Do celebrities have social responsibility? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

stevie667 · 08-30-2007, 03:02 AM

After watching a couple of minutes of some 16-year-old-pandering-suckass show about the skinniest celebrity toaster or body or dograt, it got me thinking about whether celebrities have a social responsibility in their actions.

We all see these starlets (yes, you, linsey lohan) going out when they have lots of money, getting trashed on the columbian marching powder and suddenly dropping lots of weight, because skinny is hot, right?

Do these skinny celebrities have a role mondel responsibility to young girls not to become so thin one can play music on their ribs? Or are they just simply victims of the latest 'fashion'?

Should famous people really act in a way to be role model and example setters to the masses, or should they be allowed to do what they want, because it's the media that is brining every facet of their lives to the open, not them? On that point, does the media have a right to broadcast every little nitty gritty bit?

On another note, do those with wealth have a responsibility to be charitable philanthropists (we're talking the 'i have so much money i can buy hundreds of dograts' rich), or are they allowed to be stingy old gits without any complaint from the masses.

Personally i think that celebrities who have a particular audience who are known to be vulnerable do have a social responsibility as role models. We all know how impressionable young girls are, i do believe that those who act/operate in a way to become idols should be required to at least try to operate in a sensible way.

Of course the media is partially to blame, people were going out and gettering battered ever since someone invented boozahol, but bringing live updates about what your favourite person is doing 24/7 is not good if your liable to copy them and their dograt.

Philanthropy is something that i believe is morally required with wealth, you don't have to be some sudanese-hugging global warrior person, but a little bit of charity helps.

What is everyone elses opinions?

Charlatan · 08-30-2007, 03:11 AM

I point to Spiderman and he says, "With great power comes great responsibility."

So, yes. They do have a moral responsibility.

Nimetic · 08-30-2007, 03:47 AM

Everyone has responsibility - in my view.

Society provides us with certain benefits, and so we have a responsibility to support it.

The_Jazz · 08-30-2007, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimetic

Everyone has responsibility - in my view.

Society provides us with certain benefits, and so we have a responsibility to support it.

Agreed. In my opinion, no one is special. We all are responsible for our own actions. When Charles Barkley said that he wasn't a role model, I think he could have better said that he wasn't any more of a role model than any parent, teacher or fireman.

In business, my role models are a telemarketer and a former DEA narc that I know. Every time I do what I think they would have done in a situation, I generally make money.

Personally, my role models are my father and one of my college professors. I aspire to be more like those two guys ever day.

I think that people are often confuse the terms "role model" and "idol". We don't look for celebrities to be role models, even when we're kids. We idolize them. There's a difference.

Bill O'Rights · 08-30-2007, 04:51 AM

Well...let's put it this way...as long as celebrities use thier "star power" to elevate their soapboxes and trumpet their political idealogies, then...yes they also carry around a social responsibility.

aberkok · 08-30-2007, 05:00 AM

I also don't see a division between being a celebrity and non-celebrity. Both ought to be the best human possible.

The illusion of celebrity is that they are in the public eye a lot more than regular people, but think about the people you see everyday - are they really in your mind any less than Lindsay Lohan? I doubt it. So even this notion of a celebrity having a wider exposure is possibly wrong. Not that it matters anyway - we should all be good role models.

warrrreagl · 08-30-2007, 05:17 AM

Charles Barkley once said that if sports celebrities get tired of being role models then they can walk away from the game anytime they wish. The same rule applies to all celebrities - they should give it up if they can't deal with it. I have no sympathy for those who whine and moan about their invaded privacy or their burden of responsibility while they continue to cash the checks and strut for the papparazzi.

squeeeb · 08-30-2007, 06:24 AM

i don't think they have any more responsibility than anyone else. just because they are on tv and are famous doesn't give everyone else the right to invade thier privacy and doesn't make them any more responsible for setting a good example. the only difference between a celebrity and the shirtless mullet guy living in the trailer is the celebrity is well known by everyone and it's thier job to entertain and sell things. being a celebrity is thier job. they should both behave correctly and they are both entitled to thier privacy.

