Nerd Pride Radio

No. The guy is a jerk and there are lots of great actors to take his place. Why should my money line his pockets? Likewise I wouldn't pay to see a Woody Allen movie, because he grosses me out and the type of entertainment he creates is actually connected to his gross-out factor. I am 100% positive that there are similarly jerky people in other movies that I go to see, and thus I'm unintentionally helping to pay their salaries, but at least I don't have to know about it. When I watch some of the old movies that have nasty people in them I don't have to worry about lining anybody's pockets with my choice. But there were a lot of jerks to go around.

While I readily admit that I have largely been playing devil's advocate here, there is a bit of personal belief at work as well. I truly believe that discrimination is discrimination, no matter who is doing it. I see no difference between left-leaning individuals censuring performers for their bigoted, hateful worldview and right-leaning individuals boycotting performers on the basis of their sexual preference. I find both inappropriate. There are places where I draw the line, however. If I know that a business is actively supporting causes that do harm, I will try to avoid doing business with them. So if there is reliable evidence of a celebrity supporting political candidates who are anti-LGBT, for instance, either monetarily or by making appearances or whatever, I will consider that and avoid seeing their films, at least at the box office. (Not that it is hard for me to avoid seeing films at the box office. I probably only go to an actual movie theater about three or four times a year. The majority of films that I watch are on Netflix or Amazon.) Similar to the "Domino's Pizza" boycott that was so popular in Ann Arbor back when I lived in that part of the world and the owner of that chain was known to support right-wing causes. [Not to mention that he practically destroyed the Detroit Tigers franchise when he was the owner by not funding the farm system at all and concentrating only on free agency in a vain attempt to "win now", which lead to, among other things, the trade of one of their only "top prospects", a young pitcher by the name of John Smoltz, (who, at one point, was the career leader in post-season wins until his record was surpassed) and the 1987 ALCS loss to the Twins, but also, in the long run, to the eventual 119-loss season in 2003, which was the second worst record in the history of the game. It took that many years for the infusion of cash into the farm system by new owner, Mike Ilitch, who also owned Little Caesar's Pizza and the Detroit Red Wings, to even start to turn thing around. The 2006 World Series appearance was the apology... But I digress...]

So, in short, unless the person is putting their money where their mouth is, I generally don't really care that much about their personal life. I'm going to be entertained, not dish gossip. If they are capable entertainers, so be it. If not, I'm not interested anyway.

It's interesting that you say that discrimination is wrong no matter who is doing it- but then talk about how you discriminate yourself. It seems-- and I suppose this is true for all of us-- that the difference is how important the issue is. Or how heinous the offense is. I assume if a celebrity committed a hate crime against someone resulting in their death-- i.e., shouted "I hate black people!" and then beat a black person to death-- you wouldn't be okay with watching a movie they're in, right?

For the record, I don't think all "discrimination" is wrong-- humans discriminate between choices all day. Without the ability to discriminate, then we would not be able to make choices, after all. The issue is that you're mixing your terminology-- i.e., legal discrimination and people making conscious choices.

Where I think Zen has a really good point is when it comes to not just spending money as a consumer, but the active campaign you'll see to get people fired or to get people to boycott things. And he also has a really good point when it comes to things that don't depend on consumer choice or at least shouldn't, because not everything should be subject to free-market whims. Indeed if they were we would see a lot more discrimination.

Zen- I love you, you know that. But that doesn't make any sense to me. But I feel like I'm getting you angry by not getting what you're saying, so understand that I'm not trying to do that.

The real issue I have with what you're saying is that you'e equating bigotry and hatred with "politics." And I know we can argue the semantics of what constitutes "political ideas" but that's not productive. There's a difference between someone saying, "I'm a social conservative," and "Latinos shouldn't be able to vote." There's a difference between "a fetus' life is sacred and abortion should be illegal" and "gay people should be interred in camps to reeducate them on how to not be gay." That's where the disconnect is for me with what you're saying.

At no point was I calling for Hollywood to blacklist anyone. And I specifically stated that I don't believe that's really possible. Hollywood will support him until he is no longer profitable. If enough people dislike him enough to not want to see his movies, then he will become less profitable than other, more palatable artists, and THEN Hollywood will stop honoring him.

Of course I don't believe for a moment that any of that will ever happen, but oh well.

As for Adam Baldwin, I think you are reading too much into it. It's not about the perceived seriousness of the particular sins. The reason people don't make as big a deal about him is because he ISN'T a big deal. He isn't the star of anything (that I've ever seen)--he's just a supporting actor. Hollywood isn't handing Adam Baldwin multi-million dollar jobs or Oscars, so his treatment by Hollywood doesn't seem as egregious as Gibson or Allen or Polanski.

If the argument is that someone shouldn't be getting any multimillion-dollar movie contracts because of his unpleasant personal conduct and statements, isn't that the same as saying that Hollywood should blacklist him?

When did Zen become the new Earl? It's exhausting.