Free Britney!

[Paul2]

Empathy is highly overrated.

I feel you.

 

[Cain]

So that's it? You agree [the conservatorship is?] bad, but you've been going back and forth because too many people don't agree with you about how bad to think of it as?

That doesn't seem like something to have an extended argument over. You've pointed out that maybe something worse will happen to her. Is it important for you that people say they agree?

I don't know what to think of it because there are so many known unknowns. Until the recent mainstream attention, the information vacuum has been filled by Free Britney activists treading in rumor and conpsiracy. Do you think it's all that strange to have an extended argument about how we know what we know on a forum that supposedly enshrines critical thinking? A place where self-described skeptics seem to rather uncritically accept a given narrative?

I'm reminded of this little puzzle: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...uick-puzzle-to-test-your-problem-solving.html

Four people were killed in an embassy attack. What does that mean? What do I know about embassy security? One question I'm going to ask is if this type of thing is a surprisingly common **** up. If so, then maybe it's not exactly scandalous. Maybe a tragic event is being politicized. Aha, a six figure salary demonstrates "Daddy" really does just want da money. Except how much is somebody normally paid? This conservatorship is sooooo bad; it's immiserating Britney. What was life like before? What can we expect after?

Somebody compares Spears' situation to slavery, and a normally level-headed fellow traveler resorts to crackpot libertarian rhetoric to say that it could be considered a form of slavery. Really? Because slavery in my American-mind recalls descriptions of women raped at will, men violently murdered for challenging to their oppression.

 

[Paul2]

One question I'm going to ask is if this type of thing is a surprisingly common **** up. If so, then maybe it's not exactly scandalous.

I'm not sure that being common removes scandal.

Aha, a six figure salary demonstrates "Daddy" really does just want da money. Except how much is somebody normally paid?

That's an excellent question.

This conservatorship is sooooo bad; it's immiserating Britney. What was life like before? What can we expect after?

The basic issue isn't whether it's immigrating Britney, and what life was like before and after are the wrong criteria. The fundamental question is whether Britney's conduct of her personal and financial affairs should continue to be handed over to someone else.

 

[Chanakya]

I don't know what to think of it because there are so many known unknowns. Until the recent mainstream attention, the information vacuum has been filled by Free Britney activists treading in rumor and conpsiracy. Do you think it's all that strange to have an extended argument about how we know what we know on a forum that supposedly enshrines critical thinking? A place where self-described skeptics seem to rather uncritically accept a given narrative?

I'm reminded of this little puzzle: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...uick-puzzle-to-test-your-problem-solving.html

Four people were killed in an embassy attack. What does that mean? What do I know about embassy security? One question I'm going to ask is if this type of thing is a surprisingly common **** up. If so, then maybe it's not exactly scandalous. Maybe a tragic event is being politicized. Aha, a six figure salary demonstrates "Daddy" really does just want da money. Except how much is somebody normally paid? This conservatorship is sooooo bad; it's immiserating Britney. What was life like before? What can we expect after?

Somebody compares Spears' situation to slavery, and a normally level-headed fellow traveler resorts to crackpot libertarian rhetoric to say that it could be considered a form of slavery. Really? Because slavery in my American-mind recalls descriptions of women raped at will, men violently murdered for challenging to their oppression.

Sure, good to be skeptical on a skeptical site. Kind of the whole point to being here, absolutely.

Here's a skeptical question to chew over. A very obvious question. It's surprising that this particular question is one you haven't once asked or addressed, even as you've repeatedly asked the other, related question that you ask here. It's doubly surprising because the question I'm referring to has been asked quite a few times in this thread. I myself have raised this point twice, one of those times quoting you. But of course, it's getting to be a long thread, and you may not have noticed it, it's possible, certainly. Here goes, one more time:

The father's drawing a ~200K salary, plus some percentage of revenues to the estate. I don't know how much that latter is, but that does take the direct remuneration to, I don't know, ~300K? ~250K? Certainly 200K+.

You've asked, repeatedly, as you do here, "how much is somebody normally paid" for this kind of job? Very good question. The other very good question is this: What kind of qualifications does someone who earns this kind of remuneration (as well as the perks that go with it) tend to have? Among people performing this role, what is the average remuneration, and how does Britney's father's remuneration compare with that average? Sure, the estate he's managing is larger, and that would speak to his remuneration; but the bigger estate will probably require, and the larger remuneration will probably attract, really well qualified managers in this line of work, no? Do Briteney's father's qualifications for this job appear to be top-notch-professional grade?

As well as asking what kind of salary would someone normally draw for managing an estate of this size, do you think this question is valid too? And would you like to hazard an answer to the question?




-------

eta:

Here's some relevant facts and figures that a quick google search about the father's "career" throws up.

Link : https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertai...worth-deep-dive-wealth-britneys-success.html/

Excerpts (highlights and bold font mine) :

"... Jamie makes $16,000 monthly, along with a $2,000 stipend for office space rent as a conservator. In addition to his monthly salary, Jamie receives direct profits from her performances. In 2014, he received 1.5 percent of Britney’s Las Vegas residency revenue, equal to a sum of $2.1 million. The Femme Fatale tour made Jamie roughly $500,000. ..."

