IGX

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU[/youtube]

I had a wonderful holiday season with family and friends yet nothing made me more delighted than this YouTube clip. The guy who did this deserves 2012's highest IGx non-porn related award.

Self righteous cuntz.

Hollywood is just full of cunts who need to shut the fuck up and stick to making stupid movies or TV shows or getting married and divorced every 5 minutes.

Tools.

One of my key investment theses is that "everything any celebrity says is wrong."

I thought the original was badly made and lazy.

The reply is better made but dumb - there's no particular hypocritical disconnect between starring in movies and tv shows with fake guns/blanks and supporting gun control. Unless you want to try the games/movies cause violence angle which is, of course, as bullshit as gun control.

milosz wrote:I thought the original was badly made and lazy.

The reply is better made but dumb - there's no particular hypocritical disconnect between starring in movies and tv shows with fake guns/blanks and supporting gun control. Unless you want to try the games/movies cause violence angle which is, of course, as bullshit as gun control.

It's vaguely hypocritical. They condemn gun violence, unless of they can stand to make a buck out of glorifying it.

Kazuya Mishima wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU[/youtube]

Kaz your stock will always be through the fucking roof with me. Nice!

Good find Kaz, these people are a bunch of fucking hypocrites along with the head honcho who's family and himself are surrounded by weapons

milosz wrote:I thought the original was badly made and lazy.

The reply is better made but dumb - there's no particular hypocritical disconnect between starring in movies and tv shows with fake guns/blanks and supporting gun control. Unless you want to try the games/movies cause violence angle which is, of course, as bullshit as gun control.

I'm sure most actors can also afford bodyguards either on a full time basis or when they are going out to an event and you can rest assured that these bodyguards are armed so the way I see it these folks are hypocrites that they will rely on others to protect them. The rest of us common folks can't afford to hire a bodyguard to protect us so we either take it upon ourselves to secure a CHL.

Celebs, no matter what their opinion, are probably some of the least informed groups in the USA.

To amuse yourself, look up your favorite or not so favorite celeb to see if they finished college or even high school. Outside of sports figures, it's an interesting inquiry.

You are better off taking advice from the check out girl at the local super market.

And when you couple that with their disconnect from the real world it only gets worse. They have little to no idea how the common man lives.

Ed Zachary wrote:And when you couple that with their disconnect from the real world it only gets worse. They have little to no idea how the common man lives.

Sports, musicians, or actors have lived their entire lives being told they are special. A surprising number never go to real schools and are home schooled. However, saying they are home schooled is stretching the truth and an insult to home schoolers. If they do go to school, it's a joke, a check the block to placate anyone that might complain. They have economic value, so no one ever challenges them. They live in a bubble and more than likely, any political beliefs are based on what they think their fan base, industry, and or peer group think.

This goes for the Sports figure insulting Obama or the Hollywood actor insulting George Bush. Despite what advantages Obama or George may have had, both not only finished degrees in real college programs, but obtained advanced degrees from Ivy league schools. George and Obama are smart guys. 99% of celebrities are complete dumbasses.

Batboy2/75 wrote:Celebs, no matter what their opinion, are probably some of the least informed groups in the USA.

To amuse yourself, look up your favorite or not so favorite celeb to see if they finished college or even high school. Outside of sports figures, it's an interesting inquiry.

You are better off taking advice from the check out girl at the local super market.

bah. it seems like many of 'em have multiple 'degrees' from prestigious schools. i think i remember james franco got a bachelors from some ivy league joint in 2yrs or something - he's so smart he was taking 30cr a semester and shit, yo, all while filming 2 or 3 movies, too.

The way I heard it put by people who worked in local LA media was that someone like Warren Beatty was considered an expert in current affairs and a voice to listen to because he read the newspaper and that was rare.

It's vaguely hypocritical. They condemn gun violence, unless of they can stand to make a buck out of glorifying it.

This is like arguing that anyone involved with Dexter must, to avoid hypocrisy, not be opposed to serial killing.

Hymen Asshole wrote:I'm sure most actors can also afford bodyguards either on a full time basis or when they are going out to an event and you can rest assured that these bodyguards are armed so the way I see it these folks are hypocrites that they will rely on others to protect them. The rest of us common folks can't afford to hire a bodyguard to protect us so we either take it upon ourselves to secure a CHL.

This isn't a video about these people interacting with their bodyguards, though (and I sincerely doubt that Aziz Ansari is rolling with bodyguards) - it's about them using guns in works of fiction.

IMO, the emphasis on "gotta have my CCW" undermines some pro-gun argumentation - the reality is that we live in a safer world than in the past. Much safer if you're not in Detroit or the south side of Chicago. Telling people you need your guns because the world is unsafe just rolls right back into their argument that guns are making the country less safe in general. If you want to carry, go right ahead, but it makes a lousy talking point to the 50-60% of American adults who don't own a gun.

milosz wrote:

It's vaguely hypocritical. They condemn gun violence, unless of they can stand to make a buck out of glorifying it.

This is like arguing that anyone involved with Dexter must, to avoid hypocrisy, not be opposed to serial killing.

