It boggles me, I don't get it and I can't understand why others fall for it. It's like a weekly passtime here in the US.
1. Celebrity is found guilty of something.
2. Scandal erupts, people are outraged and angered.
3. Celebrity pays nominal fee/reduced sentence/community service compared to any non-celebrity.
4. Celebrity appears on national tv shows, newspapers etc and makes a disgustingly gushing apology.
5. General Public suddenly saint the same criminal, holding them up as a pillar of virtue and defending them vigorously.
So, celebrities, go do evil things, fall on your sword publicly and with plenty of tears then become loved by all.
Case in Point.
Michael fething Vick.
Michael was exposed as being deeply involved in dog fighting. He abused animals in his 'care', he killed them in horrific ways.
Today, I was treated to an advert for a Michael Vick item of clothing.
And there you have it, redemption y'all. He's dun bad, but he's cried about it and now we all think he's a fething great guy because he said he was sorry for all that gak he did to those dogs...
Oh and his sporting achievements helped to make it all better.
The same horse piss I hear from workmates who Still defend good old Joe Paterno for covering up Sandusky's horrific crimes. 'Well, there was no absolute evidence' or 'how can you deny though that he did great with the team for years, that's got to count for something, right?'
No mate, having a good football coaching career does not act as karmic balance for allowing a child sodomiser to continue raping little boys for years because you didn't want bad press.
And then the inevitable 'But JoPat said he was sorry'...
There it is, go on Oprah, sniffle a lot as you admit to your horrible crime, let them get a good close up of your tears and then tell everyone that you're better now, that you are ashamed and then drop God into it somewhere, you know, 'It was then I could hear Him telling me, you got to stop flaying nuns, because you know, you're a great nascar driver and what you do is important for 'Murica!' to much applause.
It makes me sick.
I choose not to forgive Paterno and his cronies in PennState for covering up the rape of children.
I choose not to forgive Vick for this:
We lend our forgiveness here in America all too freely and easily if the individual is a celebrity and if they use 'the right codewords'. Some people need to languish a good time longer in purgatory. Some don't deserve to ever leave it.
Grrr, Dot get me Started on Micheal Prick, He is the personification of why i hate sports.
And if i had to hazard a guess, its more infatuation with the lives of celebrities themselves, we dont want the story to end we want it to continue.
Or it could be our idea that celebrities are gods.
Ahtman wrote:This seems less aimed at having a discussion on the idea of redemption then it is about Michael Vick.
It was the advert for his clothing line, with 'Redemption' on that teeshirt, that started me off with this, it's very noticeable for me as an 'emotionally stifled' Brit living over here in America, the whole very uncomfortable falling on your sword as noisily, publicly and spectacularly as possible once you're caught in order to 'move' the audience into approving your elevation from pariah into reborn saint.
There are plenty of others though, Kobe Bryant and Ben Roethlisberger both leap to mind, Lohan constantly arrested with enough snow to put your average 20something black man away for several years. All of them experience the Road to Damascus only after they have been caught and their career suffered.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Grrr, Dot get me Started on Micheal Prick, He is the personification of why i hate sports.
The double standards of Sports culture and the public celebrity worship associated with it are indeed deplorible, but sports themselves I have no issue with.
Kobe Bryant was accused of rape by a gold digging moron and cheated on his wife. Yeah, adultery is messed up, but comparing him to Big Ben the rapist and Vick is a stretch.
Amaya wrote:Kobe Bryant was accused of rape by a gold digging moron and cheated on his wife. Yeah, adultery is messed up, but comparing him to Big Ben the rapist and Vick is a stretch.
They all belong to the same fraternity: membership demands you are a complete donkey-cave at all times.
There is a fine line between confidence and narcissism. Most of the pros/celebs that end up in trouble (Vick, Sheen, etc.) crossed that line about 100 miles back...
He's been on 12 All NBA defensive teams, 9 of them first team. He has a career per game assist average of nearly 5 per game and averages 4-6 a game consistently each year, significantly higher than the beloved Kevin Durant.
I get it, you don't like him. Your allegations remain unjustified and ignorant. He is one of the best all around players to ever play the game.
Amaya wrote:I get it, you don't like him. Your allegations remain unjustified and ignorant. He is one of the best all around players to ever play the game.
I have no opinion as to Kobe Bryant, I don't pay attention to sports.
But is what you just typed a glorified "Might Equals Right"?
Amaya wrote:I get it, you don't like him. Your allegations remain unjustified and ignorant. He is one of the best all around players to ever play the game.
I have no opinion as to Kobe Bryant, I don't pay attention to sports.
But is what you just typed a glorified "Might Equals Right"?
As you don't pay attention to sports I can understand you misinterpreting my post.
CTGamer accused Kobe of being a one dimensional ball hog that doesn't play defense. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Haters gonna hate though.
Amaya wrote:
He is one of the best all around players to ever play the game.
I don't dispute this.
Being the best and constantly having to tell everyone you are the best and acting like an donkey-cave because you think your skill gives you a free pass is the problem...
CTGamer accused Kobe of being a one dimensional ball hog that doesn't play defense. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Haters gonna hate though.
For the record that opinion of Kobe wasn't thought up by me, it is pretty much a universal opinion of him by most fans, writers and sports figures. The flow chart was a joke (why so serious bra?) and is secondary to the real issue which is his narcisism...
You have suggested multiple times in your posts that because someone is good at something he somehowhas a right to behave in a way that is socially/moraly repugnant because he is just being "confident".
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that, because I don't care how good you are at your job you still have no right to be an donkey-cave to other human beings and expect to get a free pass for it (your fanboys aside).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:He doesn't do that. He plays the game with energy and passion. Nothing he does on and off the court qualifies him as an donkey-cave.
Back on topic, I don't really understand it myself. I guess we (not me, certainly) like giving the rich and powerful second chances for some reason.
I haven't really been following the Sandusky business, but anyone who molests children and covers up molestation of children is a piece of gak and will probably always be a piece of gak.
RatBot wrote:Back on topic, I don't really understand it myself. I guess we (not me, certainly) like giving the rich and powerful second chances for some reason.
I haven't really been following the Sandusky business, but anyone who molests children and covers up molestation of children is a piece of gak and will probably always be a piece of gak.
