10 Most obnoxious Hollywood liberals.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
31
91
Bahahahaha you have owned yourself so hard I can't stop laughing about it.

So these actors are personally and wholly responsible for making the movies they rake huge profits on? The writers, producers, investors, artists, costume designers, makeup artists, special effects guys, model makers, set designers, etc etc et al, had nothing to do with the process? It sure sounds like the actors are raking in massive profits at the expense of the working class to me!

You should've taken my hint.

How do the actors own the means of production? They don't.
The actors and crew work together to make a product.

When I say don't do a transform if you don't understand the underlying mechanics, I mean it.

Don't try to be clever around me. It's not going to work. I am never going to be shocked into immobility by where you ended up.
Analysis of the spaces between is what I do. I will simply break out my kit and go to work in the spaces you glossed or jumped over in your haste to reach a conclusion.
I will not miss the mistakes that you made, so why use a shit method that leaves a trail of them supporting your conclusion? You only end up owning yourself, as you just have.



*sigh* It seems that only in religious discussion can I find intellectual equals seriously working a different path. For mundane things, it seems that if a person is on a different path, it's because they were simply too stupid to see the turn-off.
I miss the dance through the logical intricacies. Watching blind retards stumble about is no substitute.
 

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
At least, they're actors that are giving out their political view whether it's sane or insane. Now, let's look at Sarah Palin.


That's a good idea, lets.

images


The next president of the United States. She can send me to bed without supper any day.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
I have never understood to haterism directed towards Hollywood. But then it does not take much for some people to hate.
 

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
I have never understood to haterism directed towards Hollywood. But then it does not take much for some people to hate.


Its called xenophobia, an unreasoning fear of foreigners or strangers. These are the people who go catatonic if space aliens ever land on earth.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
You should've taken my hint.

How do the actors own the means of production? They don't.
The actors and crew work together to make a product.

Correct. The work together. And then the actors walk away with tens of millions of dollars, while the crew make only average salary and get fired once the movie production is finished.

The rest of your reply was completely unintelligible blather so I won't embarrass you further by quoting it.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Correct. The work together. And then the actors walk away with tens of millions of dollars, while the crew make only average salary and get fired once the movie production is finished.

The rest of your reply was completely unintelligible blather so I won't embarrass you further by quoting it.

Sometimes our intellectual betters are so clever they outsmart themselves. :biggrin:
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Fail economics much?
These people got their wealth by personally creating a product that a broad segment of the population was willing to buy. This is not the same as raking in massive profits off the backs of workers merely because you have a government-backed piece of paper saying you own them.

Money to entertainers is freely given by economic producers. Corporate profits are taken from economic producers.

Attempt at cleverness: Fail.
Take a hint: You need actual understanding of the underlying mechanics of the system in question before you can adequately perform a transform like you tried.
If you don't grasp the specifics, don't try and play cutesy with the general.

What? Actors don't personally create anything other than the fake persona which they put in front of a camera. The studios produce the capital to make the movie that these morons will be in, then the writers produce the script in which these idiots will read off of, then the directors have them understand how to put it together for the movie. Actors are handheld through the whole process.

Corporations, on the other hand, provide a product or service that consumers want. Consumers are not producers without the capital and RISK backing of the producer. Yes, some consumers are also producers, but most are not.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Its called xenophobia, an unreasoning fear of foreigners or strangers. These are the people who go catatonic if space aliens ever land on earth.


lol, you libs never have a shortage of labels for conservatives. We're either racists, rednecks, bigots, sexists and now xenophobes. too funny.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,503
50,660
136
What? Actors don't personally create anything other than the fake persona which they put in front of a camera. The studios produce the capital to make the movie that these morons will be in, then the writers produce the script in which these idiots will read off of, then the directors have them understand how to put it together for the movie. Actors are handheld through the whole process.

Corporations, on the other hand, provide a product or service that consumers want. Consumers are not producers without the capital and RISK backing of the producer. Yes, some consumers are also producers, but most are not.

Actors perform a service that people are willing to pay lots and lots of money for. If it's so easy to do, why aren't you raking in the millions in Hollywood? (not to mention that many actors are also directors, and in some cases writers)

Come on, the free market has spoken, right? The market has determined that a few weeks of these morons' time as likely more valuable than the sum total of everything you will produce in your entire life. Shouldn't you be in awe of their superior capitalistic acumen?
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
What? Actors don't personally create anything other than the fake persona which they put in front of a camera. The studios produce the capital to make the movie that these morons will be in, then the writers produce the script in which these idiots will read off of, then the directors have them understand how to put it together for the movie. Actors are handheld through the whole process.

Corporations, on the other hand, provide a product or service that consumers want. Consumers are not producers without the capital and RISK backing of the producer. Yes, some consumers are also producers, but most are not.

So why are the same people consistently asked to do movies? If what the provide is so simple, why don't they just get a new person willing to work for much less?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
So why are the same people consistently asked to do movies? If what the provide is so simple, why don't they just get a new person willing to work for much less?
It's safer to rely on a known name. Once a person achieves fame, Hollywood is very slow to abandon them even for acting, as witnessed by the number of Paulie Shore movies. However, even being good at acting does not give one credibility in other things, and no one except the gullible take their advice. For instance, Flipper and Koko the signing gorilla were both celebrities, but not even progressives looked to them for wisdom.