Willravel · 08-30-2007, 08:17 AM

Celebrities have the ear of a lot more people than the average person. Does this mean they must be responsible? Not really. It helps, though. Don Cheadle's work to spread awareness of Darfur has been extremely important and could end up being one of the major factors in inspiring action to stop the genocide in the West.

Jinn · 08-30-2007, 08:27 AM

Social responsibility (to me) is the personal responsibility to not let society influence you in a detrimental way.

So to answer, no. Celebrities do not have social responsibility. I have social responsibility to not let their insanity and idiocy change the way I behave.

roachboy · 08-30-2007, 08:46 AM

celebrities are simple fuctions of the cult of money.
in this, marx was right. it makes the stupid man intelligent, the dull man interesting, the unattractive irresitable, etc etc etc.

because the status of a celebrity is based on associations with money, it is arbitrary with respect to who any particular celebrity might or might not be.
in very basic ways, the image is not about who that person may or may not be. they are occaisons for draping faces and outfits over the festishism of money.

i think danny schechter once characterized tabloid journalism as a literature of consolation.
the idea:
"look at x. x has big cash. x is totally fucked up. arent you glad you dont have big cash?"

that seems accurate.

but if that's the function (or a way of looking at it) then where does "social responsibility" enter the picture (literally in this case)?

more perversely, say this is the function of tabloid-style coverage: is consolation on the order outlined above socially responsible?
depends what you understand social responsibility to entail, yes?

perhaps in the "literature of consolation" framework, to be dysfunctional, to be an idiot, IS to be socially responsible.

on a related note, i think the entire idea of the "role model" as it is applied to athletes--and others--is absurd. you see a tv image of a football player maybe being handed a ball and running forward. he gets knocked down. things start again.
in what possible sense is any of that material to emulate?
if you play a sport and take is seriously, then do it well. it doesnt seem to me that you need a tv image to outline for you what that means.

and a tv image of a guy in padding and a uniform being knocked over by other guys in padding and uniforms does not provide any information concerning how to live.
i'm sorry, but it doesnt.
the idea it can--at all---is idiotic.
except maybe if your aim is to market sports, or to market films.

shesus · 08-30-2007, 08:59 AM

Media has always been an influence on people....always. Why do you think so many people want to be famous...or not be famous?

Eight years ago, I taught 3rd grade. It was when Britney Spears was HUGE...like I'm not legal yet huge. My girls and boys were in love with her. Ugh, what a horrid year. Anyway, I had 2 girls who would hide their lunch and lie about eating. They thought they were fat. I had to sit with them at lunch to make them eat. And to eat with them, since I'm skinny myself. They thought that skinny meant no eating or diet pills. In fact one of the girls had gone on-line and bought diet pllls. The parents were very concerned.

I'm not as powerful as Britney Spears...I don't know if I made an impact on their healthy eating habits and weight maintenance. I'd like to think I did, but I'm not larger than life like celebrities are. Can't save them all...

Which also brings me to the point that women/girls are far more vulnerable than men/boys. Boys go around wanting to shoot spiderwebs out of their wrists. Girls develop eating disorders. Our poor, poor society.

Willravel · 08-30-2007, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shesus

Eight years ago, I taught 3rd grade. It was when Britney Spears was HUGE...like I'm not legal yet huge. My girls and boys were in love with her. Ugh, what a horrid year. Anyway, I had 2 girls who would hide their lunch and lie about eating. They thought they were fat. I had to sit with them at lunch to make them eat. And to eat with them, since I'm skinny myself. They thought that skinny meant no eating or diet pills. In fact one of the girls had gone on-line and bought diet pllls. The parents were very concerned.

Oh god. That's horrible. 3rd grade and already developing possible eating disorders. It's good they had a responsible teacher to undo irresponsible society.

kutulu · 08-30-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Well...let's put it this way...as long as celebrities use thier "star power" to elevate their soapboxes and trumpet their political idealogies, then...yes they also carry around a social responsibility.

