First,
liberalism goes hand in hand with elitism. Since celebrities receive
adoration from the masses, they tend to think they're important
people which is only a small step away from thinking they're better
than everyone else. They quickly develop the belief that everything
they say is wise and often use their celebrity status as a platform
to tell everyone else what is best.
Second,
I believe people derive satisfaction from hard work. Since
celebrities don't really work hard, they often engage in charitable
causes in order to feel they're doing something worthwhile. However,
instead of serving (like most people do when they help with a
charity) celebrities feel they need to tell other people what to do.
As I said above, their attitude of self importance makes celebrities
think they know what's best for everybody and their idea of
benevolence is to force everyone else to "be good."
The
problem is that liberalism is hopelessly intertwined with hypocrisy.
To be a liberal is to be a hypocrite and celebrities are no
exception.
Liberals
think that guns cause gun violence and they believe that if we can
just restrict more people from having guns, it will reduce the
violence. They don't seem to take into consideration the “disregard
for life” mentality held by the people who commit crimes with guns.
What inspires a person to pick up a gun and kill someone? Such an
idea is anathema to Christians who believe that we are created in
God's image and murder is literally a crime against God. On the
other hand, the Bible says that people who hate God love death
(Proverbs 8:36). Perhaps the root of the problem isn't guns but is a
violent culture that rejects God and glorifies killing in movies and
video games.
In the
wake of the Sandy Hook (and other mass shootings), several liberal
celebrities have lent their celebrity status to promote a video
called, “Demand a Plan” where they call on their fans (i.e. “the
masses”) to demand that legislators pass more gun laws. By
appearing in the video, I suppose the celebrities hope their fame
will move people to action. I guess it's not unreasonable to think a
celebrity can induce people to act since businesses pay celebrities
millions of dollars to advertise their products. But if these
celebrities think their appearance in a video can influence people to
lobby against guns, why don't they also see that, by starring in
movies where they use guns, their fame and influence might be
promoting the same violent culture they're trying to combat?!
Here's
a hilarious video where images of celebrities shooting and killing
people are added in between the same celebrities' calls for more laws
restricting guns. I don't need to explain why the video is so
powerful. The hypocrisy of the liberals who profit from gun violence - and even use guns themselves - while they claim to want to end gun violence is plain to see.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not asking for laws that restrict the use of guns in movies. There is the First Amendment, of course, and I recognize that people have the right to make offensive movies. I'm for liberty and wouldn't have it any other way. Celebrities, too, usually cloak themselves in the First Amendment to hide the shame and guilt of the trash movies they star in. I wish that they would champion the Second Amendment like they do the First.
What I
am calling on is a little self control from Hollywood. Why don't
they lead the charge and start making films that edify instead of
dehumanize? I'm not even saying all movies have to be G-rated; just
cut out some of the wanton, gratuitous stuff. Instead of using their fame to call for gun control, these celebrities should tell movie producers they're not going to star in films as murderers who shoot people with guns.
I demand a plan from Hollywood!
I demand a plan from Hollywood!
1 comment:
This makes a good number of terrible assumptions.
With your first point, liberalism does not come with elitism. Liberalism comes from many sources; a desire for social justice, wishing to fight racism, trying to restore economic equality, a desire for freedom, a demand that the government work for us rather than against us. Liberalism is hope that the world can, through effort, be better tomorrow than it was yesterday. Conservatism is the belief that the past is the best we can hope for. At either rate, the most elite, that is the richest, generally like using conservatism to get poor people to believe in things that ultimately hurt them. Like, getting poor people to oppose minimum wage, even though it helps build an economy and in fact does not destroy jobs. They often use religion to confuse such people into believing that their views are 'righteous', but in the end, they only care about the money.
Celebrities are a rare breed of rich people in that many of them can recall not being rich. Considering the nature of economic inequality, most rich people are the children of rich people. And these are the people that do not work hard... and they also rarely try to do anything charitable, and when they do, it is for gain. See the Koch brothers for a clear example. They do nothing for this country, are extremely rich, and only do limited charity so to seem not like the vile, greedy sleaze bags they are.
As to your second point: most celebrities do work hard. Celebrity is a wide concept, of course. It covers people like Bristol Palin and Paris Hilton; neither work hard. But if you mean actors, well, you are quite wrong. Movie acting usually consists of intense work for weeks or months at a time. All this time requires intensity of their craft, constantly working, usually very physically taxing. Theater and television acting is even greater stress.
In short, it is an insulting assumption that such people 'don't work hard'.
Let me take this moment to point out that you are currently telling people what to think and do, including 'explaining' that people do this because of an exaggerated sense of self-importance. Your hypocrite tag is quite apt this article.
But you bring up a straw man that I've seen elsewhere. You've equated starring in a film to promoting what happens in the film. Now, sometimes films have clear political messages, or other sorts of messages. And yes, you can consider those, of course. But the presence of something is not promoting it. If a character does any sort of drug in a film that does not indicate that those involved in the film promote drug use. If the film is about the plight of those victimized by the war on drugs, you probably assume many involved are for the legalization of at least marijuana. Even that, though, doesn't mean they promote the use of it.
But, I must ask- if murder is anathema to Christians, why don't more fight against the death penalty, against going to war? Why did The Troubles in Ireland happen, where Protestant and Catholics murdered each other? Abortion Clinic bombers? The Ku Klux Klan? Let's not forget how many LGBT youth have been killed or left for dead thanks to Christians.
We Christians don't just have blood on our hands, we are drenched in it from head to toe. And that doesn't include the death we allow through inaction.
And what country most idolizes violent heroes? The answer is Japan. Video games, movies, even their cartoons contain far more gun violence than our own. It is considered a national tragedy if more than ten gun deaths happen in a year. Why? There aren't many guns in the country. Switzerland has greater number of gun per person than the US, and doesn't have any less guns in their media. But, they have strict laws governing who can own guns and how they are bought. Those laws work.
Our gun violence is out of control. We have a mass shooting on average every day. I demand that you consider the lives lost due to gun violence before you tell me to ignore it.
Post a Comment