"... James Parnell Spears’ net worth in 2021 is approximately $5 million. The money exclusively came from his role as conservator over Britney Spears. ..."

"... James Parnell Spears was a welder-by-trade ... He spent months working at oil refineries and construction sites. ..."

"... built a health spa .... and it was successful ... the times when James neglected his business ... he overspent and left her “to face the bill collectors.”

"... James Parnell Spears hardly had any net worth at all in the years before Britney’s fame. ... The Spears’ family struggled financially before Britney rose to fame ..."

 

[Checkmite]

"A rational person would demand more from the system that has already failed her for decades" is an odd definition of "rational."

She has every right to assume anymore evaluations would be the same circus as the ones that been keeping her in Conservatorship all these years.

Sure, but demanding and expecting are two different things. I think expecting something different may not be particularly rational, but the demand is not. Otherwise, any call for change to just about anything that's been around for a while becomes "irrational".

 

[Bob001]

......
"... James Parnell Spears hardly had any net worth at all in the years before Britney’s fame. ... The Spears’ family struggled financially before Britney rose to fame ..."

I note again that Spears became her family's primary -- if not sole -- source of income as a young teenager and was deprived of ordinary life experiences, like a high school education. The experience would warp anybody.

 

[Belz...]

I note again that Spears became her family's primary -- if not sole -- source of income as a young teenager and was deprived of ordinary life experiences, like a high school education. The experience would warp anybody.

Yeah look at Michael Jackson and Mozart. And Commodus, for that matter.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You've asked, repeatedly, as you do here, "how much is somebody normally paid" for this kind of job? Very good question. The other very good question is this: What kind of qualifications does someone who earns this kind of remuneration (as well as the perks that go with it) tend to have? Among people performing this role, what is the average remuneration, and how does Britney's father's remuneration compare with that average? Sure, the estate he's managing is larger, and that would speak to his remuneration; but the bigger estate will probably require, and the larger remuneration will probably attract, really well qualified managers in this line of work, no? Do Briteney's father's qualifications for this job appear to be top-notch-professional grade?

Note that his salary is in addition to whatever Bessemer Trust was getting paid. They are the professionals that were co-conservators until they recently resigned.

 

[tyr_13]

I thought earlier about posting that I might detect a hint of sexism in those kinds of decisions, but not knowing the proportion of men and women in conservatorships I elected against it.

I don't know about conservatorships in general, although I would expect there to be in our culture, but in the specific case there is no escaping at least the patronizing sexist tone of arguments from many defending it. I would argue there are sexist assumptions as well. (Insert the 'just because you've made a sexist assumption doesn't mean you're inherently or purposefully a sexist' disclaimer for the fragile here.)

The basic metrics, the criteria, as 'better for her' not only all substitute 'old white guy values' for the 'reasonable person' standard, the 'better outcome' itself is given much more weight than her personal value judgement of 'better' and of 'agency'. Why the ability to control your own choices just thrown away for 'this guy makes better choices'? Charlie Sheen isn't under a conseravatorship is he?

 

[Matthew Best]

Having looked at Britney's Instagram account for the first time because of my friend's outfit, I had another look and she's posted something quite unusual for her. Instead of her dancing or just not wearing many clothes, she's actually written a comment about the current situation, incoherent as it may be:

There’s nothing worse than when the people closest to you who never showed up for you post things in regard to your situation whatever it may be and speak righteously for support … there’s nothing worse than that !!!! How dare the people you love the most say anything at all … did they even put a hand out to even lift me up at the TIME !!!??? How dare you make it public that NOW you CARE … did you put your hand out when I was drowning ???? Again … NO … so if you’re reading this and you know who you are … and you actually have the nerve to say anything about my situation just to save face for yourself publicly !!! If you’re gonna post something …. Please stop with the righteous approach when you’re so far from righteous it’s not even funny …. and have a good day !!!!! PS if you’re reading this today and you can relate …. I’m sorry because I know what it’s like … and I send you my love !!!!"

 

[Checkmite]

I note again that Spears became her family's primary -- if not sole -- source of income as a young teenager and was deprived of ordinary life experiences, like a high school education. The experience would warp anybody.

California has numerous state laws protecting child actors of film and television productions - not just in terms of safeguarding (somewhat) their earnings from their parents, but also requiring uninterrupted education while they're working. Studios actually have teachers on staff to accommodate this. And although children in the wider entertainment industry are expressly exempted from federal child labor laws, those protections are nevertheless enforced de facto by the actors' labor union. Where there's a will there's a way of course, the system is not watertight and parental abuses can and do still happen - but at least the system is there and stops the worst of it.

That doesn't seem to be the case for child singers, like Spears. There is no union, and no system of protections. The family becomes a company, the parents "managers", and the child a product to be marketed and sold.

And it's not something that happens only when superstardom and enormous amounts of money are involved. QED: YouTube parents.

 

[jollyroger85]

Empathy is highly overrated.