I agree, however, I'd make it on a more individual basis. If one celeb doesn't want to get on a soapbox then he doesn't have any social responsibility. However, if he's going to get up and start preaching then he needs to walk the walk.

Jinn · 08-30-2007, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Which also brings me to the point that women/girls are far more vulnerable than men/boys.

Why?

Do boys see images that claim to represent a "man"?
Do boys feel pressured to be certain things?
Do boys feel pressured to NOT be certain things?

WHY are girls so much more vulnerable?

Anecdotal exposure doesn't necessarily equate with reality.

warrrreagl · 08-30-2007, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Why?

Do boys see images that claim to represent a "man"?
Do boys feel pressured to be certain things?
Do boys feel pressured to NOT be certain things?

WHY are girls so much more vulnerable?

Because the expectations of sanity in Western society send conflicting signals to girls. In general, the terms used to describe a sane person in Western society are independent, confident, realistic, self-reliant, consistent, etc. The opposites of those terms are frequently used to describe typical female behavior in Western society, and that's where girls get the conflicting signals. Should they be female or sane (because you can't be both)?

Willravel · 08-30-2007, 10:11 AM

I don't think the comparison between genders is fair.

Little boys see men who starve themselves or who diet and exercise almost to excess very often, and can feel the same pressures as women. While levels of eating disorders in men and women aren't identical, many men suffer from anorexia and bulimia.

shesus · 08-30-2007, 10:38 AM

I wasn't saying men *aren't* effected. But generally, I don't see or hear men say "Damn, I wish I looked like that!" "Oooo, I wish I had that outfit."

Women are more idolized and have more pressure put upon them I think. Go to the Titty board...I'll wait....

Look at the shows (I think there was a thread about this already). They portray fat men with skinny women. The pressure is not equal. I'd say if there were a poll women would be far more influenced by the looks media portrays than men. Especially younger women since as women age they generally learn to accept themselves. But I'm in no way saying men aren't affected.

On another note there is the gangster mentality that is portrayed by the media. I'm not sure if it spawned from society or from the media, but it is definitely in the media now and acting as role models for inner city kids at least. It promotes the use of weapons, drugs, and a lack of education. The women are to find baby daddies. It's tough to explain that is not a positive way to live because they are not only seeing it, but living it.

Willravel · 08-30-2007, 10:43 AM

I wonder if the urban hooligan image is to men what the anorexic Paris Hilton image is to women.

Yes, I said hooligan.

Jinn · 08-30-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

I'd say if there were a poll women would be far more influenced by the looks media portrays than men. Especially younger women since as women age they generally learn to accept themselves. But I'm in no way saying men aren't affected.

And why is that?

What if I don't buy the prevalance argument? I don't think the dramatic effect that advertising and the media has on young women in comparison to the little effect it has on young men has much to do with the actual QUANTITY of media directed at them. As far as I can (not empirically) tell, the quantity is just about the same. The difference is that young men are not as influenced by it.

Could it be possible that women are simply worse at being happy with themselves? Or that they're worse at ignoring media or peer suggestions about 'who they should be'? To put it in a positive light, could it mean that women are simply better at knowing what their peers are looking at? What peers expect of them? Or that they're better at catering to others and changing themselves to meet expectation?

If you think about it, when you measure it from the outside (how many boys do I know who are externally modified by media vs how many girls do I know who are externally modified by the media) you're truly measuring a sum. The sum of how much is out there and how affected by it the individual is.

This argument enters dangerous territory, because the politically correct version is that man and women are perfectly equal and equally as good at everything and anything. I'd like to see someone posit the argument that it has just as much to do with how men and women INTERPRET and INTERNALIZE the media as it has to do with how much of it there is out there.

shesus · 08-30-2007, 11:16 AM

Women and men aren't the same...which is different from equal. Equal connotates political aspects which isn't being discussed here. Women generally are pleasers. They want to make people happy and be the 'perfect' mate. They see what is considered sexy and read all the magazines to become that impossible person -or- They realize that can't be that person and have to deal with that. I said generally so don't attack. Men are generally more under the tough guy persona. Independent and strong which is what media represents.