But he won alot of football games though.
Which I guess means that we arn't aloud to melt his statue down into slag and piss on the molten metal to cool it.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:It boggles me, I don't get it and I can't understand why others fall for it. It's like a weekly passtime here in the US.
1. Celebrity is found guilty of something.
2. Scandal erupts, people are outraged and angered.
3. Celebrity pays nominal fee/reduced sentence/community service compared to any non-celebrity.
4. Celebrity appears on national tv shows, newspapers etc and makes a disgustingly gushing apology.
5. General Public suddenly saint the same criminal, holding them up as a pillar of virtue and defending them vigorously.
So, celebrities, go do evil things, fall on your sword publicly and with plenty of tears then become loved by all.
Case in Point.
Michael fething Vick.
Michael was exposed as being deeply involved in dog fighting. He abused animals in his 'care', he killed them in horrific ways.
Today, I was treated to an advert for a Michael Vick item of clothing.
And there you have it, redemption y'all. He's dun bad, but he's cried about it and now we all think he's a fething great guy because he said he was sorry for all that gak he did to those dogs...
Oh and his sporting achievements helped to make it all better.
The same horse piss I hear from workmates who Still defend good old Joe Paterno for covering up Sandusky's horrific crimes. 'Well, there was no absolute evidence' or 'how can you deny though that he did great with the team for years, that's got to count for something, right?'
No mate, having a good football coaching career does not act as karmic balance for allowing a child sodomiser to continue raping little boys for years because you didn't want bad press.
And then the inevitable 'But JoPat said he was sorry'...
There it is, go on Oprah, sniffle a lot as you admit to your horrible crime, let them get a good close up of your tears and then tell everyone that you're better now, that you are ashamed and then drop God into it somewhere, you know, 'It was then I could hear Him telling me, you got to stop flaying nuns, because you know, you're a great nascar driver and what you do is important for 'Murica!' to much applause.
It makes me sick.
I choose not to forgive Paterno and his cronies in PennState for covering up the rape of children.
I choose not to forgive Vick for this:
We lend our forgiveness here in America all too freely and easily if the individual is a celebrity and if they use 'the right codewords'. Some people need to languish a good time longer in purgatory. Some don't deserve to ever leave it.
Team Wienie states their belief that atonement and redemption could only be obtained when he endures what he put those poor dogs through. If he survives, then gives all his money to doggie charity and devotes the rest of his life in a monklife existence helping animals, then he can be considered redeemed.
In the interim
http://www.greymuzzle.org/ this place can use all the help it can get. Its been TBone certified!
CT GAMER wrote:
They all belong to the same fraternity: membership demands you are a complete donkey-cave at all times.
Not really. During college I would intern at a training camp that worked with professional athletes (mostly NFL). The amount of female attention they got, even when they're not socializing, is ridiculous. Try staying faithful to your wife, who you don't see very much in-season, while having every gorgeous 20-something fawn over you.
CT GAMER wrote:...and is secondary to the real issue which is his narcisism...
Narcissism? What narcissism? He's one of best professional athletes in the world, has many fans, makes tons of money, and when he brands things people buy them. He actually is important. Understanding that isn't narcissism, its recognizing the truth.
Narcissism? What narcissism? He's one of best professional athletes in the world, has many fans, makes tons of money, and when he brands things people buy them. He actually is important. Understanding that isn't narcissism, its recognizing the truth.
There are plenty of gifted athletes, some of whom are the best in their sport or position who do not express themselves in this manner or act as if they are above those around them. Humility and being classy CAN coexist with great ability and celebrity.
Take Lebron James: he speaks of himself in the third person and has tattoos glorifying his own ability. Now compare that to Gretsky or Tom Brady who always downplay their own skills and performances and instead talk about teammates or team effort, etc.
Knowing you are great is one thing. How you choose to carry and represent yourself in spite of that fact speaks to your character...
CT GAMER wrote:
There are plenty of gifted athletes, some of whom are the best in their sport or position who do not express themselves in this manner or act as if they are above those around them. Humility and being classy CAN coexist with great ability and celebrity.
Sure, they can, but its either a facade or delusion. Kobe Bryant is more important than the vast, vast majority of his fans. As are all celebrities, professional athletes, political figures, etc. People find it annoying when they act as though they are because they don't like being reminded that they're insignificant.
CT GAMER wrote:
There are plenty of gifted athletes, some of whom are the best in their sport or position who do not express themselves in this manner or act as if they are above those around them. Humility and being classy CAN coexist with great ability and celebrity.
Sure, they can, but its either a facade or delusion. Kobe Bryant is more important than the vast, vast majority of his fans. As are all celebrities, professional athletes, political figures, etc. People find it annoying when they act as though they are because they don't like being reminded that they're insignificant.
The Thunder is still young, and the players still have time to be corrupted, but I hope they stay the way they are now. Too many donkey caves out there, but sports fans created most of them.
CT GAMER wrote:
Take Lebron James: he speaks of himself in the third person and has tattoos glorifying his own ability. Now compare that to Gretsky or Tom Brady who always downplay their own skills and performances and instead talk about teammates or team effort, etc.
Knowing you are great is one thing. How you choose to carry and represent yourself in spite of that fact speaks to your character...
Part of that is the fact that professional basketball is a much more individual sport than is often realized. Part of it is also that Gretzky and Brady* are good in front of a camera. But the biggest part is that Brady and Gretzky were never expected to be good.
*Especially Brady. Gretzky may have been the Great One, but the he played with 5 other Hall of Famers.
The group of people willing to buy his clothes are probably the same people who really didn't care much about the crap he was up to anyway.
As to the whole redemption thing, it's all just one facet of the celebrity worshiping culture we've been forced to come up since we decided traditional religion was passe and needed somewhere for the weak minded to pour out their faith.
I think there's a South Park episode about this. Basically, what MGS describes is the whole point of celebrities. The idea is to build them up and then knock them down and then build them back up. Think Eldar, man.
CT GAMER wrote:
There are plenty of gifted athletes, some of whom are the best in their sport or position who do not express themselves in this manner or act as if they are above those around them. Humility and being classy CAN coexist with great ability and celebrity.