No, the hypocrisy lies in the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners use them responsibly for sport, recreational shooting, hunting, etc. Whenever you see a gun in the hand of a celebrity, it is being used to kill people in wholesale manner (the fact that it is fictional really doesn't matter to me).

So, the purveyors of our culture of violence and gore set themselves up as all-knowing, all-seeing voices of reason that seek to turn us away from the path of the angry killer. Meanwhile, they continue to cash checks instead of doing something that might ACTUALLY do some good...putting their money where their mouth is, and refusing to take roles in movies and TV shows that depict acts of gun violence. Surely, these ARTISTS have subject matter to explore that doesn't involve emptying a magazine into someone's face.

At the end of it all, GUNS are not the problem...never have been, never will be. GUN VIOLENCE is what concerns us as a nation, and these hand wringing assholes pump out a never ending signal of gun fetishism and violent acts while never taking the time to connect the dots and owning up to their not so insignificant part in the neverending programming and influence on individual minds and the culture at large.

P.S., Rihanna...what a dumb fucking nigger.

milosz wrote:IMO, the emphasis on "gotta have my CCW" undermines some pro-gun argumentation - the reality is that we live in a safer world than in the past. Much safer if you're not in Detroit or the south side of Chicago. Telling people you need your guns because the world is unsafe just rolls right back into their argument that guns are making the country less safe in general.

Except that the possibility that people might be carrying is a crime deterrent, especially when it comes to property crimes like burglary. If I were a burglar, I'd much rather rob you than Bats-- much higher reward/risk ratio.

No, the hypocrisy lies in the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners use them responsibly for sport, recreational shooting, hunting, etc. Whenever you see a gun in the hand of a celebrity, it is being used to kill people in wholesale manner (the fact that it is fictional really doesn't matter to me).

So it's hypocrisy because you don't know what hypocrisy means?

Hint: the latter aren't real.

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:IMO, the emphasis on "gotta have my CCW" undermines some pro-gun argumentation - the reality is that we live in a safer world than in the past. Much safer if you're not in Detroit or the south side of Chicago. Telling people you need your guns because the world is unsafe just rolls right back into their argument that guns are making the country less safe in general.

Except that the possibility that people might be carrying is a crime deterrent, especially when it comes to property crimes like burglary. If I were a burglar, I'd much rather rob you than Bats-- much higher reward/risk ratio.

Except that the vast majority of home break-ins occur while no one is home. I'm all in favor of gun ownership, but while I can buy the deterence argument when it comes to assault and armed robbery it's not so convincing for burglary.

My grandfather at one time had an impressive arsenal. Eventually the fact about break-ins penetrated even his paranoia, he recognized that a determined burglar would lead to a shitload of stolen guns back on the street and he sold it all off except for a couple of well-loved pieces.

sanchezero wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:Celebs, no matter what their opinion, are probably some of the least informed groups in the USA.

To amuse yourself, look up your favorite or not so favorite celeb to see if they finished college or even high school. Outside of sports figures, it's an interesting inquiry.

You are better off taking advice from the check out girl at the local super market.

bah. it seems like many of 'em have multiple 'degrees' from prestigious schools. i think i remember james franco got a bachelors from some ivy league joint in 2yrs or something - he's so smart he was taking 30cr a semester and shit, yo, all while filming 2 or 3 movies, too.

The story I got was that Franco slept through most of his courses when he bothered to show up and got a passing grade on his name alone.

I'll restate to be more clear and address WGM's point-- I was thinking more of burglary by an armed robber. While you're correct that most burglaries happen when a property owner is not there, the real risk to life and limb is when the property owner (and his/her family) is home.

From what I've seen of the community policing and law enforcement literature, residents of high crime neighborhoods are often more concerned with property crimes than homicide. Property crimes have a greater effect on home values than homicides, and victims of burglary are less likely to be involved in criminal activity themselves than homicide victims. In the event of a robbery, I'm personally less concerned about what could happen to me than what could happen to my family. Other deterrents are likely more effective-- my mom's neighborhood has gone downhill the last few years, but the fact that her boxer looks like a pit bull is probably a pretty good crime deterrent.

Maybe they could do a special episode of Blossom where she accidentally shoots her foot off.

Edit: had to google...the actor who played Blossom has a...wait for it...a PhD in Neuroscience.

nafod wrote:Edit: had to google...the actor who played Blossom has a...wait for it...a PhD in Neuroscience.

And she plays one on TV.

Turdacious wrote:I'll restate to be more clear and address WGM's point-- I was thinking more of burglary by an armed robber. While you're correct that most burglaries happen when a property owner is not there, the real risk to life and limb is when the property owner (and his/her family) is home.

From what I've seen of the community policing and law enforcement literature, residents of high crime neighborhoods are often more concerned with property crimes than homicide. Property crimes have a greater effect on home values than homicides, and victims of burglary are less likely to be involved in criminal activity themselves than homicide victims. In the event of a robbery, I'm personally less concerned about what could happen to me than what could happen to my family. Other deterrents are likely more effective-- my mom's neighborhood has gone downhill the last few years, but the fact that her boxer looks like a pit bull is probably a pretty good crime deterrent.

On that, I think we can agree. When I said "armed robbery and assault" I categorize home invasions into those categories.