>>10105765 (pb re Ricky Gervais)
I honestly think that were it any other time, RG would be gone by now. He's avoided the normal shenanigans and process of getting powerful in pedowood by having fuck you money from creating the office in the UK and selling the rights to the US showrunners. Earlier in his career, he absolutely filled the role of controlled opposition, being a cunt to the royals and calling out pedos and such in a very english fashion(biting wit,etc - look at any appearance on a BBC quiz show and you'll get the idea). That's been a tradition over there for decades, people call out the royals, jimmy savile, the bankers, etc. Contrast that with Hollywood, where controlled opposition always has a couple characteristics:
-
comes up inside the system (milo Y, etc -- ties relatively discernable)
-
dependent on the system for success
-
has a clear profit motive (ben shapiro)
-
is welcomed
Gervais ticks none of these boxes. Per some friends who work in the industry, he's generally not liked at all, and doesn't go out and party at least with any of the typical pedowood A, B or C list (take that with a grain of salt, though, I could be biased).
That said, in doing what he did at the golden globes, he put pedowood in a frustrating position: he's too rich to be bought off, he's not easily blackmailed, and the speech he gave ensured that they cannot quietly get rid of him like they did other comics, like Bill Hicks or Brody Stevens. THEREFORE: he HAS to double down on rhetoric like this, because in a way, it's what keeps him alive. Another similar person in a similar situation who I'd point to as an example is Mel Gibson - he's too rich to be bought, hasn't been blackmailable, and is too famous (and probably canny to the situation) to be quietly got rid of.