Sure, they can, but its either a facade or delusion. Kobe Bryant is more important than the vast, vast majority of his fans. As are all celebrities, professional athletes, political figures, etc. People find it annoying when they act as though they are because they don't like being reminded that they're insignificant.
Just wow...
I don't see how this is controversial. If you die, your family and friends will care. If he dies, his family, friends, followers, the media, and several companies will care.
That's simply how it is. He is more important than you are.
That's a ridiculous statement to make, just because you're very well known doesn't mean you're more important. See Tesla, at the time he wasn't particularly well known yet he impacted the 20th century hugely. The same goes for Feynman, anyone that worked on the Manhattan project, anyone that worked on the enigma code and thousands of other less well known people that drastically influenced the world.
Part of me likes to think that people don't actually indulge in celebrity worship... then you see the millions of pounds that they make from endorsements, public appearances and tacky crap.
People in general like an underdog. The very public lives of celebrities means we get to see a large portion of everything they do. When they fail in very large ways, your average person wants to see them comeback and be 'better' then they were. How many Hollywood movies can you name (that aren't based on real events) where the underdog doesn't come out on top in the end? NPR did a story a month or so ago about the rarity of people who root against the underdog. It's human nature.
Case in point: how many people hate the Yankees and Patriots simply because they win to much? The yankees are traditionally one of the highest payrolls in baseball, so when the little guy comes in and beats them, everyone is happy.
Does this make it right? No. Are they better then everyone else? No, their lives are just more public. Ask someone how many Americans were killed in Afghanistan last month and I bet they'd have to look it up. Ask them about tiger blood and everyone is a Charlie Sheen expert.
Corpsesarefun wrote:That's a ridiculous statement to make, just because you're very well known doesn't mean you're more important. See Tesla, at the time he wasn't particularly well known yet he impacted the 20th century hugely. The same goes for Feynman, anyone that worked on the Manhattan project, anyone that worked on the enigma code and thousands of other less well known people that drastically influenced the world.
They're important now, but they weren't important then. Not speaking broadly to all people of their times.
However, they were important to important people.
Another example: When the Pope dies, many will weep, when I die far fewer will weep, because the Pope is more important than I am.
Corpsesarefun wrote:That's a ridiculous statement to make, just because you're very well known doesn't mean you're more important. See Tesla, at the time he wasn't particularly well known yet he impacted the 20th century hugely. The same goes for Feynman, anyone that worked on the Manhattan project, anyone that worked on the enigma code and thousands of other less well known people that drastically influenced the world.
They're important now, but they weren't important then. Not speaking broadly to all people of their times.
However, they were important to important people.
Another example: When the Pope dies, many will weep, when I die far fewer will weep, because the Pope is more important than I am.
I think your missing the point.
Yes people think they are important and thus make them important in how they treat them, give them breaks and favors, and hero-worship them, etc.
That is all perks of their status in our society no question.
That however does not excuse the athletes themselevs from acting in a proper ethical/moral fashion, nor should it give them free rein to act like donkey-caves to others. Then again as long as people continue to make excuses for them (and continue to hand them dollars) some will continue to do so...
back to the OP: I don't think Vick is in any way "redeemed". He stoped killing and ausing dogs for profit only because he was caught and it gave him bad PR.
This new line of clothing is a way for him to cash in on his own infamy, and that is just as distasteful as the orginal acts in my opinion.
So you used to abuse and kill animals but now you are "redeemed" so buy an overpriced shirt with your picture on it? No thanks...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Another example: When the Pope dies, many will weep, when I die far fewer will weep, because the Pope is more important than I am.
So to clarify: if you have lots of friends/followers you have the right to be a tool? I disagree.
You keep making the above point, but I dont see how it answers the actual question of why narcisistic donkey-caves feel they can be narcisitic donkey-caves?
No one doubts these people's skills or social status. The problem is their behavior despite that status and the sad fact that so many are willing to make excuses for and continue to worship them...
I don't just agree with Dogma, he is irrefutably correct. Its fething obvious, the people that give a feth/depend on your efforts in life be it monetary or otherwise think you matter. But nobody else does.
Now, I'm probably more important than most of you lot because I am so charming and witty and as such have a large circle of friends.
But I'm less important than some fether that sings or dances. Do any of us think were going to get one of those pointless "RIP" threads on dakka, or some dog gak facebook group remembering us? I mean, I don't think famous people are important either really in the grand scheme of things, but they are more important than the proles. You don't even gave to be famous, If you are pretty rich you are more important too right? (And they all bloody are.. famous people I mean obviously)
Surely a bloke who pays $1 million a year in tax, is pretty important, because his contribution feeds sick kids, pays for food and ammo for our serving soldiers.. whatever, clothes the hungry and helps in the other myriad ways the government spends it.
Does a hobo with no friends and no income who pays no taxes and does nothing but take "matter"? Who does he matter to? And why does he matter? I might matter a little if even one penny of my income tax feeds a kid, but him? nobody cares when he dies, ndobdy will go to his funeral, and nobody will even notice.
The definition of not mattering!
Or what about some career wellfare recipient whose very existence poisons the fething world? Does he matter?
No he doesn't.
What I don't understand is, why do you lot get so pissed at Dogma for stating what is an obvious fact!
No, you are. You're normal, they aren't. You're angry because you want to be exceptional but lack the ability. Too bad.
Know your role.
CT GAMER wrote:
That however does not excuse the athletes themselevs from acting in a proper ethical/moral fashion, nor should it give them free rein to act like donkey-caves to others.
Sure it does, they exist in a unique set of circumstance, and respond uniquely. Applying nominal standards to them is unfair, and indicative of jealousy.
CT GAMER wrote:
So to clarify: if you have lots of friends/followers you have the right to be a tool?
Yes, insofar as "rights" exist.
CT GAMER wrote:=The problem is their behavior despite that status and the sad fact that so many are willing to make excuses for and continue to worship them...
I've already explained why they do this. They believe they're better than you, and by all measures they are better than you.
What I don't understand is, why do you lot get so pissed at Dogma for stating what is an obvious fact
Because some can't see it as fact.
It obviously is though isnt it!?
I dont see how you can fail to see it, its as obvious as the capital of France, we couldn't "debate" it if I said Paris you said it was Brussels, I would be 100% right, and you would be 100% wrong, this kinda thing isnt a nuanced thing you can chat about, its a simple answer.
