Originally posted by Scribble
It's true that that was just hyperbole courtesy of CNN, and also that Kimmel was preaching to the choir, but when the direction people are pointing in is one that is unhelpful, he only helps to strengthen that. There doesn't seem to be a rational non-biased side in the public eye from what I've seen, which worries me.
You're definitely right there, especially with all the talk of Kanye 2020 and Zuckerberg 2020 at the moment, as if Trump winning wasn't already enough evidence
Oh and Jimmy's video was trending on youtube before it even got 200,000 views. Steven Crowders video exposing antifa got more views, but was never "trendng".
Oh, why is that important? Project Veritas has revealed how youtube, etc. are manipulated to have the stories they want as popular(the "they" in this case is someone who works for the NYT).
Originally posted by Scribble
I always forget about Reagan in that context, but he did seem to strive harder to be a serious politician in the first place
As noted, he was an actor by trade, but he padded himself with plenty of political and leadership experience before dipping his toe in the President's pool
Celebrities going forward will not do that, they'll use the precedent the Trumpers set. You can win, if you're rich and obnoxious enough; no experience required
Originally posted by SurturYouTube are becoming more and more comfortable with deciding what becomes 'trending' or not. They demonetised a bunch of videos discussing the Las Vegas tragedy due to their policy of not monetising tragedies, yet they allow the Kimmel video to become trending, and, for ****'s sake, it's monetised. So apparently it's okay to make money off of a tragedy as long as it's real good corporate money.
Oh and Jimmy's video was trending on youtube before it even got 200,000 views. Steven Crowders video exposing antifa got more views, but was never "trendng".Oh, why is that important? Project Veritas has revealed how youtube, etc. are manipulated to have the stories they want as popular(the "they" in this case is someone who works for the NYT).
Originally posted by LordofBrooklynI actually first joined here for the comics section back in 2003/4, but when I returned in 2007 I rarely ventured past the OTF, which is essentially what I still do to this day, aside from a bit of GDF dabbling.
A bit off topic.How many of you here are a part of comic/sci-fi fandom?
I ask because I don't see most of you venture outside of this forum.
Originally posted by Scribble
YouTube are becoming more and more comfortable with deciding what becomes 'trending' or not. They demonetised a bunch of videos discussing the Las Vegas tragedy due to their policy of not monetising tragedies, yet they allow the Kimmel video to become trending, and, for ****'s sake, it's monetised. So apparently it's okay to make money off of a tragedy as long as it's real good corporate money.
or maybe if that money goes toward the cause for which the video is advocating. i wouldn't mind if that was the case.
Originally posted by RobtardI'm not entirely opposed to celebrity politics, to be honest. In the UK, a lot of politicians are created: rich family sends them to Oxford or Cambridge to study politics, then they become a politician. I'd be up for seeing what more famous people could do, since depending on the celebrity, they might be more in-key with what the public wants, and they have a fanbase to appease, which means they might be less willing to **** people over entirely.
As noted, he was an actor by trade, but he padded himself with plenty of political and leadership experience before dipping his toe in the President's poolCelebrities going forward will not do that, they'll use the precedent the Trumpers set. You can win, if you're rich and obnoxious enough; no experience required
Obviously Trump doesn't fall into that kind of category though, so yeah, it's a bit of a crapshoot...
Originally posted by Scribble
YouTube are becoming more and more comfortable with deciding what becomes 'trending' or not. They demonetised a bunch of videos discussing the Las Vegas tragedy due to their policy of not monetising tragedies, yet they allow the Kimmel video to become trending, and, for ****'s sake, it's monetised. So apparently it's okay to make money off of a tragedy as long as it's real good corporate money.
Indeed and it's not just youtube, speaking of Trump and twitter...twitter has removed pro Trump tweets lol. And I do not mean some kind of pro Trump tweet from a neo nazi or anything. People tested this, just normal pro Trump tweets would disappear.
Oh and it doesn't end there. If you respond to a Trump tweet with a negative tweet about Trump and I respond to your tweet with a positive comment and my comment gets retweeted more than yours and you decide to then delete your less popular tweet? That positive tweet will no longer be in the "thread" of the conversation, and thus far less people will see it or interact with it.
So yet another way to make it seem like he is less popular than he is lol.
Originally posted by SurturThe second part is just due to each individual user's ability to delete their post, to be fair. That's quite common on forms of social media. The first part though is very worrying, and it seems to be becoming more common these days.
Indeed and it's not just youtube, speaking of Trump and twitter...twitter has removed pro Trump tweets lol. And I do not mean some kind of pro Trump tweet from a neo nazi or anything. People tested this, just normal pro Trump tweets would disappear.Oh and it doesn't end there. If you respond to a Trump tweet with a negative tweet about Trump and I respond to your tweet with a positive comment and my comment gets retweeted more than yours and you decide to then delete your less popular tweet? That positive tweet will no longer be in the "thread" of the conversation, and thus far less people will see it or interact with it.
