Talk Elections

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-iFl4qhBsE

Ugh. We should not being encouraging people to be more emotionally open. Just no.

And we should listen to random celebrities because?

(Haven't looked at link and don't intend to because I don't listen to random celebrities.)

Nothing more annoying than a politically involved celebrity.

Pretty good speech. She sounds very sincere and committed. In principle I agree that the views of celebrities gets too much attention, but this is far from the worst example. May actually do some good.

4chan responds (http://www.businessinsider.com/4chan-hackers-threatening-to-post-naked-photographs-of-emma-watson-2014-9)

It's far more important than her speech.

Link with more background

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/22/4chan_users_respond_to_emma_watsons_powerful_un_speech_by_threatening_to_release_her_nude_photos (http://www.salon.com/2014/09/22/4chan_users_respond_to_emma_watsons_powerful_un_speech_by_threatening_to_release_her_nude_photos/)

"Feminism is about breaking down gender stereotypes that entrap everyone, and about achieving equality and respect for people regardless of gender:

I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness unable to ask for help for fear it would make them look less “macho”—in fact in the UK suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20-49; eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality either.

We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.

If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled."

Good stuff!

It was a great speech. Those commenting on it without having listened to it should be ashamed of themselves.

For the same reason than we listen to random politicians, i.e. because you're interested?

She was still a kid that there was a lot of sick stuff on her circulating (on 4chan for instance). She's worth 100x more than these psychopaths, she shouldn't be afraid of them.

Despite being good, her speech does not bring any new ideas, but it seems to have reached its goal given how many times I have seen it on Facebook.

A pretty great speech

I know celebs going into politics is sometimes irritating. But as it turns out, people are often interested in what glamorous and famous celebs say more than speeches by anonymous middle-aged diplomats.

The media narrative of a site like 4chan speaking in a single voice is incredibly idiotic.

The speech itself was fairly decent despite not bringing any new ideas to the table. Such is the nature of a celebrity spokesperson.

Perhaps the reason why there aren't any new ideas is that the old ones still haven't been implemented. :P

Indeed. What a horrible young lady. How dare she speak out about something she feels passionate about! Who does she think she is? Stupid naive liberal woman, caring about other people. Screw that liberal BS. She should spend less time talking and more time barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen like a good woman. Now that's real family values. Liberal women, I tell you, the nerve of them...

I'm just as irritated by male celebrities who do the same, and I'm fairly certain King is as well.

Celebrities can reach people who politicians cannot. Most young people today, cannot identify with a politician, a technocrat, or a university professor. They are more likely to identify with "that Harry Potter girl", hence her message reaches a different audience than it would otherwise. From a strictly utilitarian standpoint, this is the reason.

In any case, wonderful speech. Huzzah for Emma Watson.

The reason this thread exists is not because a celebrity gave a speech. It exists because a celebrity gave a good speech on an important issue.

Are you actually a Disney villain now? Have you crossed the border from "grumpy old man" to "actually dislikes the expression of human emotions"?

I too am irritated by men giving speeches on men's rights.

It's stupid to say celebrities shouldn't talk about politics. It's like saying bus drivers or teachers or butchers shouldn't talk about politics. Everyone is free to speak their mind. Whether they get mocked or not should depend on if they're intelligent or not. Waton's comments were intelligent and if a college professor had said them, no one would have batted an eye.

Apparently, that was a hoax:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/the-emma-watson-nude-photo-leak-was-a-very-elaborate-hoax-9752810.html

She probably should have turned down the invitation to speak. It would have at least been respectful to you and others that are annoyed by it.

Nah.  I'm not the type to condemn the messenger.  I'm not blaming her, I'm blaming our media-obsessed culture that places too much weight upon the words of entertainers.

I guess religious leaders are less annoying right?

We actually need liberal celebrities as a counterweight to all of the very conservative religious leaders who have a deep cultural and political influence on people's everyday life and choices, especially in the US where Pew research shows that a majority of adults are actually fearing religion becoming less important in US society and politics (56% of respondents, including loads of Democrats, think politicians should care more about religion). Like US politics weren't already way too in bed with religion as it was... As we all know, it's still a sin to be an atheist in the US, especially so if you're a politician, despite Bill Maher's* continously rising popularity.

*Perhaps the most famous atheist in the US.