You can even provide a positive proof using math!
If person A gets 5000 people at his funeral, and person B was a down and out drunk so only two people turned up at his, Person A mattered more.
If enough people think you are special and important then you are special and important.
Some people have an interesting skill or talent that caused them to get attention to begin with, but if enough people think you matter then you matter. Not because of anything you did, but because everybody else says so.
d-usa wrote:If enough people think you are special and important then you are special and important.
Some people have an interesting skill or talent that caused them to get attention to begin with, but if enough people think you matter then you matter. Not because of anything you did, but because everybody else says so.
d-usa wrote:If enough people think you are special and important then you are special and important.
Some people have an interesting skill or talent that caused them to get attention to begin with, but if enough people think you matter then you matter. Not because of anything you did, but because everybody else says so.
Yes. A thousand times yes.
Aye, that's why in this day and age we even get celebrities who don't actually do anything, they dont have an actual ability or talent, they are just famous for being famous like Kim Kardashian.
She is more important than me, because people like looking at her tits.
I choose not to forgive Paterno and his cronies in PennState for covering up the rape of children.
I choose not to forgive Vick for this:
Not everyone in the US forgives and forgets so easily, MGS.
I still refuse to watch any game Vick plays in. The guy is a complete dick. He may have done his time in prison, but that doesn't mean I have to forgive him or give him 1 minute of my time or attention.
Penn State is lucky to have gotten off with what they did. The "Death Sentence" (no football for 1-3 years) would have been preferable to me.
mattyrm wrote: I don't just agree with Dogma, he is irrefutably correct. Its fething obvious...
Agreed.
I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread that are angry because they are largely irrelevant, and enjoy making themselves feel better by tearing down people who are much more influential and talented than they are.
Now, I'm not saying that Michael Vick should be treated as some sort of hero (I hate the guy, based on the terrible things he's done) but the general "celebrity hatred" in this thread really seems to stem from bitterness and jealousy.
He's right that the majority of celebrities are more important, but that still doesn't justify someone doing what Vick or Roethlisberger did. The worst thing Kobe ever did was be cocky and cheat on his wife. In his situation both are completely understandable if not commendable and they don't qualify him as an donkey-cave.
Monster Rain wrote:I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread that are angry because they are largely irrelevant, and enjoy making themselves feel better by tearing down people who are much more influential and talented than they are.
Of course, that is why anyone cares about celebrities in the first place.
Amaya wrote:He's right that the majority of celebrities are more important, but that still doesn't justify someone doing what Vick or Roethlisberger did.
That's why I differentiated between justifiably thinking those two guys are douchebags (animal cruelty and rape are bad, mmkay?) and general celebrity hating.
Manchu wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread that are angry because they are largely irrelevant, and enjoy making themselves feel better by tearing down people who are much more influential and talented than they are.
Of course, that is why anyone cares about celebrities in the first place.
True.
Barring the sort of thing I mentioned above, I don't understand being anything other than a "fan" or "indifferent" to a given celebrity. Devoting energy toward being a hater for the sake of being a hater just smacks of a small, bitter person.
Monster Rain wrote:Devoting energy toward being a hater for the sake of being a hater just smacks of a small, bitter person.
FWIW, I don't think that describes how people view celebrities they don't like. When people feel ill-will towards a celebrity, they usually don't say "just because." You know, you'll hear that someone hates Paris Hilton because she doesn't do anything but be rich and how is that enough to be famous. Or you'll hear that someone hates Justin Bieber because his music is bland and generic and certainly not worthy of all the praise it gets. So people have their reasons.
Manchu wrote:You know, you'll hear that someone hates Paris Hilton because she doesn't do anything but be rich and how is that enough to be famous. Or you'll hear that someone hates Justin Bieber because his music is bland and generic and certainly not worthy of all the praise it gets. So people have their reasons.
I guess what confuses me about that is that you don't have to listen to or watch either of them if they don't appeal to you.
I'm not a fan of either of those two people you mentioned, but I'm not angry at them about it.
None of the above matters, frankly. In death we are all equal... It doesn't matter how famous you were, Kobe Bryant would be just another person when he is lying on his death bed, gak scared because he knows what's going to happen. Having all that fame and money is meaningless when your breathing your last.....you are as helpless as a newborn babe when the Man in the Cape and Scythe comes calling.....
In my job I come across death on a weekly basis. When your gasping your last it matters not who or what you have done during your lifetime.
Monster Rain wrote:I guess what confuses me about that is that you don't have to listen to or watch either of them if they don't appeal to you.
I'm not a fan of either of those two people you mentioned, but I'm not angry at them about it.
That's kind of a weird way to look at it, as if celebrities are like annoying distant relatives that you can just skip visiting on holidays.
Nope, celebrities are much more like your close relatives that you can't get rid of no matter what. Everywhere you go, there they are. For a while, you try to ignore them. But Bieber's always screaming in your ear and Paris is flashing her lady parts up in your face. It gets a bit grating.
By the way, I couldn't name a single song by him, even though I regularly see his face on everything around me at stores, on TV, in magazines and advertisements, so by naming even one of them it seems like you're proving my point ...
kronk wrote:Maybe you should watch less Nick Jr. and listen to less Radio Disney...
Or not go out, or not turn on the TV to anything but the Old Fart Conspiracy History Channel, or go to stores or other public places, or listen to the radio (you know, the regular radio that plays stuff other than what I explicitly choose), etc, etc, etc.
Seriously, you guys are acting like you've been living in caves on Mars.
I don't listen to terrestrial radio (Howard Stern's term...) nor watch much TV, but I can name a couple Beiber songs and have seen Paris' sexcapades tape...
Seriously, Manchu? Is THAT what you're going with?
You're greatly exaggerating your experiences in order to have an excuse to spaz out in this thread. Just because I'm willing to call you out on your immaturity doesn't mean I'm lying.
Melissia wrote:The rabid defense of celebrities amuses me to no end with how sad it is.
See, maybe I haven't read them all, has anyone actually rabidly defended any celebrities?!
Vick is a total dirtbag, If I got one of his shirts for free I wouldnt even ebay it, Id burn the fether. And I think the OP is getting stressed for no reason, because I think 99% of people wont buy the fethers shirts because people DONT forgive him!