I guess if you look at it...media seems to send more positive images to men, with the exception of steroids and being instantly wealthy.

Swisivo · 08-30-2007, 11:29 AM

Are you kidding me? Brad Pitt is in amazing physical shape in that picture. If guys took steps to look like that, the world would be a better place. Instead we have the biggest overweight problem in North America. So no, I don't think celebrities have that much in the way of moral responsibilities. Everyone is responsible for their own lives. The people on TV are less real than the people around you. Every kid should grow up with an understanding of this. It's the parents job to make them understand.

It's not fair to make celebs responsible for their actions when they mean no harm and are just enjoying their lives in the way they see fit. It's unethical. It's unethical to follow them the way paparazzi do already. If I draw a picture of a dick in an electric socket and put it on my lawn, and my neighbor's teenage son, who looks up to me, though I don't even speak to him, gets into a little accident with his genitals, is it my fault?

Ustwo · 08-30-2007, 11:34 AM

I have to say no.

There is only one person responsible for your behavior and thats you. If you are weak enough to feel the need to follow another's destructive lead then it is your fault for doing so.

Bill O'Rights · 08-30-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shesus

On another note there is the gangster mentality that is portrayed by the media. I'm not sure if it spawned from society or from the media, but it is definitely in the media now and acting as role models for inner city kids at least. It promotes the use of weapons, drugs, and a lack of education. The women are to find baby daddies. It's tough to explain that is not a positive way to live because they are not only seeing it, but living it.

This could almost be another thread, but we're on the same page here. I'm not sure who "spawned" it either. But it was most definately the media that glorified it, and made it acceptable. And it's not just the inner city kids. I see a lot of white suburban "Gangstas". Granted...the suburban wannabes aren't really "living" it, they're only emulating it, but it's still part of the overall glorification. I find it all very pathetic. But...I'm old.

Jeff Foxworthy said it best; "If you're mother still drives you to school, you ain't no "Gangsta". Pull up your pants."

Willravel · 08-30-2007, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swisivo

Are you kidding me? Brad Pitt is in amazing physical shape in that picture. If guys took steps to look like that, the world would be a better place. Instead we have the biggest overweight problem in North America.

In order to get to that level of shape, the average person has to sacrifice a great deal. As many people are unable to do that, they become depressed because they feel thy are ugly. That can often lead to overeating.

As someone who has had a food addiction since I was very young, I know this well. It becomes a very unhealthy relationship with food where one tries to use the enjoyment of food to cover up for depression.

JumpinJesus · 08-30-2007, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

In order to get to that level of shape, the average person has to sacrifice a great deal. As many people are unable to do that, they become depressed because they feel thy are ugly. That can often lead to overeating.

As someone who has had a food addiction since I was very young, I know this well. It becomes a very unhealthy relationship with food where one tries to use the enjoyment of food to cover up for depression.

What does the average person have to sacrifice? Television? Video games? The internet? Not to derail this thread, but I'm tired of people making excuses for not being in shape. In the photo you shared, Brad Pitt is in excellent shape, not impossible shape. An hour a day in the gym and 2,000 fewer calories a day is about what it would take, but instead we sit at our computer desks with 12 empty Ding Dong wrappers and 5 empty Mt. Dew bottles littering the floor and we complain that we can't meet their standard of beauty.

Also, being in shape does not necessarily equate to being beautiful. Just look at Sara Jessica Parker if you need an example. She's in great shape, but to quote Peter Griffin, she looks like a foot.