So yet another way to make it seem like he is less popular than he is lol.
Originally posted by Scribble
I'm not entirely opposed to celebrity politics, to be honest. In the UK, a lot of politicians are created: rich family sends them to Oxford or Cambridge to study politics, then they become a politician. I'd be up for seeing what more famous people could do, since depending on the celebrity, they might be more in-key with what the public wants, and they have a fanbase to appease, which means they might be less willing to **** people over entirely.Obviously Trump doesn't fall into that kind of category though, so yeah, it's a bit of a crapshoot...
For sure, being rich/famous isn't a disqualifier in of itself, just take the right path. Like run for city council first, see if it's a fit and you're capable at politics/leadership before running for something like a Presidency or Prime Ministership (that a word, doesn't feel like?) is what I'm getting at. Reagon was the Governor of California before he ran and he eeked his way there too, iirc.
He's a very talented Conman; look how many idiots fell for the ruse. The problem now, the eyes on him and scrutiny he faced as a private citizen pale in comparison to the attention being POTUS garners. His glamour is fading fast now that the curtain is being pulled away. As Junior said best: "I love it!"
Originally posted by RobtardYeah, that'd be the best way to do it. Learn how politics works first, before jumping head-first into it. Trump definitely seems to have severely underestimated what being POTUS would entail.
For sure, being rich/famous isn't a disqualifier in of itself, just take the right path. Like run for city council first, see if it's a fit and you're capable at politics/leadership before running for something like a Presidency or Prime Ministership (that a word, doesn't feel like?) is what I'm getting at. Reagon was the Governor of California before he ran and he eeked his way there too, iirc.He's a very talented Conman; look how many idiots fell for the ruse. The problem now, the eyes on him and scrutiny he faced as a private citizen pale in comparison to the attention being POTUS garners. His glamour is fading fast now that the curtain is being pulled away. As Junior said best: "I love it!"
Originally posted by Scribble
Yeah, that'd be the best way to do it. Learn how politics works first, before jumping head-first into it. Trump definitely seems to have severely underestimated what being POTUS would entail.
He thought it would be like running one of his hotels, imo. Other people do the day-today operations work for him, he occasionally signs off on something while golfing and immigrants do the muck work while saving him massive in overhead costs.
Originally posted by Scribble
I'm not entirely opposed to celebrity politics, to be honest. In the UK, a lot of politicians are created: rich family sends them to Oxford or Cambridge to study politics, then they become a politician. I'd be up for seeing what more famous people could do, since depending on the celebrity, they might be more in-key with what the public wants, and they have a fanbase to appease, which means they might be less willing to **** people over entirely.Obviously Trump doesn't fall into that kind of category though, so yeah, it's a bit of a crapshoot...
The problem when it comes to celebrities is...it just comes off like an echo chamber. They come off as disconnected from reality. This isn't always the case, but yeah look at the latest Emmy's. It was just a bunch of celebrities trying to one up each other by taking shots at Trump.
There also seems to be a time and a place for it, remember when award shows used to kinda be just about...fun? Fun and movies and tv shows?
Remember when late night talk shows were...funny? After all, their comedy is why they were given that platform lol. You think Jay Leno got brought in to do the tonight show because people wanted to hear his political opinions? Jimmy is a comedian and his last show featured such thought provoking segments as "girls jumping on trampolines".
I say if you're a celebrity and you absolutely have to talk about politics...make sure you know what you are talking about, because yes sadly...people care what celebrities have to say. They care what comedians have to say. If they did not we wouldn't have an article on CNN every time Alec Baldwin does a Trump skit on SNL. Every time some late night talk show host talks shit about Trump...a media outlet will cover it lol. The following day you'll see headlines like "Seth Meyers roasts Trump on (insert subject)".
Remember: some are still pissed off that Jimmy Fallon tussled Trumps hair. Where were the "he's just a comedian"!" people then?
Maybe I just do not remember it, but hell during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal I don't recall major media outlets covering it every time a late night talk show host made a joke or every time a skit on SNL was about them. CNN in fact has *fact checked* SNL skits about Obama. Let that sink in lol. It means CNN sure as hell thought people would take the comedy seriously.
Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
A bit off topic.How many of you here are a part of comic/sci-fi fandom?
I ask because I don't see most of you venture outside of this forum.
What I initially came here for those years ago. I still occasionally go into the comics section, but it's getting rarer and rarer
Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
A bit off topic.How many of you here are a part of comic/sci-fi fandom?
I ask because I don't see most of you venture outside of this forum.
There seem to just be way too many fanboys here. Superman is my favorite character and yet I've found myself having to point out "no, Superman isn't all powerful" on far more occasions than I did on any other forum.