But what Dogma said was still correct.
You can see the obvious and irrefutable logic in something (celebrities are more important than tramps) without defending celebrities. They are more important because they pay more taxes, because more people would mourn them, because more people know their name, because more people will go to their funeral, because they give bigger tips to waiters, any number of reasons!
I don't think anyone has said Vick is a nice guy/SHOULD act like a dick have they? I certainly didn't anyway!
I mean, Jesus.. Nobody is less interested in celebs than me.. I even hate the ones I like! Its just hard to argue with the logic.
For example, I like U2, I fething hate Bono. But its clearly obvious WHY Bono thinks he is a God.. its because millions of sad bastards fawn over him! Isn't it obvious? I wouldn't ask for his autograph, I wouldn't even speak to him if he sat next to me on the fething train! But I bet he gets asked every single day of the year. Everywhere he goes sad bastards tell him how awesome he is, no wonder it goes to his head. I'm confident and a tiny bit self important because over the years plenty of women have came onto me in bars and said "You are really nice looking" so I think I am pretty good looking. Imagine how I would be if ten women said that to me every single pub I went to? Can you blame someone for thinking they are awesome when they are endlessly informed just how awesome they are by tens and thousands of people?
Im not defending Vick, Im not saying I would be a dick If I was famous, I'm just saying what Dogma said is right because it is perfectly understandable and logical.
Kilkrazy wrote:Reinvention is a key part of the American Dream.
Exactly so. Celebrities can't just go from strength to strength. They need to fall to rise. The comeback is a powerful thing and not just for the star in question. When a star makes a comeback, people think of their own lives from the time when that star used to be popular. The celebrity reinvention is the reinvention of non-famous people writ large. It's a public spectacle but more importantly it is a public ritual.
Monster Rain wrote:I guess what confuses me about that is that you don't have to listen to or watch either of them if they don't appeal to you.
I'm not a fan of either of those two people you mentioned, but I'm not angry at them about it.
That's kind of a weird way to look at it, as if celebrities are like annoying distant relatives that you can just skip visiting on holidays.
Nope, celebrities are much more like your close relatives that you can't get rid of no matter what. Everywhere you go, there they are. For a while, you try to ignore them. But Bieber's always screaming in your ear and Paris is flashing her lady parts up in your face. It gets a bit grating.
Honestly, I listen to a fair amount of pop radio and I don't hear a lot of Bieber. But the point is if I don't appreciate someone's art or whatever, I simply avoid them when I can.
I can understand hearing something too many times to the poit that the song becomes grating, though. That friggin Gotye song, for example.
Monster Rain wrote:That friggin Gotye song, for example.
My god that is the worst. It is on every channel always -- well, whenever they are not playing that Maroon 5 song about the pay phone. So there you go: not hating to hate. Just fething sick of it. Yeah, I turn the radio off. But that's a shame right and it pisses me off because I should be able to hear something worthwhile on the fething radio. I'm not saying, it should be all my favorite songs all the time. But Gotye on 60% of the time? Me turning off my radio isn't me avoiding that trash. It's me being driven away from the radio.
I liked "Someone Like you" a lot, which is weird because I'm not a fan of love ballads. However, I couldn't get away from her. I was just over-exposed to her on the same level as Cold Play, I think.
I'm glad she won her Grammies, but I want to hear something else, now.
Monster Rain wrote:I'm actually a pretty big fan of Adele.
I don't like her at all, one of the few it seems.
The problem I have, is well, primarily I am shallow and thnik that there are millions of ugly people, I want performers to be attractive!
But also that being a great singer isn't actually that rare is it! I reckon about 1 in every 100 people are great singers, all you have to do is turn on any talent show, there are thousands and thousands of great singers. Everyone knows a good singer don't they?
So I think to be a great musician, you have to be the complete package, like, Lady Gaga is better and I'm not that keen on her, but at least she is not only a good singer, she is decent looking, has that whole weird image and original style and has played the media like a fiddle, her music is not to my taste, but it IS pretty unique, she doesn't seem to stick to one genre, some of its like dance or pop, she does rapping, she plays instruments , that kind of thing.
Adele is just a fat honking bird with a great voice but a head the same size as a dumpster.
It's ridiculous that Adele has sold more records than Michael Jackson. Whether you like his music or not, you can't deny his massive influence on pop music. Adele, OTOH could almost be slotted into the lineup of any decade since the 1950s and not sound out of place.
mattyrm wrote: I don't just agree with Dogma, he is irrefutably correct. Its fething obvious, the people that give a feth/depend on your efforts in life be it monetary or otherwise think you matter. But nobody else does.
Now, I'm probably more important than most of you lot because I am so charming and witty and as such have a large circle of friends.
But I'm less important than some fether that sings or dances. Do any of us think were going to get one of those pointless "RIP" threads on dakka, or some dog gak facebook group remembering us? I mean, I don't think famous people are important either really in the grand scheme of things, but they are more important than the proles. You don't even gave to be famous, If you are pretty rich you are more important too right? (And they all bloody are.. famous people I mean obviously)
Surely a bloke who pays $1 million a year in tax, is pretty important, because his contribution feeds sick kids, pays for food and ammo for our serving soldiers.. whatever, clothes the hungry and helps in the other myriad ways the government spends it.
Does a hobo with no friends and no income who pays no taxes and does nothing but take "matter"? Who does he matter to? And why does he matter? I might matter a little if even one penny of my income tax feeds a kid, but him? nobody cares when he dies, ndobdy will go to his funeral, and nobody will even notice.
The definition of not mattering!
Or what about some career wellfare recipient whose very existence poisons the fething world? Does he matter?
No he doesn't.
What I don't understand is, why do you lot get so pissed at Dogma for stating what is an obvious fact!
And if you notice I agreed with him multiple times that these people are made important. But that isnt the crux of the discussion.
Im not arguing that point of importance or not.
I'm saying Yes Dogma/Amaya you are correct that these people are important to many in many ways, etc.
But that isnt what the crux of the OP's first post was about.
We are debating why these types feel that their status allows them to be donkey caves to others and act like they are above needing to be a decent person with humility and a sense of social grace. Why they feel that if they do somethign horrible that if they cry about it and launch a t-shirt line that somehow everything is now all right...