I take it you don't mean such liberal celebrities as Clint Eastwood, Ted Nugent, or the late Anita Bryant and Charlton Heston.  I presume you also don't mean such conservative religious leaders as the Dalai Lama, Rowan Williams, or the late Martin Luther King.  The idea that religion must be conservative is a misconception that unfortunately far too many people believe.  Yeshua bin Miriam was certainly not a conservative.

I know that 90% and 100% is not the same, yet 90% is still a pretty strong number. Even 80% or 70% for that matter. And to claim that Martin Luther King was not liberal in his vision of an equal society (even if Southern Democrats were the most conservative in his days) is simply ridiculous. Sure he was a Republican, yet Republican didn't equal conservative in his days like it does today. In fact, Republicans represented the more liberal variety in the South in those days (though it hardly existed there). All the Ku Klux Klan criminals were Democrats as I'm sure you're well aware of. I'm sure he was against abortion and as a minister had conservative views on a long range of moral issues, though it's the 60ies we're talking about, not 2014. The vast majority of southerners, black as white, shared his more conservative leanings on such issues back then (even today), there's nothing even slightly controversial about it. Nothing to make a big issue of for sure. Together with Gandhi and Mandela [possibly throwing in John Lennon as a 4th wheel on the car] he is considered one of the three liberal (and liberating) heroes of the 20th century, whether he was personally opposed to abortion won't change that narrative anytime soon, and frankly, who gives a damn? He didn't fight against abortion, he fought for civil rights for everyone. That's how he wanted to be remembered and that's how he will be remembered. At least by 90% of the population. Even most conservative Republicans will remember him that way, believe it or not.

I rather think you missed his point entirely.

Ernest posts erudite little sarcasms frequently, so he is often misinterpreted by many posters, but in this case I thought his comments were fairly accessible.

He is definitely not saying that King is illiberal. 

Lol, you're right, my mistake. :P Although it's also been documented that King did have some conservative views as well. Anything else would have been a bit shocking, being a high profile religious leader back in the babyboomer and housewives with cleaning-obsessive syndrome era. :P

You always have to read Ernest's posts carefully. 

A little off-topic (I only stumbled across Ernest's post in another thread; I haven't watched the video and I don't imagine I really care one way or the other about what she might say; I'm not even sure I know which one Emma Watson is), but as long as we're talking about MLK I think it's fair to call him a centrist.  Much like Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and, for that matter, angus.  :)

Progressives like to think he was assassinated because he was moving in an anti-capitalist direction, and that only their agenda would please Martin.  Traditionalists like to think that they are the true heirs to King's legacy, and that he might just agree with them on same-sex marriage and the fetus' right to life.  What is he in today's political spectrum?  Sure, he was outspoken in support of the poor and on labor issues but what would he have thought of the increasing radicalization and fetishism of violence of the New Left?  He was a humanist and civil rights activist in response to the condition of the times in which he lived.  Nowadays, in terms of the political compass for example, he'd probably be a bit left of center and maybe just in the middle on the authoritarian/anarchy axis.  -3, 0 perhaps.  Just a guess.

When I saw this popping up in the news, I didn't watch the video for a couple of reasons (after reading through this thread, I still haven't watched the video, but I read the transcript). I didn't watch it because, as others here have suggested, too often the only reason the only reason the media (and general populace) pays attention to a celebrity's political speech is because of who said it, not what was said, basically in agreement of: 


However, after reading her speech, I also have to agree with:


The other reason I didn't read it was because of what she acknowledged in her opening:


Reading her speech, I find she's talking about feminism in its true sense, about the equal treatment of individuals, and that's the feminism in which I completely believe.

Are you trying to convince me or yourself?


MLK was a socialist…

If conservatives really want a black guy to cling on to they should use their own black conservatives and stop trying to conservatize MLK. The guy was the furthest thing from a conservative, regardless of whatever time period you want to pull out of your ass, and he disparaged Goldwater and Reagan so that right there goes to show you how little of a conservative he really was.

So were Gandhi and Mandela, explicitly.

Ernest is being ironic. How is that not obvious?

You say that, but his coma-rape apologism suggests otherwise.

I suppose I should expect that a proponent of totalitarianism would continue distort my position in that thread.  Granted because I failed to consider the possibility that anyone would want to have sex with a comatose person, I failed to initially foreclose that possibility when I suggested that someone who has become not legally competent to consent might wish to be able to do so in advance.  Foolish me.  I was thinking of the case where a person would still be able to enjoy sex, but not legally able to give consent.  Snowstalker, I'll leave to you any fantasies you might have of enjoying The Bride before she woke up in Kill Bill, because they certainly aren't mine.