Now, do celebrities have social responsibility? I think everyone does. However, if they choose to use their celebrity to advocate a position, then they do undertake a bit more responsibility than the rest of us.

shesus · 08-30-2007, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

This could almost be another thread, but we're on the same page here. I'm not sure who "spawned" it either. But it was most definately the media that glorified it, and made it acceptable. And it's not just the inner city kids. I see a lot of white suburban "Gangstas". Granted...the suburban wannabes aren't really "living" it, they're only emulating it, but it's still part of the overall glorification. I find it all very pathetic. But...I'm old.

Jeff Foxworthy said it best; "If you're mother still drives you to school, you ain't no "Gangsta". Pull up your pants."

Yep, that's why I didn't want to delve into the topic too much.

Oh wow, I wish I had seen that quote earlier. I would have used it on my students.

I LOVE IT! Luckily, I wasn't drinking anything...my computer would be short circuiting right now.

Willravel · 08-30-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

What does the average person have to sacrifice? Television? Video games? The internet?

Here is what it could take for an average man (this is based on averages and estimations):
Current stats:
250 lbs.
Less than 30 minutes of exercise a week
About 10-20 hours of TV a week
1 full time job
4 fast food meals a week

What would be needed:
5-7 hours of exercise a week, including aerobic and weighted exercise, monitored by a professional
3 additional hours a week to prepare meals
1 hour a week planning meals, possibly including a dietician

After 1 year:
180 lbs.

Let's not pretend that's a simple lifestyle change. As someone who has made that change (several times), I can attest that going from 250 lbs. to 180 lbs. is not easy. In order to get into the a state of health similar to the picture above, I would need to spend 15+ hours a week exercising, and would need to remove a great deal of carbohydrates and other foods that I love from my diet altogether. Can you imagine eating a head of lettuce and having a gallon of water for dinner? That would be torture. Do you have an extra 15+ hours a week? I know I don't.

And yes a lot of it is prioritization, but when you're asked to choose between spending time with your family after work or going to the gym, it's not as easy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

Not to derail this thread, but I'm tired of people making excuses for not being in shape. In the photo you shared, Brad Pitt is in excellent shape, not impossible shape. An hour a day in the gym and 2,000 fewer calories a day is about what it would take, but instead we sit at our computer desks with 12 empty Ding Dong wrappers and 5 empty Mt. Dew bottles littering the floor and we complain that we can't meet their standard of beauty.

It's not impossible, but something not being impossible doesn't mean it's not difficult. And let's not pretend that everyone who is out of shape is that way because they aren't trying. Most transformations do not happen overnight because the lifestyle change is tremendous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

Also, being in shape does not necessarily equate to being beautiful. Just look at Sara Jessica Parker if you need an example. She's in great shape, but to quote Peter Griffin, she looks like a foot.

I think she's beautiful.

And congrats on making moderator.

Ustwo · 08-30-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I don't think the comparison between genders is fair.

Little boys see men who starve themselves or who diet and exercise almost to excess very often, and can feel the same pressures as women. While levels of eating disorders in men and women aren't identical, many men suffer from anorexia and bulimia.

Just a side note, in my line of work I can see bulimia pretty easily.

Its always females.

Also I've never seen a boy yet in my practice who looks too skinny, to say no men have this issue would be wrong but its not typically a male problem.

Most boys who are 'into' their bodies tend to be worried about big muscles and bulking up. My guess is steroid issues are bigger worries than starvation.

Swisivo · 08-30-2007, 01:59 PM

I don't know, willravel, i'll have to press on my disagreement.

I see a lot of people coming to the gym and doing exercises that look stupid, spending too little time doing exercises, resting improperly. There are good, useful books on exercise science. It takes just a little bit of research to find out efficient ways to work out. You feel good after working out, and it carries with it a lot of health and social benefits. You can replace certain free time activities with sports. People watch too much TV. there are very few benefits to TV. There's healthy dieting which does a ton for your body, contains actual nutrition, and tastes amazing. Everyone has their little weaknesses, likes resting, entertainment, eating junk food, but for the overwhelming majority, and certainly for the average person in North America, their health is in their hands.