Its how the media and the players PR cast them. Its acceptable to society though that the "bad" can be made "good" again. Which doesn't stop them from making a profit off their behavior.
My original point was not really about not liking or disliking celebrities, but rather the weird situation where an utter gak like Vick can emerge from a shitstorm of hatred against him and actually market that, actually flourish from it and actually end up being worth more because of a return from a scandal like this. To the stage where people will hold this or that guy or girl up as an example of success rather than the stain besmirching their career for years and years to come.
If Vick had been a British football player, he'd be booed as soon as he emerged on the pitch, he'd lose masses of sponsership and the crimes would haunt him for decades if not the rest of his career, indeed, it might well end his career.
Instead, due to this peculiarly American ritual, he can fulfill a preset criteria of weepy atonement noises on talk shows, mention God and Jesus (and perhaps 'ma kids' if you have them) and get some close up shots of some drooling skanks in the audience getting weepy with you and bang, back in business and indeed, you can sell a Tshirt with 'redemption' on it or boxers with 'I am an X crackwhore' and it's a winner!
If only poor old Gary Glitter had been a yank, he could have gone on the morning show with Regis and Kelly, had a good cry about sticking his devil in kiddies, said that Jebus saved him and then gone on to continue a great career, perhaps launching a range of teenies clothing called 'No Kidding'...
Look at Michael Jackson, the dude's treated like a saint. A while back there was 'some mention' that he had been molesting children, it doesn't get a whisper now.
I by no means condone what Vick did but seriously, he completed his jail time. He paid his debt to society. I know people who kill kids DWI who get less vitriol than Vick.
If you did something terrible, went to jail, paid your dues, and then came back out in the world, wouldn't you want to get back to your previous life? In my opinion, he's opened a huge amount of discourse about the prevalence of dog fighting and if anything has made the public much more aware than it was before. Not saying he should be commended for doing terrible things but isnt the whole point of our justice system to rehabilitate?
Also I am saying this as someone who volunteers at a rescue shelter and I only work with dogs. I love dogs, probably more than I like most people. But the double standard shown to this guy just amazes me.
At what sentence are his crimes forgivable? 5 years? 10 years? Never because he's rich and famous?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also if you want to blame to celebrity cult in America, ask why we're paying 18 yo kids millions of dollars to play with a ball? Ask why funding for schools is heavily wrapped up in sports?
But really, ask yourself how you would act if you grew up being told you were amazing because you threw a ball good by literally everyone you knew. Ask yourself how you would act growing up poor and being suddenly thrown millions of dollars and the keys to the city, all because you can kick a ball. If you really think you'd be the same person you are now, your full of it. Money and power like that always breeds donkey-caves.
Also if you want to blame to celebrity cult in America, ask why we're paying 18 yo kids millions of dollars to play with a ball? Ask why funding for schools is heavily wrapped up in sports?
But really, ask yourself how you would act if you grew up being told you were amazing because you threw a ball good by literally everyone you knew. Ask yourself how you would act growing up poor and being suddenly thrown millions of dollars and the keys to the city, all because you can kick a ball. If you really think you'd be the same person you are now, your full of it. Money and power like that always breeds donkey-caves.
Then how come not all pro athletes act this way? In fact most don't.
Many of kids who experience exactly the scenario you describe are well adjusted, humble, and very much not donkey caves?
vick and others chose to do what they did and act the way they do.
I'll say again: Instead of putting out a t-shirt line prolaiming "redemption" maybe get involved with animal rescue or some other charity work.
But really, ask yourself how you would act if you grew up being told you were amazing because you threw a ball good by literally everyone you knew. Ask yourself how you would act growing up poor and being suddenly thrown millions of dollars and the keys to the city, all because you can kick a ball. If you really think you'd be the same person you are now, your full of it. Money and power like that always breeds donkey-caves.
Then how come not all pro athletes act this way? In fact most don't.
Many of kids who experience exactly the scenario you describe are well adjusted, humble, and very much not donkey caves?
vick and others chose to do what they did and act the way they do.
I'll say again: Instead of putting out a t-shirt line prolaiming "redemption" maybe get involved with animal rescue or some other charity work.
That product line going to sell though. The name of the brand and the individual who is selling it. I would further go on and mention some grps of individuals that would be buying the product but I notice the "hate" word can easily be applied. I hate one grp of individuals with a passion and their "insurgents" (AQ and the Taliban in that mix to)
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If Vick had been a British football player, he'd be booed as soon as he emerged on the pitch, he'd lose masses of sponsership and the crimes would haunt him for decades if not the rest of his career, indeed, it might well end his career.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Mellissia's infatuation with Bieber
What?
Are you high or something? I listen to a wide variety of music, from rap to rock to jazz to orchestra to even country music, but I don't listen to boy bands.
CT GAMER wrote:
We are debating why these types feel that their status allows them to be donkey caves to others and act like they are above needing to be a decent person with humility and a sense of social grace. Why they feel that if they do somethign horrible that if they cry about it and launch a t-shirt line that somehow everything is now all right...
Because they are, and it is. It isn't a matter of feeling, its a matter of social and financial status. You want the same abilities? Make more money, and climb the social ladder.
Popularity didn't stop being a factor when high school ended, the stakes just got larger.
I wish, but you guys have boggarted the stuff, apparently
I listen to a wide variety of music, from rap to rock to jazz to orchestra to even country music, but I don't listen to boy bands.
I poke because I care. Kinda.
Because they are, and it is. It isn't a matter of feeling, its a matter of social and financial status. You want the same abilities? Make more money, and climb the social ladder.
This only being true if you have a rather narrow view of importance. Of course it's valid from the point of view that you should be able to profit from your own importance, but otherwise all proof goes to show that people that lived a 'popular' life aren't, from a social or historical point of view, 'important'. Best proof of that being that the most effective way of becoming known is to write a book, while the least effective way is to become an actor.
Because they are, and it is. It isn't a matter of feeling, its a matter of social and financial status. You want the same abilities? Make more money, and climb the social ladder.
Again, plenty of people with money/status are NOT donkey caves.
I appreciate your ability to generalize and give a free pass to such behavior, but we are talking about the behavior of specific individuals.
We have gone around in circles a number of times now, so lets just agree to disagree since you feel people are jusified to be dicks and I don't.
