Leonardo DiCaprio attacks Republican presidential candidates on climate change - Polidicks

[url]http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/24/leonardo-dicaprio-attacks-republican-presidential-candidates-climate-change[/url] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9dtBFX5.png[/IMG] [quote]Leonardo DiCaprio used a Japanese press conference for the Oscar-winning western The Revenant[B] to launch a thinly veiled attack on Donald Trump and other Republican candidates for the US presidency who deny climate change, [URL="http://www.afp.com/en/news/dicaprio-criticises-climate-change-deniers-running-president"]reports AFP[/URL]. [/B]The actor and environmentalist, in Tokyo to promote the local release of Alejandro G Iñárritu’s 19th century frontier epic,[B] said the next leader of the world’s most powerful nation should not be someone who refused to listen to reason. [/B] [B]“We should not have a candidate who doesn’t believe in modern science to be leading our country,” he said. “Climate change is one of the most concerning issues facing all humanity and the United States needs to do its part.”[/B] The two leading Republican candidates for the presidency, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, have both dismissed climate change out of hand. [B]Cruz has referred to it as “pseudo-scientific theory[/B]”, [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/22/this-is-the-only-type-of-climate-change-donald-trump-believes-in/"]while [B]Trump said earlier this week[/B][/URL][B] that he was “not a big believer in man-made climate change”. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has called climate change denial a “charade”.[/B] DiCaprio, who [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/mar/05/leonardo-dicaprio-netflix-documentaries-virunga"]signed a multi-year partnership deal to make green-themed films with Netflix[/URL] in March last year, also expressed hope that an upcoming documentary about climate change might raise awareness ahead of the November presidential election. “We’ve been travelling around the world documenting climate change,” he said, confirming that film-makers visited China, India and the North and South Poles. [/quote] Celebrities should be more active in social justice and other social issues. Classy of Leonardo to plug for climate change in arguably one the most anticipated speeches of the year. He knew all eyes were going to be tuned into DiCaprio's speech, and decided to divert attention to climate change instead. [editline]26th March 2016[/editline] Rich for Cruz to refer to climate change as "pseudoscience" — when all that right-winger ascribes to in the first place is pseudo-nonsense.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50009862] Celebrities should be more active in social justice and other social issues. [/QUOTE] That is extremely questionable. Think about celebrities like Jim Carrey endorsing anti-vaxxer propaganda.

You also have celebrities like Stephen Baldwin or Hulk Hogan endorsing a certain questionable candidate.

Right guys celebrities should only have opinions if they agree with me

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50009903]Right guys celebrities should only have opinions if they agree with me[/QUOTE] I would prefer all celebrities to keep their political opinions to themselves, even if I agree with them

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50009862]Celebrities should be more active in social justice and other social issues. Classy of Leonardo to plug for climate change in arguably one the most anticipated speeches of the year. He knew all eyes were going to be tuned into DiCaprio's speech, and decided to divert attention to climate change instead. [/QUOTE] I don't want Dave Mustaine and Ted Nugent influencing public opinion, thank you.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50009929]I would prefer all celebrities to keep their political opinions to themselves, even if I agree with them[/QUOTE] celebrities have every right to express the political views just as much as anyone else

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50009929]I would prefer all celebrities to keep their political opinions to themselves, even if I agree with them[/QUOTE] Completely forgetting who is the cornerstone of change and social progress. Congress? A celebrity has the power to accelerate social progress that would normally take over 100 years in less than 20— if he/she was prominent enough and tried hard enough. [QUOTE=Smug Bastard;50009942]I don't want Dave Mustaine and Ted Nugent influencing public opinion, thank you.[/QUOTE] A celebrity's ability to "influence opinion" only goes as far as how accurate and well-thought the opinion is. Jim Carrey's vaccination rants will stay exclusively on Twitter. He has no platform. Leonardo DiCaprio's calls will make global headlines. He has a platform— and only because they are reasonable opinions. If you google "Jim Carrey vaccination" every news article mocks him for it— because it is not a reasonable opinion— while the reasonable ones do get the coverage they deserve. The dumb ones will be drowned into the dust. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/AiYGExh.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=.Lain;50009960]celebrities have every right to express the political views just as much as anyone else[/QUOTE] And they do, but getting involved in politics can only end badly

I would rather listen to an opinionated pundit than a celebrity who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Because celebrities are on a higher par of understanding politics than any other person. The difference between Leo saying this and someone on the street is Leo is famous. That's it.

[QUOTE=Chaitin;50010010]I would rather listen to an opinionated pundit than a celebrity who doesn't know what he's talking about.[/QUOTE] No one is saying you should be forced to listen to "a celebrity who doesn't know what he's talking about." I am suggesting that celebrities be more active in social progress and spearheading change. They have the wealth and power to do so instead of sitting on their ass all day thinking about when they might win the next Grammy. [editline]26th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50010019]Because celebrities are on a higher par of understanding politics than any other person. The difference between Leo saying this and someone on the street is Leo is famous. That's it.[/QUOTE] Celebrities are not "enlightened human beings" — but they have the power that ordinary citizens do not have— enacting change— and its about time they start to use it.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50010020] Celebrities are not "enlightened human beings" — but they have the power that ordinary citizens do not have— enacting change— and its about time they start to use it.[/QUOTE] What's the difference between that and a corporation with lobbyists? It's just a small clique of rich men and women making wide policy for the rest of the country.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50010038]What's the difference between that and a corporation with lobbyists? It's just a small clique of rich men and women making wide policy for the rest of the country.[/QUOTE] Celebrities are not corporations. The level of philanthropy involved when comparing celebrity actions to corporate entities is unfathomable. It is simply incomparable to put a celebrity such as DiCaprio with the likes of Shell Oil Company who seek to protect their bottom line and ability to do business unethically. A corporations entire goal above-all-us is to make a profit, that's it. It doesn't care about you or the world as long as it rakes in an income. Shell Oil Company will seek to protect its right to do offshore drilling— irrespective of the hazardous environmental effect it yields— because that's its primary model of business. It will seek to enact legislation that would keep the price of oil elevated and anything else directly related to its ability to do business. The worst DiCaprio could do to protect his primary model of business would be to join an Actor's Guild or something. Apples and oranges here.

