Item — HN Reader

Because job prospects are tied to taking the preferred political actions.

It's been stated by James Woods, Tim Allen, and others. If an actor or actress makes right-leaning political statements, their job prospects are diminished. Tim Allen said Hollywood is now like Germany in the 30s

It's the same methodology Weinstein used-- you want to work, you fall in line.

https://deadline.com/2017/03/tim-allen-says-being-conservati...

2 comments

I meant, what does this have to do with Harvey Weinstein being an abuser? His accusers say he blacklisted them for rebuffing his sexual misconduct, not because they conflicted over politics. I don't think there's much disagreement that Weinstein abused his power.

In my admittedly conservative mind, here's how I see it:

- Weinstein continued his predatory ways by threatening the careers of anyone who might expose him.

- Weinstein was also a major Democratic donor. (Many Democrats denounced him after his downfall.) Tellingly, as he was suffering the first wave of accusations he tried to say he'd be back and battling against the gun industry-- he tried to cling a left-side pillar. I find it easy to imagine that Weinstein would use his influence to tip the scales politically as he did with his sexual abuses. He would threaten the career of anyone who didn't follow his instructions.

As noted above, James Woods, Tim Allen, and other conservatives have noted that they believe the Hollywood environment is toxic to conservatives. I have no reason to doubt them, they know that world better than I do. All I can see is that the vast majority of Hollywood celebs speak out from the left side, not the right. I have to wonder: For what reason, if not what I have said above?

I don't disagree that the majority of Hollywood is left-wing, but I take that as a function of the movie industry being nearly exclusively concentrated in America's most urban cities, and with theater and arts being liberal pursuits. With much of Hollywood hiring being based on who you know and who you're represented by (agent-wise), seems pretty obvious that an industry in extremely liberal cities, fueled by kids studying the liberal arts, is going to have a high concentration of liberals. That some of the few actors/producers who are conservatives are going to feel besieged seems, well, also obvious. A left-wing oil worker in North Dakota/Texas is going to feel similarly isolated, doesn't mean the industry is inherently and inextricably anti-liberal.

In any case, Harvey Weinstein has no relevance here. It's no big surprise that a scumbag acts like a scumbag, or that he tries to change the subject when exposed. No different than when Bill O'Reilly blamed far-left activists and "forces of evil" for ending his career [0].

0. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/350710-oreilly-...

If an honest conversation relies on you understanding the legitimate reasons why we don't listen to what James Woods has to say, then what are the odds of an honest conversation?

Why would you not listen to James Woods? If it's just because you disagree with his politics, then I don't find that a good reason.

Also: Apply the same standards to any left-siders you DO listen to. I imagine I can come up with some that are more egregious than Woods. (He doesn't seem too far out, compared to Kathy Griffin, Rob Reiner, etc., does he?)

Ah, there it is.