I dismiss any actor, athlete or celebrity that is anti American,anti gun &c.
This could be taken as "I dismiss anyone I disagree with". However you meant it, thinking about it has kinda changed my opinion about the value of public figure's opinions. Does the fact that a person was an athlete, or actor, or whatever cause for fame a person has? Is there any greater value to his or her opinions about subjects other than their sport? I think that, while the value of the opinion mostly on the content itself, the opinion of a famous person has a little more value than just any old schmuck. The value is that with famous people, we know more about them, about their ethos.
So take this situation. Do I need Jack Nicklaus to tell me what I should think of DJT? No, DJT helps enough with that. But Nicklaus's opinion is a datapoint. He's a person with a public history and a public ethos. My first question when hearing someone's opinion is usually, is he full of ****? Today, we have a society that impugns the sanity of people based on whether they hate the people they're supposed to hate. Of course that's bull****. So Jack Nicklaus comes out and says he likes DJT based on his personal friendship with him over the years. Should we dismiss that as a datapoint just because he's a famous retired athlete? He's saying, "I know DJT, and he is a better person than his enemies claim." Is he insane? Is he morally corrupt himself? By claiming DJT a friend, is that in itself evidence of a bad ethos? Well, ideologues are full of circular reasoning so of course many will. Does the record of his publicly facing life imply anything that would impugn his ethos? Not that I'm aware. So it's a datapoint. And therein is the only value.