Unfortunately for the donkey caves they have plenty of people like you to prop them up.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
This only being true if you have a rather narrow view of importance. Of course it's valid from the point of view that you should be able to profit from your own importance, but otherwise all proof goes to show that people that lived a 'popular' life aren't, from a social or historical point of view, 'important'. Best proof of that being that the most effective way of becoming known is to write a book, while the least effective way is to become an actor.
I imagine about as many people know of John Ward as know of David Hume.
CT GAMER wrote:
Unfortunately for the donkey caves they have plenty of people like you to prop them up.
I believe you mean "fortunately".
That being said, I won't be propping up Michael Vick because that shirt is hideous. I'll watch him when he plays (If he plays this season, he may have broken his thumb*.), but that's as far as I'll go to "support" him. I simply don't have the energy for the outrage.
*He was replaced by Kafka. Seriously, can a backup have a better name?
Kovnik Obama wrote: This only being true if you have a rather narrow view of importance. Of course it's valid from the point of view that you should be able to profit from your own importance, but otherwise all proof goes to show that people that lived a 'popular' life aren't, from a social or historical point of view, 'important'. Best proof of that being that the most effective way of becoming known is to write a book, while the least effective way is to become an actor.
I imagine about as many people know of John Ward as know of David Hume.
It's probably telling that I have no fething clue who is John Ward. But the 'writing a book is more effective to become important/popular than being an actor' is actually statistically based by the analysis of about 40% of all written data scanned by google. Acting is the worse means at becoming popular/important because your popularity decreases faster than any others, and is harder to obtain once you've passed an early age.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
But the 'writing a book is more effective to become important/popular than being an actor' is actually statistically based by the analysis of about 40% of all written data scanned by google. Acting is the worse means at becoming popular/important because your popularity decreases faster than any others, and is harder to obtain once you've passed an early age.
I did start by saying that you could extend popularity beyond short term. You've claimed that popularity was the reward of those with exceptional qualities, and that it was the natural order of the world that such individuals would be granted more power/leeway/what-have-you. If you go beyond tabloid popularity, this stops being true, and those that we usually relinquish to the backstage of popularity then usually becomes the more important. It's a pretty bad usage of 'important' that puts Kobe Bryan ahead of Marx, for instance. If it's the natural way of things, then it's because humans are naturally victims of sophistry.
And what would be popularity, in your own account, if not frequent search results? One way or another, it's always about asking through a certain medium how often 'x' comes up. Personnaly I question more the result that puts authors on top of the list whitout questionning if the fact that only books were analysed could've had an influence. On the other side, it's an Harvard research, so I assume that should have at least a minimum of integrity
Kovnik Obama wrote:It's a pretty bad usage of 'important' that puts Kobe Bryan ahead of Marx, for instance.
Not really. Being dead and important isn't nearly as interesting, or difficult, as being alive and important. Becoming important after one has died doesn't really require much effort. Being famous/important while you are still live is a totally different beast. Being important when dead is a very passive act, and really is determined by a bit of luck (if your writing is lost your out) and for people who are still alive to champion you. If Marx had been a bit more important while he still lived maybe a few of kids wouldn't have starved to death. I'd rather be moderately important while alive than greatly important while dead, it is much more fun.
Well, from the premise of this thread, if you aren't a manwhore, a murderer, a rapist or a dog molester, being alive and important isn't either very interesting.
It's also to be noted that being an author, even in life, is still shown as being statistically more effective than being an athlete. Its just that after death your popularity still increases at the same ratio as in life.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Well, from the premise of this thread, if you aren't a manwhore, a murderer, a rapist or a dog molester, being alive and important isn't either very interesting.
I think you know better then to confuse what is said in one thread with everything that is going on in the world. Just becuase dakkites wanted to obsess over those elements of celebrity doesn't mean they are the only ones.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Its just that after death your popularity still increases at the same ratio as in life.
At best you just increase the chemicals in the ground and air, as you are dead, and not actually doing anything. Other people are doing things with what might have been left, but the dead person isn't doing anything.
Kovnik Obama wrote:You've claimed that popularity was the reward of those with exceptional qualities, and that it was the natural order of the world that such individuals would be granted more power/leeway/what-have-you. If you go beyond tabloid popularity, this stops being true, and those that we usually relinquish to the backstage of popularity then usually becomes the more important.
True. But they also tend to be dead. That condition has a way of cramping the style.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's a pretty bad usage of 'important' that puts Kobe Bryan ahead of Marx, for instance. If it's the natural way of things, then it's because humans are naturally victims of sophistry.
Yes, they are. What of it? Kobe Bryant is more important than Marx, and less important than Greenspan.
Marx isn't a public figure, his work is important to scholars, but that's basically it. There aren't many of us, both by design and circumstance.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
And what would be popularity, in your own account, if not frequent search results?
Kovnik Obama wrote:Well, from the premise of this thread, if you aren't a manwhore, a murderer, a rapist or a dog molester, being alive and important isn't either very interesting.
I think you know better then to confuse what is said in one thread with everything that is going on in the world. Just becuase dakkites wanted to obsess over those elements of celebrity doesn't mean they are the only ones.
I would say that it's usually a good example of the exact opposite of what people "out there" think.
Maybe do some research before before you start with accusations? Might help your arguments in the future.
And obviously I know not all people with money are jerks. Probably not even a majority. But when you suddenly have millions thrust at you, it tends to go to your head. Why do you think almost 90% of lottery winners are broke within 5 years? Money can change people very easily. Been doing it since it was invented.
And without really knowing too many professional athletes, I dont think any of us are really in a position to say how they act. None of us know how they are off the field.
This may cause a gak storm, but I'll say it anyway since this obsessive love with animals is getting a bit annoying.
Yes, I believe that the saying you can judge a person/society on how they treat their pets/animals is accurate and anyone who willingly abuses animals has problems, but c'mon it was dogs! It wasn't like he was running around shooting people, raping, beating his wife, stashing child pornography, or running a sex trafficking ring.
What Vick did was wrong, you can even say its terrible, but its not nearly as bad as its made out to be. It was stupid, immature, and ignorant, but I can't honestly say it was evil and I don't think he should be demonized the way he has been.
