Hey Celebrities! Shut the F**K up!!!!!
 

Firstly, I'm not as "angry" as the thread title makes it sound, but it does give me cause to post one of my pet peeves here. That is, celebrities that think that the world owes it to them to listen. The latest example is Sheryl Crow's "One square of toilet paper." (Just google "one square of toilet paper" for the info) It is such an asnine idea that I can't believe that she even brought it up as serious. Especially considering how huge of a "carbon footprint" her and her entourage has.

So, is it me, or does it really seem as though some celebs use (abuse?) their stardom to force their opinions upon us? Don't get me wrong, I'm not ranting against celebs BECAUSE of their views, but rather that they think they owe it to the world to stand on the soapbox of their stardom and tell us what they think no matter how absurd. This is not to say that all celeb's causes are "forceful", and as an example, look at actress Daryl Hannah. How many of us here know about her 1983 El Camino powered by Biodiesel? She supports her beliefs, but doesn't force them on us. If a well recognized person wants to do a spot to support their beliefs in the ASPCA, homeless shelters, food banks, Red Cross, etc, that's one thing, but for someone to actually leverage their opinions because they are famous, well, I say that's quite another.

What say you peeps?

The thing is, people keep asking them.

I dunno, this really doesn't bother me. They have opinions and things that matter to them just like all of us do. Since we have chosen, essentially, to be a culture that hangs on every word these folks say, I hardly think we have the right to choose or limit their words.

These celebrities wouldn't have so much gosh damn power if regular joes didn't keep giving it to them.

The carbon footprint is a red herring. It's the fact that Cheryl Crow is so full of shit that she wants to hoard all of the toilet paper for herself.

What gives you any more right than a celebrity to have and express an opinion? You don't stop thinking and having views on issues when you become famous. If a celebrity has no right to express an opinion, then neither do you. . .

I was about to go on a rant but this is a much more polite way of putting what I was going to say.

Everyone's stupid in some way, celebrities just happen to be in the spotlight. If I were a celebrity, I'd probably say or do something stupid every once in a while, even though I'm a f**king genius. :thumbsup:

wow, i double up on charlatan doubling up on shakran, who very nearly doubled up on mixed. what a great big happy family.

I find a very simple solution if you disagree with a celebrity's opinions. Just as they have the right to say what they want to say no matter how rediculus, you have the right to choose not to buy their CDs, or see their movies, or watch their TV shows.

I stopped taking such people seriously, as I do to most celebrities. I see them as entertainers only; nothing more, nothing less. So I either ignore what they say or don't make a big deal out of it any more.

Trickyy wins the thread. Thanks for playing everyone.

Sometimes i wish everyone would shut the fuck up. Especially when my telenovelas are on. Motherfuckers.

i find the worst, filthy, is when a person like myself who doesn't actually own a tv..is at the house of someone who does. they put on shitty tv, which they are used to ignoring while they carry on the 'how was your day' conversation. but me...i'm drawn in like a moth to a flame. i just want them to shut the fuck up because i'm hanging on every word coming out of detective benson's mouth, and they're talking about ted in accounting. i'm dying over here...shut the fuck up already or turn it off.

those damn celebrities. how has the alec baldwin thing not hit tfp yet?

Yeah, there's a time for celebrities to be heard...like, when they're calling their kid a pig. :rolleyes:

When exactly did our priorities become so completely fucked up?

I'm not quite sure that it is our priority to listen to celebrities rant on about their qualms, but it is the media that decides to force-feed it down our throats.

Do as you do without succumbing to the influence of boob-tubes, newspaper gossip stories, or internet headlines, and you might find that celebrities hold very little power. It's all just white noise.

Fame can be used for good though. As much as the opinions themselves are no better or worse than the average joes, the audience is so much bigger that while a dumb statement looks all the more stupid, a really good idea can get off the ground if uttered by a celebrity as opposed to some normal guy voicing it to his friends.

What I meant by that was, and I'm not necessarily referring to Push-Pull, but I've heard these complaints before, especially from conservatives who don't appreciate so many celebrities being so liberal and so vocal about it. Yet, when the time comes for one of these same celebrities to be forced out into the limelight for something controversial or despicable that they've said there's nary a peep?

