It sucks when you find out an artist you like or someone who accomplished something you find impressive, is actually a terrible person. I suppose it's useful to be able to separate the artist from the art, appreciating the thing while acknowledging the person is flawed. This happens all the time with historical figures, authors, musicians, and so on. They build up this library of great work and achievement, but they somehow can't keep their opinions to themselves and end up outing themselves as bigots or worse. We can admire their works while condemning their beliefs.

Or carefully calculated messages (possibly written by a 3rd party) that they know their fan-base will eat up.

You don’t need everyone to appreciate you, just enough people to love you and throw their money/interest back at you.

In summary: "Why does this guy have to have his own mind, filled with opinions and beliefs that I happen to not like, and then actually talk about them publicly?"

Grow up. One isn't an automatic asshole just because they don't share your worldview.

> Grow up. One isn't an automatic asshole just because they don't share your worldview.

This has self contained irony; I hope you realize that.

By all means, demonstrate the irony.

The more prominent you are in the public sphere, the more responsibility you have for the opinions you espouse publicly.

No, but they might be if they advocate for a "moderate dictatorship" to replace a democracy.

I disagree - it's not really a horrific opinion to feel that both democracies and dictatorships are absolute catastrophes at the moment. Clearly there's a correct choice among only those two options, but something in between might be even better. Of course I have no idea how you would make a dictatorship "moderate", but I'd love for it to be a real thing, and it doesn't feel reasonable to imply a person is a monster for agreeing with me on that particular thing.

For all their failings, there is nothing catastrophic about democracies at the moment. Not compared to the actual catastrophes that autocracies commit. Lumping the two together as equally failed is ridiculous.

It's just about going outside your expertise.

There's some things I know a bit about... But if I was spouting off about skydiving when I know little about it, that makes me an asshole. Especially, to extend the metaphor, if I was spreading misinformation that led to people being hurt.

Anyways, like I always say, parachutes are optional really.

Having a general opinion about things outside your very specific area of expertise in the world does not make you an asshole. It makes you a human being, and just as the comment above is also spouting an opinion outside the poster's area of expertise (unless he's an immigration policy and political analysis expert), the same right applies to a skydiver. I have a profession, but I also have opinions on many subjects I've read about in some depth. I should keep my mouth shut about them due to a lack of professional certifications because some people find it convenient to harp on that out of their own ideological fixations? Absurd nonsense.

Also, an opinion that doesn't tick all the check boxes of pro-immigration and open borders isn't automatically "hurtful misinformation" You should really qualify that particular line of censorious bullshit. More recently, the biggest fans of narratives about hurtful misinformation that I've seen tend to be authoritarians on the right, curiously enough.

You shape your public image by deciding what you talk about.

Do you want to be known as a legendary skydiver? Then talk about the amazing achievements and plans for the future you made.

Do you want to be known as a former athlete with questionable political views? Then go talk to the media doubling down on stupid memes you posted on facebook.

I have no interest in learning more about the latter. I guess that's why most of us eventually forgot about him until he tragically passed away today.

I can't think of a more bland misuse of a public image than keeping it strictly neutral so that it doesn't offend the ideological fetishes of people who just want you to shut up if you deviate from whatever they indulgently decide is correct.

Like any human being, an athlete can have other opinions on other things and all the right in the world to express them without having to be a certified expert. You're doing the same now, as did the comment above. That's the only qualification necessary.

I think we disagree on what we consider bland. I consider people reposting right wing memes on facebook extremely bland. People who blame all the problems on "the foreigners" are so common that I just don't care to listen to them.

If thats what you want to read about in the media, good for you, because that's what social media (and traditional media) provide plenty of.

I just wish that people who accomplish exceptional things would focus on those exceptional things instead of using their enormous publicity to stir controversy by sharing bland right wing talking points.

Wrong. Not all opinions are equally valid.