I always took Leo for being a sensible and intelligent person, glad he proved me right.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50010038]What's the difference between that and a corporation with lobbyists? It's just a small clique of rich men and women making wide policy for the rest of the country.[/QUOTE] Well for a start Leo isn't bribing anyone here. He's not exploiting his money to push his own agenda, he is stating his opinion from a position in which his opinion will be heard. Perfectly reasonable as far as I'm concerned. No one is being forced, or even coerced, into agreeing with him and his opinions are open to the interpretation and criticism of the general public. I mean you said it yourself: [QUOTE]The difference between Leo saying this and someone on the street is Leo is famous. That's it.[/QUOTE] And that right there is the big difference, more people hear what famous people have to say. Because they're famous.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50009981]And they do, but getting involved in politics can only end badly[/QUOTE] aka trump

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50009962] A celebrity's ability to "influence opinion" only goes as far as how accurate and well-thought the opinion is. [/QUOTE] I disagree. A celebrity's ability to influence opinion goes as far as what the current media narrative is and how well informed the general public is. [img]http://i.imgur.com/WoHfiAk.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Thlis;50010168]I disagree. A celebrity's ability to influence opinion goes as far as what the current media narrative is and how well informed the general public is. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/WoHfiAk.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] If Takei puts forth a well-thought out and articulate argument by writing out paragraphs after paragraphs for the case of Zika Virus— then it would be highly effective in swaying opinion and may even receive coverage. George Takei did do it correctly with gay marriage and received renowned coverage for it and swayed many opinions with his influence. Because he did it the right way. This did not happen with the post you mention. In this Zika screenshot you paste— since he failed to do so— it will die as a mere Facebook post. The only coverage and attention the Zika Facebook post has ever received are articles that ridicule him for it. There is no logical basis for his argument— and not one he convince others for— so that post would have been largely unknown if it weren't for the numerous websites and articles reposting what he said to mock him for it.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50010334]If Takei puts forth a well-thought out and articulate argument by writing out paragraphs after paragraphs for the case of Zika Virus— then it would be highly effective in swaying opinion and may even receive coverage. Takei did this with gay marriage and received renowned coverage and swayed many opinions with his influence. In this Zika screenshot you paste— he failed to do so— so it will die as a mere Facebook post. The only coverage and attention the Zika Facebook post has ever received are articles that ridicule him for it. There is no logical basis for his argument— and not one he convince others for— so that post would have been largely unknown if it weren't for the numerous websites and articles reposting what he said to mock him for it.[/QUOTE] if people only listen to celebrities when the media acknowledges them, then wouldn't that imply what people really care about is the media

What does someone have to gain by being a climate change denier? I don't get it.

[QUOTE=Swiket;50010542]What does someone have to gain by being a climate change denier? I don't get it.[/QUOTE] Money from the corporations that cause the climate change

[QUOTE=Swiket;50010542]What does someone have to gain by being a climate change denier? I don't get it.[/QUOTE] Money. Check the donors for vehemently anti-science Republican candidates, it's [B]coincidentally[/B] like Exxon mobil and shit like that

It's undeniable that celebrities have power that the average person doesn't have, but I, personally, don't think of that as a good thing. Celebrities often live in a bubble, surrounded by people who never challenge their opinions. They are horrible sources of information on any topic outside of acting/singing/etc. I apply this across the board, whether the celebrity agrees with me or not. Even people saying something you agree with might be saying it for all the wrong reasons. Believing something truthful is not the same as having a rational basis for that belief.

[QUOTE=Swiket;50010542]What does someone have to gain by being a climate change denier? I don't get it.[/QUOTE] lobbying against environmental regulation by businesses who don't want to see their bottom lines affected, for one thing. They try to discredit scientific research and to spread doubt among people by promoting tall claims that are in absolute contradiction of scientific research. Many large industrial groups like ExxonMobil have directly contributed large amounts of funding towards climate change denial.

[QUOTE=Thlis;50009879]That is extremely questionable. Think about celebrities like Jim Carrey endorsing anti-vaxxer propaganda.[/QUOTE] Leo is advocating for modern science. Jim Carrey was not.

[QUOTE=Swiket;50010542]What does someone have to gain by being a climate change denier? I don't get it.[/QUOTE] oil money if they're in that business or congress, absolutely nothing if not [editline]26th March 2016[/editline] they also get another thing to be mad at liberals for

Are there any candidates that recognize climate change AND understand that nuclear is the best way to go about it? Even Sander's fails here. Not the best election for climate enthusiasts I think.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;50010567]Money. Check the donors for vehemently anti-science Republican candidates, it's [B]coincidentally[/B] like Exxon mobil and shit like that[/QUOTE]Also Exxon Mobil's headquarters is based in Texas and Ted Cruz is the senator for Texas.

lol he thought a chinook was global warming when he was in Calgary, fun fact one of the actors actually rented out my parents house when they were filming here about a year ago.