Willravel · 08-30-2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Just a side note, in my line of work I can see bulimia pretty easily.

Dentistry? That raises questions...

Frosstbyte · 08-30-2007, 02:24 PM

Dentists can see it because the stomach acid wreaks hell on your teeth, which don't like being regularly bathed in good old fashioned HCl.

Unless you were just making an Ustwo getting puked on joke, which I'm all for.

Willravel · 08-30-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosstbyte

Dentists can see it because the stomach acid wreaks hell on your teeth, which don't like being regularly bathed in good old fashioned HCl.

Ah, I wasn't thinking in those terms. Good catch!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosstbyte

Unless you were just making an Ustwo getting puked on joke, which I'm all for.

Nah, Ustwo and I are old buddies by now.

08-30-2007, 03:02 AM	#1 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	Do celebrities have social responsibility? After watching a couple of minutes of some 16-year-old-pandering-suckass show about the skinniest celebrity toaster or body or dograt, it got me thinking about whether celebrities have a social responsibility in their actions. We all see these starlets (yes, you, linsey lohan) going out when they have lots of money, getting trashed on the columbian marching powder and suddenly dropping lots of weight, because skinny is hot, right? Do these skinny celebrities have a role mondel responsibility to young girls not to become so thin one can play music on their ribs? Or are they just simply victims of the latest 'fashion'? Should famous people really act in a way to be role model and example setters to the masses, or should they be allowed to do what they want, because it's the media that is brining every facet of their lives to the open, not them? On that point, does the media have a right to broadcast every little nitty gritty bit? On another note, do those with wealth have a responsibility to be charitable philanthropists (we're talking the 'i have so much money i can buy hundreds of dograts' rich), or are they allowed to be stingy old gits without any complaint from the masses. Personally i think that celebrities who have a particular audience who are known to be vulnerable do have a social responsibility as role models. We all know how impressionable young girls are, i do believe that those who act/operate in a way to become idols should be required to at least try to operate in a sensible way. Of course the media is partially to blame, people were going out and gettering battered ever since someone invented boozahol, but bringing live updates about what your favourite person is doing 24/7 is not good if your liable to copy them and their dograt. Philanthropy is something that i believe is morally required with wealth, you don't have to be some sudanese-hugging global warrior person, but a little bit of charity helps. What is everyone elses opinions? __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information. Last edited by stevie667; 08-30-2007 at 03:06 AM..

08-30-2007, 03:11 AM	#2 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I point to Spiderman and he says, "With great power comes great responsibility." So, yes. They do have a moral responsibility. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-30-2007, 04:51 AM	#5 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Well...let's put it this way...as long as celebrities use thier "star power" to elevate their soapboxes and trumpet their political idealogies, then...yes they also carry around a social responsibility. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

08-30-2007, 05:00 AM	#6 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	I also don't see a division between being a celebrity and non-celebrity. Both ought to be the best human possible. The illusion of celebrity is that they are in the public eye a lot more than regular people, but think about the people you see everyday - are they really in your mind any less than Lindsay Lohan? I doubt it. So even this notion of a celebrity having a wider exposure is possibly wrong. Not that it matters anyway - we should all be good role models. __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

08-30-2007, 05:17 AM	#7 (permalink)
warrrreagl pinche vato Location: backwater, Third World, land of cotton	Charles Barkley once said that if sports celebrities get tired of being role models then they can walk away from the game anytime they wish. The same rule applies to all celebrities - they should give it up if they can't deal with it. I have no sympathy for those who whine and moan about their invaded privacy or their burden of responsibility while they continue to cash the checks and strut for the papparazzi. __________________ Living is easy with eyes closed.

08-30-2007, 03:47 AM	#3 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	Everyone has responsibility - in my view. Society provides us with certain benefits, and so we have a responsibility to support it.

