The Whining and Bitching Thread

[damnromulans]

I tremble and shake thinking of the answer he'll give to that

 

[JontRevolting]

This right.

Yeah,yeah the first amendment and all.But it would be nice if at actually come from someone of substance rather than some media hungry whore.

 

[Einherjar86]

Dakryn is no better. What the fuck do you think we served in the forces for? So people couldn't voice an opinion? Who gives a fuck that she hasn't served?

What I disapprove of is her using the media (which, let's face it, she has tied around her fucking finger) as an outlet for her political beliefs. Yes, people are allowed to speak their minds; but I don't think bimbo pop stars should be using their popularity as a soap box.

The same goes for celebrities I like, such as Bruce Springsteen or Sean Penn. I pay money for their records and films. I am their customer, and I don't want to hear what the fuck they think. My purchasing their material shouldn't constitute their preaching. "Freedom of speech" means that people can air their opinions about politics and what else without fear of repercussions, and celebrities can do that while a member of the public like everyone else; but it doesn't mean (in my opinion) that they can clog the airways and entertainment television stations with their propaganda.

If people want to be educated, they should read books and journals by the people who aren't famous but have spent their lives studying this stuff.

 

[damnromulans]

Well shit, that's just not how it works is it? Life isn't fair, and famous people have been using their fame to spread their personal beliefs/support/oppose causes since the beginning of time.

 

[Einherjar86]

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."

 

[Kara-Shehr]

If people want to be educated, they should read books and journals by the people who aren't famous but have spent their lives studying this stuff.

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?

 

[cookiecutter]

To be fair to Lady Gaga she is completely right. There is no reason that gay soldiers should be barred from the military. If you think otherwise you are stupid and/or a bigot.

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

 

[SentinelSlain]

Having gay men on the front line seems more sensible than having women there to me. I'm not saying that women are in anyway incapable of being effective killing machines, I just think that the shit hits the fan if they get captured, especially as they generally seem to get raped these days. If anything using people from groups that conservatives don't like is kind of smart, from a cynical viewpoint.

 

[Matt]

When that bitch has put at least 4 yrs in the service, she will have a right to make statements about how it should be. Otherwise she can stfu. Fortunately her "little monster" fanbase is made up of mostly teens below voting age.

Actually, no. When the Defense Secretary comes out in support of it, typically it's something that should be done. Republicans are just horrible people and decided to play politics as usual.

 

[Dak]

Einherjer covered most of what my response would have been. Robert Gates is worthless, just like Rumsfeld, and not particularly because of this issue either.

This has nothing to do with politics and has to do with equality and consistency. As I said elsewhere, if they are going to repeal don't ask/don't tell, they need to drop all forms of gender segregation/gender specific standards in the military.

 

[Kara-Shehr]

As I said elsewhere, if they are going to repeal don't ask/don't tell, they need to drop all forms of gender segregation/gender specific standards in the military.

thats a good point but one issue at a time though this shit takes time to get resolved.

 

[Dak]

Sure, if one issue at a time then lets fix the standards/segregation first. But of course then women would complain.

 

[Kara-Shehr]

im just saying you can't expect much from american government

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

 

[Kara-Shehr]

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)

 

[Dak]

Anyone who likes anything about Gaga can't be taken seriously.

 

[Kara-Shehr]

your a cowboys fan. your the lowest filth that walks this fucking earth.

 

[Dak]

Sports team preference and liking that thing that makes hideous noise/videos aren't even close to being on the same level.

 

[skeptik]

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.

 

[Dak]

Because Gagas fame has nothing to do with being inflammatory? Bill O'Oreilly is just as worthless of course, as is any other talking head.