Linda Rondstadt fired for supporting Michael Moore! What about freedom of Speech?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
How is that irrational?

Because there's no real evidence that it's a problem?

[Kuciwalker]

How is it irrational to assume that the other people would act just like they would?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Maybe they just have an irrational fear that they'd be treated they way that they would treat the liberals, were the proportions reversed?

Speaking of irrational, believing that they would treat liberals the same way if it was reversed .

'Coming Out' in Hollywood means declaring you are a Republican. I think they are genuinely scared of being denied roles because of their political affiliation and I don't think for a second that it is irrational.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
How is it irrational to assume that the other people would act just like they would?

Because there's no real evidence that they act that way, just speculation?

You do understand what "rational" vs. "irrational" means, right?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The mere fact that many Hollywood actors have been reluctant to make it known that they are a Republican (there was a good interview with Tom Selleck about that in George Magazine) indicates that there probably has been some backlash against some Republican actors (or else why would they be so scared).

Bull- not wanting to paint yourself as an outsider is a basic human problem- if a conseravtive actors sees eveyrone around them as openly liberal, they will have an inclination not to paint themselves as being an outsider. That is totally distinct from conservaitves actually being discriminated upon and not finding work due to their beliefs, which is a different matter.

[Gibsie]

His point is that it is rational to think that other people would treat you the way you would treat them. It makes sense, in a roundabout kind of way. It's rational to THEM, even if it's not to us, and it's how they see themselves that matters in this context.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That is totally distinct from conservaitves actually being discriminated upon and not finding work due to their beliefs, which is a different matter.

If you read things that 'outed' Republicans have said (such as the Selleck article) is that they have known of cases were actors get turned down for a role once their Republican political affiliation is recognized. I don't think they are lying.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't think for a second that it is irrational.

Then find me some hard evidence of there being a widespread trend of people being denied acting roles based on their political affiliation. That's all I ask.

[Gibsie]

So is the disparity between this kind of thing being reported because liberals whine about it more, or that liberals are more often the victims?

[Kuciwalker]

Rational != correct.

It is rational to assume, in the absense of contrary evidence, that other people will behave similarly to oneself.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then find me some hard evidence of there being a widespread trend of people being denied acting roles based on their political affiliation.

Ask the 'outed' Republicans. They know of cases. They aren't going to divulge the producers and directors who did it because they want to work as well.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
they have known of cases were actors get turned down for a role once their Republican political affiliation is recognized..

Yeah, like how everyone "knows" a guy who knew the girl in the dog/peanut butter story.

Where are the actual cases of it happening, as opposed to someone knowing of someone who knew of someone who knew... etc., ad infinitum?

And not isolated cases, either, but enough to justify a claim that conservative actors have been denied roles based on their political views?

You know, it's perfectly possible that a conservative actor didn't get a part because they wanted a better actor, isn't it?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Rational != correct.

It is rational to assume, in the absense of contrary evidence, that other people will behave similarly to oneself.

Rational = supported by evidence. One's own prejudices are hardly a rational basis for assuming the behavior of others. You almost sound like a Creationist, i.e., it's rational to believe something to be true, without any evidence to support it, so long as you believe in it enough and it absolutely can't be proven wrong.

[Gibsie]

Reminds me of all the times I've heard a white guy going, "I'd have got the job too if it wasn't for affirmative action", when obviously they have no way of knowing if the policy had any effect upon their success. But the thought it could be their own fault never occurs to them.[/off-topic and some more]

Come on, Boris, even I get the rationality point. you're being irrational now.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Rational = supported by evidence.

Rational = logical.

In the absense of contrary evidence, the logical assumption is that the other people will act similarly to oneself.