Actress Priyanka Chopra discussed making the switch from India’s Bollywood to the American movie industry.

“I was being pushed into a corner in the industry. I had people not casting me for reasons. I had a beef with people. Again, I’m not good at playing that game. I was tired of the politics,” Chopra told Dax Shepard on his “Armchair Expert” podcast on March 27.

The 40-year-old celebrity mentioned that she took issue with top actresses in India making less than their male counterparts.

“Movies are sold on the guy and the girl now. Change was demanded by the new generation coming in and saying, ‘Great, make a Bollywood blockbuster, but with me too,’” she went on.

Chopra, who is married to recording artist Nick Jonas, said fame in Hollywood isn’t the same as it is in India.

“I don’t think you guys have seen that stardom,” she said of Bollywood celebrities. “I don’t think Tom Cruise has seen that. I’m not that, but we have actors with that allegiance and love.”

The actress also discussed Bollywood’s obsession with skin color.

“I was lightened up in many movies. Through makeup and then blasting lighting. There was a song which I still remember. It was called ‘Chitti Dudh Kudi’ which means a girl who is as white as milk, and I ain’t that, but I was playing her and I was really lightened up in the movie,” Chopra recalled.

“If you were darker – I’m not even that dark – for darker girls it was: ‘Let’s lighten you up,’” she added, saying she did an ad for lightening skin cream which depicted a woman getting a man’s attention after applying it.

Chopra and Jonas made headlines recently when they welcomed their first child via surrogate, a decision the actress defended earlier this year.

“I had medical complications,” Chopra told British Vogue in an interview for their February cover story. “This was a necessary step, and I’m so grateful I was in a position where I could do this. Our surrogate was so generous, kind, lovely, and funny, and she took care of this precious gift for us for six months.”

“You don’t know me,” the former Miss World competition winner went on. “You don’t know what I’ve been through. And just because I don’t want to make my medical history, or my daughter’s, public doesn’t give you the right to make up whatever the reasons were.”

The legacy media have a pre-set narrative machine when it comes to mass shootings. That narrative machine takes into account the identities of the shooter and the victims, and then churns out an explanation for the shooting. White shooter, black victims: systemic racism. Black shooter, white victims: alienation caused by systemic racism. Muslim shooter, gay victims: Christian homophobia.  

On Monday, a self-identified 28-year-old trans man shot up a Christian school in Nashville, killing three children and three adults. The shooter left a manifesto, which police said reeked of “resentment.” And so this week, we are learning what pops up in the narrative machine when the inputs are “trans man” and “Christian schoolchildren.”

And here’s what pops up: America is systemically cruel to trans-identifying people, who apparently cannot be blamed for losing control and targeting small children at Christian schools. A hate crime by a trans-identifying person against a religious group is immediately transmuted into a generalized societal crime against the mass shooter herself. Thus, NBC contributor Benjamin Ryan tweeted, “NBC has ID’d the Nashville school shooter…Nashville is home to the Daily Wire, a hub of anti-trans activity by @MattWalshBlog, @BenShapiro and @MichaelJKnowles.” Newsweek tweeted a story titled, “Tennessee Republicans’ ban on drag shows criticized after mass shooting.” ABC News correspondent Terry Moran stated that the shooter “identified herself as a transgender person. The State of Tennessee earlier this month passed and the governor signed a bill that banned transgender medical care for minors…”

In the perverse world of leftist victimology, this makes sense: if you are a member of a supposedly victimized group, you cannot be the victimizer; there must be another victimizer who has victimized you, turning you back into a victim.

But if we truly wish to prevent future acts of violence by unhinged lunatics, we ought to utilize a lens other than the lie of victimhood. Instead, we ought to consider the possibility that it is dangerous to promote the idea that mentally ill people ought to be celebrated as political groundbreakers by the legacy media for their symptoms, and simultaneously told that their suicidal ideations are caused by the intolerance of a broader society. According to a recent 2022 study, “Transgender and gender-diverse youth emerge as the group at the highest risk of support for violent radicalization.” Teaching trans-identifying people that their suffering is caused by a cruelly religious and patriarchal world, explaining that these forces put their very lives in danger — that, indeed, they are victims of a potential “genocide” — creates an incredibly dangerous ideological predicate for violent action.

But the legacy media, by and large, support that narrative. To admit the obvious — that men cannot be women and vice versa; that believing you were born “in the wrong body” is a mental disorder, not a weapon to be used in tearing down an unjust society; that high rates of depression and suicidal ideation among those who identify as transgender is not caused predominantly by societal intolerance but by the disorder itself — undermines the new civil rights crusade the Left has built, directed against traditional roles and institutions.

And so the new narrative must be maintained. A woman who shot to death six people including three children in cold blood must be recast as a victim of society. We must respect “his” pronouns even as we report “his” murders. We must blame those who truly cause pain in the world: those who disagree with the thoughtleaders in our legacy media, who know better than all the common sense, biology, and tradition in the world.