08-30-2007, 06:24 AM	#8 (permalink)
squeeeb part of the problem Location: hic et ubique	i don't think they have any more responsibility than anyone else. just because they are on tv and are famous doesn't give everyone else the right to invade thier privacy and doesn't make them any more responsible for setting a good example. the only difference between a celebrity and the shirtless mullet guy living in the trailer is the celebrity is well known by everyone and it's thier job to entertain and sell things. being a celebrity is thier job. they should both behave correctly and they are both entitled to thier privacy. __________________ onward to mayhem!

08-30-2007, 08:17 AM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Celebrities have the ear of a lot more people than the average person. Does this mean they must be responsible? Not really. It helps, though. Don Cheadle's work to spread awareness of Darfur has been extremely important and could end up being one of the major factors in inspiring action to stop the genocide in the West.

08-30-2007, 08:27 AM	#10 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Social responsibility (to me) is the personal responsibility to not let society influence you in a detrimental way. So to answer, no. Celebrities do not have social responsibility. I have social responsibility to not let their insanity and idiocy change the way I behave. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

08-30-2007, 08:46 AM	#11 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	celebrities are simple fuctions of the cult of money. in this, marx was right. it makes the stupid man intelligent, the dull man interesting, the unattractive irresitable, etc etc etc. because the status of a celebrity is based on associations with money, it is arbitrary with respect to who any particular celebrity might or might not be. in very basic ways, the image is not about who that person may or may not be. they are occaisons for draping faces and outfits over the festishism of money. i think danny schechter once characterized tabloid journalism as a literature of consolation. the idea: "look at x. x has big cash. x is totally fucked up. arent you glad you dont have big cash?" that seems accurate. but if that's the function (or a way of looking at it) then where does "social responsibility" enter the picture (literally in this case)? more perversely, say this is the function of tabloid-style coverage: is consolation on the order outlined above socially responsible? depends what you understand social responsibility to entail, yes? perhaps in the "literature of consolation" framework, to be dysfunctional, to be an idiot, IS to be socially responsible. on a related note, i think the entire idea of the "role model" as it is applied to athletes--and others--is absurd. you see a tv image of a football player maybe being handed a ball and running forward. he gets knocked down. things start again. in what possible sense is any of that material to emulate? if you play a sport and take is seriously, then do it well. it doesnt seem to me that you need a tv image to outline for you what that means. and a tv image of a guy in padding and a uniform being knocked over by other guys in padding and uniforms does not provide any information concerning how to live. i'm sorry, but it doesnt. the idea it can--at all---is idiotic. except maybe if your aim is to market sports, or to market films. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-30-2007, 08:59 AM	#12 (permalink)
shesus Fancy Location: Chicago	Media has always been an influence on people....always. Why do you think so many people want to be famous...or not be famous? Eight years ago, I taught 3rd grade. It was when Britney Spears was HUGE...like I'm not legal yet huge. My girls and boys were in love with her. Ugh, what a horrid year. Anyway, I had 2 girls who would hide their lunch and lie about eating. They thought they were fat. I had to sit with them at lunch to make them eat. And to eat with them, since I'm skinny myself. They thought that skinny meant no eating or diet pills. In fact one of the girls had gone on-line and bought diet pllls. The parents were very concerned. I'm not as powerful as Britney Spears...I don't know if I made an impact on their healthy eating habits and weight maintenance. I'd like to think I did, but I'm not larger than life like celebrities are. Can't save them all... Which also brings me to the point that women/girls are far more vulnerable than men/boys. Boys go around wanting to shoot spiderwebs out of their wrists. Girls develop eating disorders. Our poor, poor society. __________________ Whatever did happen to your soul? I heard you sold it Choose Heaven for the weather and Hell for the company

08-30-2007, 10:11 AM	#17 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I don't think the comparison between genders is fair. Little boys see men who starve themselves or who diet and exercise almost to excess very often, and can feel the same pressures as women. While levels of eating disorders in men and women aren't identical, many men suffer from anorexia and bulimia.

