Many are not surprised. Those that are might be so because most of the other inane BS they spout is met with cheers from the yes men that cling to fame, money, and power like lampreys.

Hey OP, why do billionaires flex their power to protect a genocide and are surprised when it comes with consequences?

Some people who have a platform feel like the guilt of NOT using their platform to speak out on "controversial stuff" IS a consequence.

If this is about the Macklemore incident, he started off by saying that he isn't a victim and neither is Ed (apparently his friend for a long time). The victims are the Palestinian people.

As to why make statements on "controversial stuff?" How else can you be an agent of change? What's the alternative, to see mass slaughter going on funded by your taxes and stay quiet?

If this is about some other incident, then I don't know, but I think you've misread the Macklemore case (if it is about that)

This is a very broad question. But broadly, I think if you're an artist, you probably got where you are by sharing your point of view with your audience in an authentic way. If you're going to let fear of disapproval stop you from doing that, you might as well quit anyway.

I'm not certain they aresurprised. Not universally. Plenty of them know that they're going to cause a shitstorm, and either don't care, or specifically want it..

Hell, some of them will say shit that's not universally accepted for the same reason I do, when I do so. Sometimes it needs saying.

Because saying it is bad to bomb children should not be controversial and we need to set that expectation.

The moral turmoil of using your celebrity to speak out for something you believe in, or keeping your multi-million dollar career afloat.

Because celebrities live inside a delusion where their audience is a passive wall that only exists to reflect their brilliance. When they step out of their narrow domain of expertise (acting, singing, nodding while someone else writes their policy), they treat reality like a film set. where they can ad-lib whatever they want and if the scene falls flat the director will just call "cut".

I think it largely comes down to existing in a bubble. With a certain level of celebrity, you're mostly surrounded by staff whose job it is to cater to you. That comes with a lot of casual sycophancy, which can lead to thinking your ideas are more mainstream than they really are.

I have a guess on about what and who this is but why not specific it? This question can be about all sorts of things that a celebrity does.

Sounds like this is about the Macklemore situation. I haven't really seen him be necessarily surprised by what's transpired, but he's well within his rights to be critical of the actions taken.

People with platforms can have strong opinions on matters just like everyone else. They have a platform that many of them earned (obviously not all) so it's theirs to do with it what they want. There's zero chance that Macklemore didn't know this was a possibility. He believes in standing up for Palestine and calling out a genocide, so he put his neck on the line to support those beliefs. In this case, he gained a new fan from me today. People that are willing to do that earn some respect from me. On the other hand, someone like Ronnie Radke who also is very outspoken, I've removed from my music rotation because I think he's a shit person. Similar to Kid Rock, but other than a couple of his classic songs I enjoyed as a youth, I didn't listen to him anyway. In both examples, I'll smear the shit out of their name to anyone that will listen.

Actions have consequences, and rarely are any of these people truly surprised when they reach the 'find out' phase, but they may act like it to try and save face.

Being a celebrity does not automatically bring the necessary smarts with it.