As if to say, as a celebrity, anything ugly, shocking or controversial you say (that was meant to be private or, at least, not a worldwide scandal) is ultimately more important than anything good you say on the behalf of something you care about.

I don't stake more claim in a celebrity's opinion than I do in anyone else's. Just as with anyone else, if I am compelled to listen I will. If not, then I won't. It's pretty simple.

What about celebrities that use their fame for good rather than evil? Jerry Lewis is the quintescential example.

If I recall, about 1983. I can't put my finger on a particular event, but that seems the time I first felt like we were in a shitter. Through the years I've noticed a few steps forward but then we seem to slide backwards again.

another thing i noticed was no one seemed to get too pissy about this guy back in 2003:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29...uce-Willis.jpg

Bruce Willis da Man!

Why would I have reason to be consternated by him?

i don't know if you would; i could care less about what his political leanings are. much more interested in catching re-runs of moonlighting. however, he was very vocal in support of the iraq war and president bush. i never heard any of the people who would like to cut off alec baldwin's testes or kick barbara streisand out of the country for voicing their opposition to the war get very angry with bruce for speaking up. ergo, i think the whole thing is mostly a loaded bs issue which mostly goes to liking those people that reinforce your opinions, and disliking those who don't.

That, and there's always that Spiderman quote: "with great power comes great responsibility". They take it as a responsibility to opine on numerous worldly subjects, regardless of how educated they may or may not be.

Aaaand...BINGO!

You mean *gasp* just like everyone else? :oogle:





;)

Sometimes you need someone that people can visualize to speak out about problems and bring attention to it.

Let's consider "them" as fellow human beings and stop being offended.

That brings up the Dixie Chicks. I couldn't stand their music, and I'm an avid Country music lover.

I didn't care what they said when they said it. I never liked them to begin with, and was glad they were off the airwaves. What drove me insane is they became a child of the anti-war movement. The fat one kept saying how un-accepting hicks are, and the reaction proves every anti-country stereotype. Nevermind their previous song consisted of killing a guy named Earl, they are progressive and Country lovers are racist hicks.

Their big defense was the 1st Amendment, even though there was no reason to claim it. They had every right to say what they did, we had every right to no longer support them because of it. Of course there was a media blitz, including a documentary which conveniently won awards, but they are no longer supported within country music.

What's worse than celebraties which get a pedistal to state everything they want? People trying to tell us we have to support them regardless of what they say.

Who told you that you had to support the Dixie Chicks regardless of what they say? If you really liked the Dixie Chicks would you have still supported their music? I think that's a much more interesting question.

I liked Home...but frankly, the rest of their albums sound like most of the other new country crap to me. :p

yeah, i dig the album with "wide open spaces" on it a little. i think they're a lot like barbara mandrel was; way more talented than the myopic genre they play in lets them express it.

and i know we obviously differ here seaver, but i would bed down with natalie maines for quite a while if she'd get back to the funk she was kicking a couple of years ago. since then, it's been a lot of bad hair.

Wow, this thread grew while I was gone today! If I may...

I have no more right than anyone else, I very much agree. But then, this is as tall as my soapbox will ever be, seeing how I will most likely never be in the position to use the media to my advantage. :rolleyes:

Re-reading my post (I was a bit hurried this morning) I realize that I didn't really hit my point square on. Allow me to try again.....

What I'm trying to say is that it's not about liberal/conservative viewpoints, (I deliberately left political examples out of my original post just for that reason) it's about just doing what you're good at and let the fans enjoy your talent.

The fact that certain people become celebs is due to the average Joe/JoAnne actually liking them for whatever it is they do. Sing, dance, act, perform, etc. My gripe was that these people are willing to cash in on their popularity just to press their views upon us. That just doesn't seem intelligent to me, it's akin to ignorantly voicing opinions on topics that most likely will tick someone off in front of your entire office staff over the PA system.

FWIW, Being somewhat the noob here, I am *REALLY* enjoying the forum and interaction. I sincerely appreciate all the replies, no matter the opinion.