08-30-2007, 10:38 AM	#18 (permalink)
shesus Fancy Location: Chicago	I wasn't saying men aren't effected. But generally, I don't see or hear men say "Damn, I wish I looked like that!" "Oooo, I wish I had that outfit." Women are more idolized and have more pressure put upon them I think. Go to the Titty board...I'll wait.... Look at the shows (I think there was a thread about this already). They portray fat men with skinny women. The pressure is not equal. I'd say if there were a poll women would be far more influenced by the looks media portrays than men. Especially younger women since as women age they generally learn to accept themselves. But I'm in no way saying men aren't affected. On another note there is the gangster mentality that is portrayed by the media. I'm not sure if it spawned from society or from the media, but it is definitely in the media now and acting as role models for inner city kids at least. It promotes the use of weapons, drugs, and a lack of education. The women are to find baby daddies. It's tough to explain that is not a positive way to live because they are not only seeing it, but living it. __________________ Whatever did happen to your soul? I heard you sold it Choose Heaven for the weather and Hell for the company

08-30-2007, 10:43 AM	#19 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I wonder if the urban hooligan image is to men what the anorexic Paris Hilton image is to women. Yes, I said hooligan.

08-30-2007, 11:16 AM	#21 (permalink)
shesus Fancy Location: Chicago	Women and men aren't the same...which is different from equal. Equal connotates political aspects which isn't being discussed here. Women generally are pleasers. They want to make people happy and be the 'perfect' mate. They see what is considered sexy and read all the magazines to become that impossible person -or- They realize that can't be that person and have to deal with that. I said generally so don't attack. Men are generally more under the tough guy persona. Independent and strong which is what media represents. I guess if you look at it...media seems to send more positive images to men, with the exception of steroids and being instantly wealthy. __________________ Whatever did happen to your soul? I heard you sold it Choose Heaven for the weather and Hell for the company

08-30-2007, 11:29 AM	#22 (permalink)
Swisivo Upright	Are you kidding me? Brad Pitt is in amazing physical shape in that picture. If guys took steps to look like that, the world would be a better place. Instead we have the biggest overweight problem in North America. So no, I don't think celebrities have that much in the way of moral responsibilities. Everyone is responsible for their own lives. The people on TV are less real than the people around you. Every kid should grow up with an understanding of this. It's the parents job to make them understand. It's not fair to make celebs responsible for their actions when they mean no harm and are just enjoying their lives in the way they see fit. It's unethical. It's unethical to follow them the way paparazzi do already. If I draw a picture of a dick in an electric socket and put it on my lawn, and my neighbor's teenage son, who looks up to me, though I don't even speak to him, gets into a little accident with his genitals, is it my fault? __________________ The answer to the question you are asking, this interview is too short to contain.

08-30-2007, 11:34 AM	#23 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I have to say no. There is only one person responsible for your behavior and thats you. If you are weak enough to feel the need to follow another's destructive lead then it is your fault for doing so. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

08-30-2007, 01:59 PM	#30 (permalink)
Swisivo Upright	I don't know, willravel, i'll have to press on my disagreement. I see a lot of people coming to the gym and doing exercises that look stupid, spending too little time doing exercises, resting improperly. There are good, useful books on exercise science. It takes just a little bit of research to find out efficient ways to work out. You feel good after working out, and it carries with it a lot of health and social benefits. You can replace certain free time activities with sports. People watch too much TV. there are very few benefits to TV. There's healthy dieting which does a ton for your body, contains actual nutrition, and tastes amazing. Everyone has their little weaknesses, likes resting, entertainment, eating junk food, but for the overwhelming majority, and certainly for the average person in North America, their health is in their hands. __________________ The answer to the question you are asking, this interview is too short to contain.

08-30-2007, 02:24 PM	#32 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	Dentists can see it because the stomach acid wreaks hell on your teeth, which don't like being regularly bathed in good old fashioned HCl. Unless you were just making an Ustwo getting puked on joke, which I'm all for.