First things first.

In one of my articles earlier this year, I not entirely sarcastically suggested a moratorium on every single celebrity from now until election day next year being unable to speak about anything but their most recent film or TV project in any public forum. I did this not so much out of my opinion on their political discourse but because of their collective behavior during the labor stoppage that upended Hollywood in the past several months. I was, to be clear, enraged that so many on the left were willing to embrace as working stiffs a bunch of mostly elitist millionaires who were playing Joe Hill when in reality they were all John Galt. (I think you know the references in mind.) It was an act of pure entitlement and I am inclined to see them as rich and elitist.

I also think that, for the msot part, their opinions are irrelevant to the larger conversation and that because of the publicity machines that surrounds their industry, both sides give them too much influence in the public conversation and inflate their importance. Because they spend so much time performing I think they do the same.

However, I find it equally troubling that you do think ALL celebrities are not entitield to opinons because of their class and wealth. I find this in a larger part more troubling as part of so many people who think that once you have the ability to have the spotlight on you, you are in the eyes of many now disqualified to speak about anything with any purpose. Your entire article is filled with contempt for so many people who do not check the right boxes. And it also makes it clear that much harder to define what being an ally looks like if you can only define what it doesn't look like. It comes under the catch-22 of so many identity groups: that there is nothing someone who is not a member can truly do to be a genuine ally and at the end of the day, their is no action they can made that will prove thier good will.

I've seen so many articles on this blog telling people that words aren't enough and won't make up for it. Fine I get that. But if words are all people can offer, then should we even bother to say anything? I genuinely want to know. If you're not going to believe empathy no matter how many times someone who doesn't look exactly like you in the mirror, then there really is no point to trying to work together. If there's no apology that's good enough and no punishment to fit the crime of white people's sins, then why are we even bother to be one whole nation in the first place? Are we just supposed to meet in our separate groups, never talking with anyone who doesn't share every single perspective we agree with, and juts hear their dialogue as 'meaningless virtue signaling?"

And for the record, if you try to argue that we all need to be equal, I'd also like to know how that's possible. I will be fine with equal under the law because that's achievable. Anything else is a pipe dream and everybody can say it because we all know its impossible and can therefore spent the rest of our lives bitching that the country and the world are irrevocably FUBAR and we shouldn't even bother trying to fix it. All of these white rich people trying to help, should just stick with their own kind and leave everybody else to their own doings. The best way for equality is through division. Is that logical?