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

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Rational = logical.

Why is it logical to assume everyone will behave as you do, when in fact we have abundant evidence that people's behavior differs greatly?

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

Wouldn't the lack of any substantiated cases of such discrimination be evidence enough that it is illogical to assume that it's going to happen?

[Kuciwalker]

Why is it logical to assume everyone will behave as you do, when in fact we have abundant evidence that people's behavior differs greatly?

In the absense of contrary evidence.

And we have evidence that some behaviors differ greatly.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


It is right wing, and it is a rag when it comes to its editorials. The WSJ is good for financial news, and that's about it.

I do so love these testimonials wherein rag is defined as proporting any view that goes against my liberal views.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I do so love these testimonials wherein rag is defined as proporting any view that goes against my liberal views.

Liberals live in their own little fantasy world, a world I like to refer to as Canada.

[Dis]

Kuciwalker, don't you think you've went just a little bit overboard with the civ icons? . Now I know where the forum bandwidth is going.

[Kuciwalker]

It should actually decrease load - as soon as you see one of my posts, all the civgroup icons are cached on your comp, so you don't need to request any

[GhengisFarb™]

I know for a fact that your are NOT a member of the Civ3DemoGame so I'm reporting you to the Icon Police.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, that's one of the legal ones - at least I used to be part, and never got rid of it.

What Icon Police?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What Icon Police?

[Kuciwalker]

*hides*

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

And this wouldn't be your canned response to any actor which others have said were denied roles because of their conservative leanings, wouldn't it?

Once again, why would these conservative actors lie about it?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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]

Perfect example! You see, in that case too an anti-white bias exists (quite obviously, otherwise it wouldn't be affirmative action) too!

[Chemical Ollie]

Get a brian, marons!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I do so love these testimonials wherein rag is defined as proporting any view that goes against my liberal views.

No, a rag is defined as a newspaper, and technically any newspaper is a "rag." but more to the point, the WSJ editorial page is raggish because it is often sensationalistic at the expense of, say, facts.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And this wouldn't be your canned response to any actor which others have said were denied roles because of their conservative leanings, wouldn't it?

No, it would be response to people claiming roles were denied them when they provide no evidence that this was the case.

As a lawyer, you should know a bit about evidence. Conservative actors not getting some roles is hardly proof of any kind that there is a bias against them in Hollywood. Liberal actors also don't get some roles--are they a victim of discrimination?

Claiming one was denied a role for reasons other than one's acting talents is the modus operandi in Hollywood. Every actor thinks he's good, and actors don't like rejection any more than anyone else. People like to make excuses that absolve them of admitting their faults, and claiming this kind of discrimination is pretty easy to say. But prove it.

I'd still like an answer to how there could be this rabid anti-conservative bias against actors, yet perhaps the biggest-paid names in Hollywood (Schwarzenegger, Willis, Gibson, The Rock) are staunch conservatives. They seem to be doing just fine, so pardon me while I refrain from boo-hooing their terrible plight.

Once again, why would these conservative actors lie about it?

Well, there's several responses to that:

1) They're not lying, they're taking the word of someone else who is lying (or genuinely thinks they were a victim but are wrong)
2) They're not lying, they're taking a few isolated cases and making a big assumption that it's the rule
3) They're lying, because they have an issue and like to play up the victimization when, in fact, they have no proof that they or others have been denied parts because of their political beliefs except for paranoid assumptions

Corporate America is pretty conservative. I've worked in some organizations where management was quite conservative, and I'm in executive recruiting and work for all sorts of clients all over the country. Never once have I heard of a liberal not being hired for their political views. And never have I heard of a liberal organization rejecting a candidate for a job with conservative views.

Now, we did have a large Southern company that refused to hire gays, but that's 'nother issue. But I would speculate that gays in Hollywood still face a far harder time securing roles in film than conservatives do. But heck, our conservative Mr. Selleck got the privelege of playing a gay man in "In and Out," a film I'd wager was written and produced by some quite liberal people.