So what you're telling us is that you're so altruistic that if for whatever reason you DID become famous you would make absolutely sure not to express an opinion about ANYTHING any time a camera was rolling?

But the other problem is that Americans are positively in love with pigeonholing people into one profession. A lawyer can't possibly tell you how to fix your car - he's only a lawyer. And the guy who fixes your car can't possibly be good at acting - he's just a grease monkey. And of course the actor can't possibly be capable of rational political thought. . .right?



And you do the same thing. You express your opinions to your circle of friends. You're cashing in on their friendship in the hopes that they will tolerate you spouting off about your beliefs.

Every thought, no matter what it is, is going to piss someone off. That's all there is to it. But if you have a thought, and you feel it's an important thought that everyone should consider, and you have the choice between telling a couple hundred people on a message board or 300 million people on television, doncha think it'd be pretty stupid not to take that chance if it was available to you?

I'm not trying to tell you to shut up - I think you have the right to your opinion and you have the right to broadcast it to as wide an audience as you can reach. But you're not unique - I think everyone should have that right.

Sure it's not "fair" that celebs have so much more access to the airwaves than we do, but then life isn't fair is it? It's not fair that they drive Bentleys while you drive whatever it is you drive that costs 300 times less than their car. Should we begrudge them for taking advantage of the opportunities that are available to them?

I always kinda chuckle inside when I see someone still claim that America is the land of opportunity, because to listen to the masses talk, it sure as hell isn't. Oh sure, it's great to have opportunities, but as soon as we see someone who has greater opportunities than we have, we get annoyed and rather than trying to make greater opportunities for ourselves, we simply begrudge the people who already have them.

I think it's important when we get a kneejerk idea in our head (celebrities should shut up, the news media is full of nothing but assholes, the moon landing didn't really happen, etc etc) we should stop and think about what it really means and what is motivating our thought process. Often times we'll find that we're really angry at something else entirely and are transferring blame for it onto something innocent.

It is sad that people buy in to celebs so much. I go to shows and I see people waiting in line for signatures, I just do not give a crap. I wish people would not buy in to it, but sadly what I fear is true most people are stupid.

dude, what are you referring to here?

i'd guess all the bitching about the news media's role in the Virginia Tech Massacre '07 (tm) is getting to shakran a wee bit.

When it came to controversial issues, you're damn straight that's exactly what I'd do! I'd do my job (talent) enjoy my success, and be as quiet/invisible as possible. I don't feel the need to be heard and reaffirmed
by anyone outside my closest freinds and family.

Well, yes and no. I *try* not to get into controversial issues with people. It does happen on occassion, but as a rule, I try to avoid it to "keep the peace" as it were. Also, I'd like to point out a major difference between freindship discussions and celebs in the media....The celebs opinions are not always open to debate as it would be in a close relationship.

Great debate BTW. Thanks!

You know who I blame for all these celebrity opinions? You. That's right you. You're the one who watches "Access Hollywood", etc. which is where most of these things pop up. You're the one who reads the National Enquirer or the celebrity section in the paper.

A celebrity is supporting a political candidate you don't like? So. Fucking. What. Their vote counts just as much as yours does, and maybe it's a hint that you should get off your fat ass and volunteer for your candidate. At least the celebrity is engaged in the process. You, you're just bitching. And you know what, you're bitching about the GOSSIP PAGES. I'll suffer bitching about the op/ed pieces or something that's actually news, but I won't listen to you, Mr. and Mrs. America, complain because some entertainer doesn't agree with your personal agenda.

What does any anything that some "star" believes have to do with me? Nothing. If I like The Who, does that mean that I'm going to abuse drugs and alcohol? No, it means I like their music. If I like Bob Mould, does that make me gay or pro-gay marriage or anything of the sort? No, in my case it means that I think he perfected the power trio sound. I couldn't care less who he sleeps with or votes for. As a matter of fact, I think he should have less sex and get involved in no political movements so that he can spend more time in the studio making music I like. But if he doesn't want to do that, so what? Alec Baldwin is in one of the only 2 or 3 funny shows on TV, and he's arguably the funniest person on the show. He's certainly consistently been the funniest host on SNL for the past 10 or so years. He has a policital agenda and people listen to him? Great. I don't care. Don't try to make me have to care. I will get angry.

