an equal opportunity to state your opposition to the same audience.

If I were to be magically given a prime time TV or radio show would my opinions become more valid or less valid? Would my right to express my opinions be any different? Probably not. The only thing that I can suggest is that when you hear or read some of their diatribes is to "consider the source." This may lower your level of frustration.

I think something that is being missed here is the ability of the celebrity to RAISE MONEY. Yes, each of us on here could, theoretically, ask for money to support a cause, and some folks might give depending on that cause. However, the end sum would probably be fairly small. But because celebrities, of whatever political stripe, have a HUGE audience, they then wield enormous power by directing how money flows, either to charities or political donations or just saying they support a particular brand. And while many of you folks on here are good at letting it go in one ear and out the other, many others are influenced greatly by those who appear "larger than life". It doesn't make it right, but that's how it works.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I think something that is being missed here is the ability of the celebrity to RAISE MONEY.

Good point! I probably couldn't raise two cents.

That reminds me of a story a few months back where the alleged comedian Bill Maher allegedly gave one million dollars to the Obama campaign. I don't believe it. If anything maybe he "donated his services" to a fund raiser. IMO, nothing he has ever done is worth one million dollars.

Yeah. I try not to be a "sheeple". So for the most part I don't donate to causes promoted by celebrities - certainly not just because they promote it. Maybe I lost my rose colored glasses, but I'm with MoJo - celebs aren't experts. They're just other, fallible, human beings. Their word is no better nor worse than anyone else with the same actual knowledge on a given topic. And I don't believe them to be particularly educated about ... well, most topics. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the average celeb has less education than the average member of this forum.

The frustration level isn't too high because I personally consider the source. But, many take whatever the celebrity du jour has to say as gospel handed down from the mount. The fact a celebrity can raise money because of their celebrity is the only reason for them to get involved. Unfortunately, they all seem to come with an over inflated ego that won't allow them to do the job they are best suited for and they become spokespeople for the masses.

This seems to be on both sides of the political spectrum. I find the pronouncements of a Conservative celebrity equally offensive to those of a Liberal one.

It all boils down to, the simple puppet people of the world are in awe of celebrity.

LikesShinyThings wrote:Yeah. I try not to be a "sheeple". So for the most part I don't donate to causes promoted by celebrities - certainly not just because they promote it. Maybe I lost my rose colored glasses, but I'm with MoJo - celebs aren't experts. They're just other, fallible, human beings. Their word is no better nor worse than anyone else with the same actual knowledge on a given topic. And I don't believe them to be particularly educated about ... well, most topics. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the average celeb has less education than the average member of this forum.

I am quite sure that the average education level of the forum member is higher than the average celebrity. Even the educationed "experts" can be totally bias toward their own political views.

LikesShinyThings wrote:I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the average celeb has less education than the average member of this forum.

Depends on both the celebrity and the topic. For instance, I was watching a "making of" or something about the Bourne trilogy, and how Matt Damon did all the driving stunts because, as it turns out, he's a monster driver.

If the topic was hair styling (or how to be a spy), I'd be less interested in his views.

MoJo wrote:That makes nearly all of them think they are experts on everything?

This resent thread LINK got me to wondering. Yes "Uncle Ted" is a 2nd Amendment supporter and a member of the NRA board of directors but, he's still just a musician I see nothing in his resume that makes him an expert on anything other than possibly rock music.

The same goes for the rest of the entertainers who have "causes." Do they think just because they have some small bit of recognition they are now empowered to speak authoritatively about any subject?

Think about it - - - are Ted Nugent, Tom Cruse, Angelina Jole, Rosie McDonald and all the other "Stars" opinions any more important or noteworthy than yours or mine? I say no, and we should ignore the positions taken by these celebrities unless they have documented expertise on the subject they are espousing.

You're absolutely right. Nobody can be interested in a subject and educate themselves about it. People can only be proficient in their main profession.

For example. I am a computer scientist. How could I possibly know a damn thing about guns?

WildBill wrote: ... The only thing that I can suggest is that when you hear or read some of their diatribes is to "consider the source." This may lower your level of frustration.

There are a couple of other very useful options - the channel selector and the on/off button.