44 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Mr. Obama is President of the United States.  Do that same example again on January 21, 2017.  Barack Obama will be just as famous then as he is now, but suddenly his opinion will carry a lot less weight than Koch's.

 

I agree with you that the Kochs would be recognized in their regular watering holes.  But that's not famous.  That's just taking care of a good customer.  If they walked into a restaurant where they weren't previously known they'd be treated just like any other men in nice suits.

 

 

#12 is the first name on that list I don't recognize.

 

 

Bullshit.  You recognized the last name Walton, but out of context you would not have known who those people were.  "Walton" is a pretty common name, after all.  And you're probably more well-informed than the general public.  Of the fifty names on that list there are twelve or so who are arguably "famous," and even most of them would not be recognized or known by the typical man on the street.

 

Anyway, your argument seems to be that these people are powerful because they're famous.  But it's the opposite:  They're famous because they're powerful.  And they're powerful because they're rich.

[Haflinger]

Well, obviously the three are connected. However I'd argue the opposite: they're rich because they're famous. I mean, if, say, Some Guy decided to open a department store, it wouldn't happen. In order to create an empire like Walmart in the first place, you need connections, and that's essentially fame.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Connections are not fame.  Fame is widespread public recognition; notoriety; celebrity.

 

And at one point in its history Walmart was "Some Guy's" department store.

[Redezra]

I disagree entirely with Haf.

 

Money is aquired, nowadays, through the aquisition of power, and money is a tool of said power. Generally through the giving of others said money for the right price. Fame can be acquired via the correct application of power, infamy through the incorrect application, or vice versa, depending on your point of view. However, being famous is not the best thing, it means everyone can see you. And you can't go about arbitrarily manipulating things if everyone knows where to foot the bill, it locks out a whole bunch of strategies in favor of a few others.

 

Being very wealthy opens up a plethora of options on how to go about aquiring more money and power, generally the more fun and slightly easier ones. Being purely famous, like, say, Mother Theresa, does not give you as many options, nor does it make you friends with anyone with money. They'll want to control you. So in a strategic sense, it's better to have the money and the option to go famous, than to have the fame and the need to suck up to someone to even think about getting wealthy.

[Haflinger]

Wait, you really think that Mother Teresa wasn't powerful? Her impact on history isn't really that great? Is that your argument here?

[Thrash]

Generally, I would think if you are famous, you are by default rich. So, I'll go with rich, because people should die and leave me alone.

[Haflinger]

The Unabomber's famous. They don't always go together

[Thrash]

Well, I'm imagining fame in a difference sense, so yea, I guess you're right.

[Redezra]

Wait, you really think that Mother Teresa wasn't powerful? Her impact on history isn't really that great? Is that your argument here?

 

No, she wasn't. The ones holding her leash, the Catholic Church, are powerful.

 

Impact on history is not as important as who the person who put it in motion was. Is the pawn that wins the game of chess the thing that should get the credit? Or should the person playing be handed the credit for a good game?

 

 

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a conspiracy nut, I don't see faceless organisations behind everything, but I understand that the truly powerful don't want to be seen. Perfection approaches the formless. If it is formless, then the perceptive may not discern it, nor the wise make plans against it.

Edited by Redezra, 12 August 2013 - 12:24 AM.

[Haflinger]

Yeah. Well ... you're wrong. The Pope is famous too, and he's a powerful man.

 

Fame is power in and of itself. If you're famous, you have the ability to sway people just because of that. There's a reason Ronald Reagan became President of the United States and Schwarzenegger became Governor of California, and it has little to do with their amazing public policy statements and far more to do with Bedtime for Bonzo and The Terminator.

[Thrash]

You mean we're a culture that's obsessed with the Entertainment industry? Oh my.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

But Haf, you keep changing your definition of fame.  For the purposes of the question, I was thinking more of celebrity, i.e. "positive" fame, and in that case you're right — in the right hands it can be a very powerful thing indeed.  But you also cited the Unabomber, who, while certainly famous, is not a "celebrity" in the traditional sense.  There is no goodwill attached to his fame; it's more like infamy.  Even if he wasn't in jail, it's unlikely Ted Kaczynski could parlay his fame into an election victory (well, okay, except in a few Tea Party strongholds ).  But that could be said of plenty of mainstream celebrities too.  If Lindsay Lohan ran for office her fame would get her attention, but most of that attention would probably be negative, and she almost certainly wouldn't win.  Fame can open the door and help a lot, but it's no guarantee of success.  It depends upon the type of fame, and the type of person.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

You mean we're a culture that's obsessed with the Entertainment industry? Oh my.

 

Meh.  This is nothing new.  Human beings have always been preoccupied by the doings of the rich and powerful.  Once upon a time it was royalty and aristocrats, now it's movie stars.

[Haflinger]

Yeah, I have to admit the unabomber is an unusual case, but yeah, you're probably right that positive fame is more useful in terms of power than infamy.

 

Then again, some of our folk heroes are weird cases. There are people out there who admire Bonnie and Clyde.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Bonnie and Clyde became folk heroes; their fame was positive.  It's just that in their case the reality didn't necessarily jibe with the legend (although tbh I don't know much about the real Bonnie and Clyde — maybe they were wonderful people!).

[Haflinger]

I think I can be sure when I say that people who killed as many innocent bystanders as Bonnie and Clyde did were not good people.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Yeah I read about them.  Basically if it weren't for a series of photographs found at their hideout featuring Bonnie toting a gun and chomping on a cigar they probably never would have amounted to anything.  But those pictures really captured the public imagination.

[Redezra]

Yeah. Well ... you're wrong. The Pope is famous too, and he's a powerful man.

 

Fame is power in and of itself. If you're famous, you have the ability to sway people just because of that. There's a reason Ronald Reagan became President of the United States and Schwarzenegger became Governor of California, and it has little to do with their amazing public policy statements and far more to do with Bedtime for Bonzo and The Terminator.

Yes but the pope is very, very wealthy. 

 

Fame is not power. There is no case where the rich and unknown are less powerful than the not as rich and well known.

 

 

Also, Ronald Reagan was installed because he was a popular choice for a demagogue that would serve the republican interests of serving their relatively unknown, wealthy, corporate paymasters. Reagan was a puppet. Just like Theresa.

Edited by Redezra, 13 August 2013 - 07:03 PM.

[Haflinger]

You really do believe in orbital mind control lasers, don't you?

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

"I always want to say to people who want to be rich and famous: 'try being rich first.'  See if that doesn't cover most of it.  There's not much downside to being rich, other than paying taxes and having your relatives ask you for money.  But when you become famous, you end up with a 24-hour job." –Bill Murray

 

I'd still take it.