Well, not even MOST progressives.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,503
50,660
136
It's safer to rely on a known name. Once a person achieves fame, Hollywood is very slow to abandon them even for acting, as witnessed by the number of Paulie Shore movies. However, even being good at acting does not give one credibility in other things, and no one except the gullible take their advice. For instance, Flipper and Koko the signing gorilla were both celebrities, but not even progressives looked to them for wisdom.

Well, not even MOST progressives.

No, it's because Pauly Shore movies consistently made lots of money. (I don't get it either) They cost almost nothing to make, and made many times their budget back. If you look at his history of movies as I just did (shudder) you will notice that as soon as he made one that flopped (Bio Dome), they stopped putting him in movies.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
It's safer to rely on a known name. Once a person achieves fame, Hollywood is very slow to abandon them even for acting, as witnessed by the number of Paulie Shore movies. However, even being good at acting does not give one credibility in other things, and no one except the gullible take their advice. For instance, Flipper and Koko the signing gorilla were both celebrities, but not even progressives looked to them for wisdom.

Well, not even MOST progressives.

I never claimed we should take their advice, and don't think we should.

The assertion was that actors don't produce anything of value. Clearly they do, even if that value is of the name recognition variety, otherwise people wouldn't pay them huge sums of money to do what they do.

If studios could make the same amount of money (or more) with any Joe of the street, they would.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
It's interesting to see the same posters who consistently argue that CEOs who damage their companies are still worth the multi-million dollar contracts and bonuses they get because that's what the free market has decided their value is, while entertainers who help make products that reap hundreds of millions in profits aren't worth their compensation because they don't perform all aspects of production themselves...
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
What? Actors don't personally create anything other than the fake persona which they put in front of a camera. The studios produce the capital to make the movie that these morons will be in, then the writers produce the script in which these idiots will read off of, then the directors have them understand how to put it together for the movie. Actors are handheld through the whole process.

Corporations, on the other hand, provide a product or service that consumers want. Consumers are not producers without the capital and RISK backing of the producer. Yes, some consumers are also producers, but most are not.

By the same tard logic corporations don't do any of that, it's only the few handful of engineers and designers that even made their products possible. Of course that's a ridiculous argument, but it's identical to the nonsense in your above post. Without good acting a good script or good direction means little.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,213
5,794
126
It's interesting to see the same posters who consistently argue that CEOs who damage their companies are still worth the multi-million dollar contracts and bonuses they get because that's what the free market has decided their value is, while entertainers who help make products that reap hundreds of millions in profits aren't worth their compensation because they don't perform all aspects of production themselves...

Indeed.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
conservatives are so fucking retarded. I dont have time to individually respond to the misinformation and speculation running rampant in this thread but fuck are you stupid dumb shits. Go back to milking cows and fucking sheep. Inbred fucks.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Fail economics much?
These people got their wealth by personally creating a product that a broad segment of the population was willing to buy. This is not the same as raking in massive profits off the backs of workers merely because you have a government-backed piece of paper saying you own them.

Money to entertainers is freely given by economic producers. Corporate profits are taken from economic producers.

Attempt at cleverness: Fail.
Take a hint: You need actual understanding of the underlying mechanics of the system in question before you can adequately perform a transform like you tried.
If you don't grasp the specifics, don't try and play cutesy with the general.

You're the fail. the vast majority of companies produce products that fit a want, not a need. Or do companies like Apple get a pass because they're somehow one of the most capitalistic companies in the world yet are the poster child of the liberal.
Stop acting like issues are left vs right. There are an equal number of people on both sides of the isle that can be blamed for issues. Stop acting like a child and pretending your side or point of view is correct becaues it is not.

Where do you get this idea of companies owning people? Last time I got a job, I distinctly remember applying for the job, interviewing, working my butt of to get the job and working to keep it. If as you say companies owned people, wouldn't they just grab someone off the street and tell them they are now working for xyz company and they can never leave?

You have absolutely no idea about the world. Stop listening to MSNBC.
 

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
lol, you libs never have a shortage of labels for conservatives. We're either racists, rednecks, bigots, sexists and now xenophobes. too funny.


We're just trying to keep up with the pinko commie bleeding heart spend happy conservative rhetoric. Its not any easy job and conservatives have always had the home court advantage, but we try.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,095
30,041
146
the vast majority of them are flunkTards. If it wasn't for the closed nepotistic industry they work in they would be working for peanuts in gas stations and car washes. Song/Dance read the script. Otherwise give em the cane.

sucks to look like a troll IRL, doesn't it?

:\
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
You have absolutely no idea about the world. Stop listening to MSNBC.

DS's intelligence is limited to erotic fixations on childrens' cartoons... anything beyond that shouldn't really be taken for more than pseudo intellectual blather, as he consistently demonstrates.

Failing to make an intelligent argument, then arguing that it is really too intelligent for others to understand, is something you usually get from an argument with a child. Doing the same, with pictures and references to ponies and Japanese cartoon women is what you get from DS.