Jesus, have we really gotten to the point where we're going to elect our leaders like "American Idol" or "Survivor"?

This is what I'm suspecting, too, but I'm going to hold out for shakran to confirm or deny this, because I take exception to his assessment of my words if it's so. That is not what I said. At all.

I couldnt care less about celebrities opinions but... reading that one sheet of tp thing was worth a good laugh. She thinks people should only use one sheet of tp... except for those bad times when you might need 2 or 3.... leads me to believe sharyl crow has a dirty butt. I personaly believe TP is evil and we should all have bidets but thats another story.

Sometimes its amusing when they voice there thoughts about stuff like this simply because it gives normal people something to laugh at.

Celebs have always voiced political views, Chaplin, Bogart, Sinatra, Lennon, etc. It's nothing new.

What amazes me is that people will bitch and moan about what they have to say. Who the fuck cares? Are you so in need of approval that you have to live by what some celeb talks. Or so unsure of your stance that you have to criticize what someone else has to say?

Now, do you believe O'Reilly (who's claim to fame was as anchor of a sleazy tabloid tv show called "A Current Affair"), Limbaugh (who was kicked out of radio and sold tickets for a MLB team), Hannity (who has a high school education and has never done anything), Stern (who is great at what he does and is the ultimate shock jock), Heston (who shortly after he said "you can have my gun after you pull it from my cold dead hand" came forward admitting he had Alzheimer's Disease) and so on are any more qualified to affect your stances or beliefs?

My point is if you allow others to affect your beliefs, you weren't that sure of them to begin with. Now, you may listen to them because they reinforce what you believe and are able to communicate it better than you and there is nothing wrong with that.

Here's a little secret for you people who get so upset over all this....... most of the "Celebs" are saying what they say because they love the attention (need the ratings) and they know the only way to get that attention (or ratings) is to be controversial, to say the stupidest things if need be.

Look how Sheryl Crow is now being talked about.... were many talking about her last week? How have her sales been doing since this?

(As an aside, from someone who has had experience back in my poor days, 1 square is possible.... you fold the square into quarters tear the center and keep it, unfold stick your finger through the hole in the center and wipe.... then use the tp to clean your finger and the little piece you torn out to clean under your fingernail...... wash hands very thoroughly.)

not you, don't worry. First off, of people who have made negative comments on the media, you don't exactly have the corner on the market, and second, you've never called us assholes ;)

whew, okay...I didn't realize that trashing your profession was such a widespread phenomena...I should not be so paranoid and self-important ;)

I've been dog-ass, dirt poor and even then it never got to the point where I had to be that frugal with the toilet paper. :lol:

Carry on.

Especially when you *are* media...mixed as it is! :lol:

yeah, i almost had to ask a followup on that one gothmund, but i wasn't sure i wanted to get into the question of whether my refusal to contemplate scrubbing my asshole out with my finger stuck through a piece of toilet paper made me firmly middle-class bourgoise, and thus simply unable to "get it." i'd steal fucking newspapers from the neighbors or use leaves or pinestraw or dead cats before i cleaned my ass up with a finger. therefore, i assume this was some rather 'finger in asshole' humor from pan.

Perhaps the one square law needs an amendment:

1 square for number one

2 squares for number two

:p

Oh wow, dude. If we ever meet, don't take offense if I take a pass on shaking your hand, eh?

Miss Mixedmedia:
You think just like me.(On this subject anyway.)

holy shit. ronryan ascends from the tittyboard back to the convo. welcome back. even if its just for the duration of the single post.

nothing to say

I like what Jazz said. People should ask themselves why they get so angry about trivial stuff.

Being a guy, can I take the 1 square that I didn't use for #1 and add/use it with the 2 squares I use for #2? Is that OK? And actually, thinking about it, I drink a lot of water, so I'm going #1 a lot more than #2 during the day, so if I scrimp and save, I may actually have 7 or 8 sheets to my credit by day's end. Hmmmm.