I fail to see how you have any productive role in this thread.

 

[jollyroger85]

Not if you want to understand a human.

and how they have been made to suffer needlessly for thirteen years.

 

[gnome]

I fail to see how you have any productive role in this thread.

It's a very revealing comment. Finally dropped the stink bomb and ran away laughing, I guess.

 

[Cain]

; but the bigger estate will probably require, and the larger remuneration will probably attract, really well qualified managers in this line of work, no? Do Briteney's father's qualifications for this job appear to be top-notch-professional grade?

No, he doesn't seem qualified. He raised Britney Spears, he's a recovering alcoholic and he chooses to live in an RV. I wonder if he's drinking his salary -- or pounding it into his arm. But as noted several pages ago, there's an understandable presumption that a family member oversees these matters. In the case of the elder Spears, he might be in a position to say to Britney what others won't: No. It's not an easy thing to say "No."

As for the percentage of the profits, it was approved by the court. It's certainly possible someone else could have negotiated a deal where Britney made more money (AND the negotiator received a GREATER percentage of the profits). I presume a percentage is usually taken in these cases in order to align interests. Of course, whatever your agent gets you, there's someone who is not your agent insisting he would have secured a much, much better deal. In any event, the people charging malfeasance are burdened with proof.

 

[Bob001]

.....
As for the percentage of the profits, it was approved by the court. It's certainly possible someone else could have negotiated a deal where Britney made more money (AND the negotiator received a GREATER percentage of the profits). I presume a percentage is usually taken in these cases in order to align interests. Of course, whatever your agent gets you, there's someone who is not your agent insisting he would have secured a much, much better deal. In any event, the people charging malfeasance are burdened with proof.

The issue isn't how much Daddy is being paid. Spears would be paying anyone who works for her. The issue is that he does not work for her; she works for him. He has a direct financial incentive to maintain the conservatorship, to prevent her from regaining independence, and to portray her in the most unfavorable light. That's the problem.

 

[Warp12]

You just don't seem capable of empathy. That mechanism was used against her, it's only natural she wouldn't trust it. Her appearances in court in recent days make enough of a case for her being able to handle her own affairs. This travesty has gone on long enough.

I fail to see how you have any productive role in this thread.

Humorous.

I have a degree of empathy; but "empathy" is not something I would use to combat "facts", in this case. The fact of the matter is, she is clearly not well. But, many seem to be ignoring the idea of "facts", and relying on "empathy", instead. What do you want me to say, "I feel bad that she feels bad"? Well, that is where evaluation and treatment come into play.

How much care does someone really have for the mentally-ill, if they don't support their proper evaluation? Without proper evaluation, how can they live a healthy life and get proper treatment? Should we believe whatever someone says, just because it tugs at our heartstrings?

Of course you think my "role is not productive". It does not agree with your ideas on this case. It is hard to imagine a more one-sided argument than that which you continue to put forth. There are many such emotionally-driven arguments in this thread, however. So, you have plenty of company.

Let's see what comes of out the court case(s). Maybe she won't have to get another "stupid" evaluation, as she calls it. Maybe it will turn out that everyone conspired against her? Either way, "facts" will be used to determine that...not "empathy".

 

[xjx388]

Humorous.

I have a degree of empathy; but "empathy" is not something I would use to combat "facts", in this case. The fact of the matter is, she is clearly not well. But, many seem to be ignoring the idea of "facts", and relying on "empathy", instead. What do you want me to say, "I feel bad that she feels bad"? Well, that is where evaluation and treatment come into play.

How much care does someone really have for the mentally-ill, if they don't support their proper evaluation? Without proper evaluation, how can they live a healthy life and get proper treatment? Should we believe whatever someone says, just because it tugs at our heartstrings?

Of course you think my "role is not productive". It does not agree with your ideas on this case. It is hard to imagine a more one-sided argument than that which you continue to put forth. There are many such emotionally-driven arguments in this thread, however. So, you have plenty of company.

Let's see what comes of out the court case(s). Maybe she won't have to get another "stupid" evaluation, as she calls it. Maybe it will turn out that everyone conspired against her? Either way, "facts" will be used to determine that...not "empathy".

No.

The issue is whether or not she should be in a conservatorship. “Mental illness” does not equal “needs a conservatorship.” Basic human empathy would suggest that no one should live under the confines of a conservatorship unless there is absolutely no other choice.

Empathy is far from overrated. It’s underutilized and discarded in many cases, especially those involving the rich and famous.

 

[Warp12]

No.

The issue is whether or not she should be in a conservatorship. “Mental illness” does not equal “needs a conservatorship.” Basic human empathy would suggest that no one should live under the confines of a conservatorship unless there is absolutely no other choice.

Empathy is far from overrated. It’s underutilized and discarded in many cases, especially those involving the rich and famous.

I disagree with you. Her mental state IS the issue.

Let's see what the courts say. Then everyone can sit back and admire the results of their "empathy", one way or the other

 

[Belz...]

"Empathy is overrated" sounds like something straight out of a movie villain.