Damn right it'll cause a gak storm! It'll bring about the mother of all gak storm, nay, the mother of all melon-fethers of gak storm down on you, Moses-parting-the-Red-Sea style. Just dogs... fuuuuu... How fething sick do you have to be to hang dogs?
That guy should never have been allowed to play in professional sports ever again. Hell, Cujo could go to town on him and I would'nt even care.
We had to agree on the economical system before money ever existed. Using words. Marx's words influenced the economical systems of 5-6 generations, now. He (or the beleif he spawned) caused wars all across the globe.
Jesus didn't have money, or many goods in comparison to our average households. I'd say Vick or Bryan are downright insignificant in comparison.
Money is but one form of power. The most insignificant and temporaly limited form of power.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Jesus didn't have money, or many goods in comparison to our average households. I'd say Vick or Bryan are downright insignificant in comparison.
Money is but one form of power. The most insignificant and temporaly limited form of power.
Absolute nonsense. The past has gone, only the now REALLY matters. If your kids are starving to death, do you want bread now, or are you counselled by the fact they were full in the past?
Jesus doesn't matter a fething jot to a mother with a starving child if she has any sense. A moron might take some solace from the (incorrect in my view) assumption that Jesus might save the kid souls while she allows them a miserable death, but a sensible mother gets to looking for food, not praying for it.
In the now, If Kobe Bryant donates a million dollars to 100 starving families, that matters.
Ask them what they prefer. Knowledge of Jesus deeds or $10,000 dollars to feed the kids.
Like most preaching, what you said was basically a grand nonsense, It sounds nice and deep and meaningful, but its just wind, because I know what every single one of those families would pick.
Ergo, its not insignificant, its very very very important.
They're both important. In practical terms, of course money and food are critically important now. In terms of influencing society, history (including wars and religious pogroms including millions of deaths) the biggest philosophers, like Jesus and Marx, have had massive influence and importance. In the larger scheme of things, those 100 starving families are a drop in the bucket.
Mannahnin wrote:In the larger scheme of things, those 100 starving families are a drop in the bucket.
Wouldn't that depend on which influencial dead people you study and which living important people you follow? A hardcore Objectivist wouldn't give two gaks about 100 starving people and the bigger picture is whatever serves their interest. A devout Buddhist wouldn't believe in a bigger picture, or the future or past, just the now. And so on and so on.
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing; we may be talking past each other a bit.
If the ideas of one writer or philosopher are instrumental in (for example) kicking off a war, which affects the lives of millions in a substantial way, is that of greater or lesser impact than donating a large quantity of money to help people? You'd probably have to donate trillions to equal the impact.
Amaya wrote:This may cause a gak storm, but I'll say it anyway since this obsessive love with animals is getting a bit annoying.
Yes, I believe that the saying you can judge a person/society on how they treat their pets/animals is accurate and anyone who willingly abuses animals has problems, but c'mon it was dogs! It wasn't like he was running around shooting people, raping, beating his wife, stashing child pornography, or running a sex trafficking ring.
What Vick did was wrong, you can even say its terrible, but its not nearly as bad as its made out to be. It was stupid, immature, and ignorant, but I can't honestly say it was evil and I don't think he should be demonized the way he has been.
Yes it is as bad as it's made out to be, the dog has a very similar nervous system to our own, it's learning capability is on par with a 2 year old child. He did not 'put them down', he beat them, cut them, kicked them and then strangled them or drowned them. A good many psychopathic killers of human beings start on their road via animal cruelty. It shows a need to inflict needless suffering and pain.
I have kept a dog, anyone who has will know how that feels and know the absolute devotion that animal will show you. Dogs adore you unconditionally, I felt a great deal of paternal protection towards mine. I loved my dog.
I deeply loathe those who inflict suffering on the innocent, dogs, like the vulnerable in our own society, are innocent. I have hunted and killed animals for food and have always striven to ensure I end the life of that animal as swiftly as possible and painlessly as I can and then I eat it. Killing needlessly is distasteful to me and inflicting pain and suffering on another lifeform for no good cause is repellent.
According to how I view the world, yes, what he did was evil.
mattyrm wrote:
Absolute nonsense. The past has gone, only the now REALLY matters.If your kids are starving to death, do you want bread now, or are you counselled by the fact they were full in the past?
If I killed your children yesterday, does that mean it doesn't matter to you now? Sophistry is a dangerous game to play with a philosophy major.
Jesus doesn't matter a fething jot to a mother with a starving child if she has any sense. A moron might take some solace from the (incorrect in my view) assumption that Jesus might save the kid souls while she allows them a miserable death, but a sensible mother gets to looking for food, not praying for it.
Not enough imagination. The teaching of Jesus might (and should) get that mother the food she needs. He influenced billions of people into adopting a set of morals which highly value charity. Not only might he (by far extension) have saved those children, but he might have saved way more than 100 starving families, in the end.
In the now, If Kobe Bryant donates a million dollars to 100 starving families, that matters.
Yes. In the now. It's why I mention the scope and the span, which matters more. How many families have used christian charities over the last 2000 years? How many people have been hospitalised in christian hospitals?
Like most preaching, what you said was basically a grand nonsense, It sounds nice and deep and meaningful, but its just wind, because I know what every single one of those families would pick.
Refering to Jesus, in this case, isn't preaching. It's a simple cultural fact ; the Bible is the most influencial book in the last 2 millenia. It influenced the laws, morals and culture of just about every western countries, if not all of them. The millions Bryan and all athletes will have ever paid in taxes will never amount to gak all in comparison to the very real, very tangible influence that book has had.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's a pretty bad usage of 'important' that puts Kobe Bryan ahead of Marx, for instance. If it's the natural way of things, then it's because humans are naturally victims of sophistry.
Yes, they are. What of it? Kobe Bryant is more important than Marx, and less important than Greenspan.
Marx isn't a public figure, his work is important to scholars, but that's basically it.
I diasgree with this especially. If more people know who Kobe Bryant is than know who Karl Marx is, then that only means people think Kobe Bryant is more important.
Karl Marx's writings helped lead to the creation of the Soviet Union. Kobe Bryant is just some athlete. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I'd scarcely heard of him before this thread.) He will be entirely forgotten after he dies, and he will not have changed society at all.
Seriously, Manchu? Is THAT what you're going with?