If asked, they answer. It's the newspapers that keep asking them and printing it. The newspapers print it because that's what they believe their audience wants. With celebrity worship as prevalent as it is, they may be right.

Being guys, I think we should get some credit for not flushing pads and tampons down the toilet. :)

Once you factor those in, we could be up to 10 sheets per day. :)

Recently I witnessed an interview done by Joe Kernan, of CNBC, where he fileted Cheryl Crow and Laurie David over their stance and beliefs on global warming. Coincidentally I don't want this to be a thread-jack onto the topic of climate change so let's not go there...k?

Here is a link to a good overview of the interview and it even has a short video clip: Kernan vs. Crow

The point I wish to make is that the media doesn't always give "celebs" a free pass. They challenge views and statements and there is room for thoughtful discussion as long as they (In this case the "celebs") are willing to allow for it. To me the point of your thread is that it's the "my view or else and I'm not going to let facts get in the way of my opinions" attitude of celebs and their access to media that is willing to give them a forum without challenge to express their opinions. I agree with you argument in that context but you know what...that's life. There are countelss examples of the "STFU" phenomenae. Barbara Streisand, Sting, George Clooney, Cheryl Crow just to name a few. They are allowed to have their opinions and because of who they are they will always be able to use their status to express them to a media base that is all too willing to listen. There are also media outlets that are willing to present the opposing view and when you listen carefully you can almost always decide for yourself who is genuinely informed on any given topic and who is merely expressing an opinion.

Being of sound mind you (and I) are allowed to disagree and learn more about whatever the issue is to dispute their claims when they are wrong with such righteous indignation as was Cheryl Crow during her interview with Joe Kernan.

Joe was clearly more informed and more ready to debate the topic than was either Cheryl Crow or Laurie David. All they could resort to was attacking the interviewer which is a clear signal that they were not as knowledgeable or at all prepared to speak on the subject. It was actually quite entertaining to watch... :) Celebs don't always get a free pass.

=================================
Here is the text of the story linked to above:

It is people like us who help sign their paychecks.

If I ever get famous, I'll use it to educate people.

That being the case, I can't blame Sheryl Crow. I don't agree with her "one square of toilet paper" crap, which is absurdest and ruins the credibility of the green movements, but she can say what she wants. I also happen to agree with Sean Penn often, and I enjoyed him on Bill Maher last weekend. Some celebs can use their clout to bring attention to important problems in the world.

Don Cheadle, for example, has recently been bringing attention to the genocide in Darfur. I commend him on his hard work and the fact that he doesn't just relax in his LA mansion like other celebs. He did Hotel Rwanda and he's actively seeking to end a genocide.

As someone who lives just 30 miles out of Nashville, and whose family has lived in this area for generations, AND HAS BEEN DEMOCRAT, we are amused at how much energy Al Gore uses in his Brentwood mansion, while at the same time, urging others to conserve. It makes us laugh.

The same thing with Cheryl Crow and her plea that we all use just one square of toilet tissue as we pursue our personal business.

Ha ha, toilet tissue isn't the issue, Ms Crow. For the most part toilet tissue is biodegradable. However, the large amount of gas her bus uses in order to deliver her from place to place to preach her "one square" mantra, now that is waste.

Funny.

That article is rife with mistatements and logical errors.
I tried to watch the video to see if I'd get a different opinion, but it looks like it's a subscriber only deal.

Unless I missed something, I didn't see either respondent attack the interviewer.

I'm still amazed when people quote after-show polling results as if they mean anything other than the normal viewers sided with the person they watch/listen to every morning. In this case, it just indicates to me that 80% of Kernan's audience evidently haven't taken a logic course. It certainly doesn't tell us the amount of people in the audience who recognized that an interview format facilitates discussion (or at least should), not a debate. The fact that the participants didn't sit there and spew some facts from a teleprompter doesn't convince me that either isn't qualified to speak their opinions on a controversial issue. It just signifies to me that they didn't want to debate an issue that they've already been convinced of. Many trained experts and intelligent non-experts hold the same belief...so I don't see how thinking that global warming is true or something we ought to do something about indicates a lack of thought on the subject.