The Whining and Bitching Thread

um what? so someone's popularity equates to how credible their opinion is? Im sorry you lost me at that point. And what do you mean by "stuff" exactly?

um what? right back at you.

Lady Gaga isn't popular because of her opinion. She's popular because of her music. That's completely fine (i.e. I don't give a shit if she's popular, I'm not saying she shouldn't be).

What I'm saying is that her opinion isn't an expert opinion. It can be a moral and ethical opinion, but because of her popularity she's in a prime position to sway the opinion's of others by appealing to her own celebrity status (it's inherent in her action). Granted, it's not her fault; but in my opinion, using one's fame as a soap box for spreading his or her beliefs is an immature and unnecessary act.

EDIT: I think I see where I confused you. I'm not claiming that the people who are worth reading are necessarily, or must be, unpopular. I only meant that, in most cases, they are (insinuating that we're a culture that thrives on what the latest celebrity is doing and what he or she believes, rather than consulting professional resources).

I totally disagree that celebrities shouldn't use their fame to advance what they believe in. It would be disingenuous to do otherwise.

Whether she's right or not is beside the point. To be honest, I had no idea what she'd even said when I first commented on this.

Furthermore, it doesn't constitute disingenuousness to keep one's mouth shut. If "artists" want to incorporate their beliefs into their "art," that's fine. If they want to make films about homosexual soldiers or write songs about it, more power to them; I love Roger Waters's material, and Bruce Springsteen's, and Sean Penn's.

What I don't approve of is when the medium ends and it just turns into preaching. The audience participation in a work of art is lost when the artist just outright proclaims "This is wrong!" It's an exploitation of status to appeal to the fascination and loyalty of the fans.
 
Thats all fine and dandy and I agree to an extent but since when do celebrities have an established code of ethics? they only have as much power as people give them, people are gonna make their minds up on an issue one way or another if they agree or disagree intially thats what it is. She's basically only preaching to the choir when she voices her opinion about this kind of stuff anyway.

Keep in my mind thats coming from a fan and someone who agrees with her (but thats not my point)
 
I'd rather listen to Lady Gaga's political positions because she's not paid to give them than a pundit like Bill O'Reilly who is paid and makes a living on being inflammatory. And I'm pretty sure far more people take him seriously.
 
Some fucking sub-moronic delinquent with a marker tagged my work van last night. Had to go and get the shit buffed out with cut & polish at my local detailer. I'd love to have caught the little fucker and coloured his whole face in with the fucking thing shortly before beating him repeatedly about the head with a blunt instrument.
 
Well, there weren't really any famous people at the beginning of time. I suppose there were only two.

And besides, I know that's not how it works; but it's definitely no use to just say "well, they're famous, they'll keep preachin,' nothin' we can do, durp durp durp."

That and the other stuff you wrote is the worst argument of all time. You're saying that because you buy someone's art that they ought to be limited to only producing art and they can't express their opinions on political matters? How stupid is that? It's of equal "no use" to go "well, they're famous and they'll keep preachin' and there's nothing we can do, so I'll bitch about it as if what I think will change it."

Also it is a bit ehh to compare gay men to women. Gay men are nowhere near as much of a liability as women in combat situations. Think about all the Southern gentlemen who went through cotillion and cannot fathom allowing a woman to stand on public transport. Their chivalrous attitudes would get in the way big time.
 
I don't think women should be in the military at all personally. I think if you join the military, no matter what branch or job specialty, you should be willing and able to go to the front lines if need be. It's a waste of time and money to have women in the military if they aren't allowed to be in combat. There's no job in the military that all men couldn't do.
 
Yeah that pretty much rehashes my point about institutional chivalry and the Southern gentleman and it being too complicated and controversial to have males and females in the same units or groups or whatever. Should be segregated IMO though I guess it's worth saying I don't think war necessarily has to be a manly art only if there are a considerable number of women willing and ready to fight.
 
Yeah that pretty much rehashes my point about institutional chivalry and the Southern gentleman and it being too complicated and controversial to have males and females in the same units or groups or whatever. Should be segregated IMO though I guess it's worth saying I don't think war necessarily has to be a manly art only if there are a considerable number of women willing and ready to fight.

Women are a liability in situations like combat, no matter how butch they are. Hell, a lot of the men who are in combat are a fucking liability. Women shouldn't be in the military at all imo. I'll also include people who could be a liability like gays, despite what cookiecutter claims, because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
I think it's unfair to the male soldiers to have female ones on the front line. The amount of complications it would add to it all is unreal.