In general most people don't think of themselves as actors. The think of themselves as the audience of whatever happens on TV or in the media.
In some sense, I even doubt whether focusing on how people misbehave on a fraternity party is very useful.
Most energy shouldn't be focused on attacking the status quo but on building viable alternatives.
I'm not focused so much on the misogyny or homophobia as their attitude about the bailout and the poor. That they act like fraternity people isn't really an issue. But its a clear demonstration of their private contempt for anyone who isn't filthy rich.
As far as viable alternatives go, America was supposed to be a viable alternative to monarchy, but really it just put a new label on it. The world's history of making viable alternatives is pretty crappy. Most social change appears to have come from attacking the status quo.
This is part of a two-week experiment on having more open threads.
Obvious answers aren't always obvious. If you feel silly for not understanding something, you're not alone. Ask a question here.
Previous stupid questions
Other similar threads include: