• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Free Britney!

Checkmite said:
Britney Spears' legal team has alleged that her father siphoned over $6 million from her estate for personal use during his tenure as conservator, including funding an attempt to create a TV cooking show starring himself.
Click to expand...


She's also demanding that her little sister stop trashing her to sell her book.
The 40-year-old pop star sent her little sibling, 30, a cease-and-desist letter via her lawyer over mentions of Britney in Jamie Lynn’s interviews about the memoir.
Click to expand...
https://www.vulture.com/2022/01/britney-spears-jamie-lynn-cease-desist.html

Life starts to look different when you can hire your own lawyers.
 
Warp12 said:
If you follow some of the back-and-forth between the sisters, it clearly sounds like Britney is off her meds...or needs more of them.
Click to expand...
Just so you know, suggesting someone is "off their meds" is stigmatising language. Whether she is taking psychiatric medication or not is none of your business, or mine. Suggesting that someone is off them or should take more when they are behaving unusually or erratically is a form of pill shaming. It's a subtle form of stigmatisation, but it's definitely not helpful.
 
Warp12 said:
If you follow some of the back-and-forth between the sisters, it clearly sounds like Britney is off her meds...or needs more of them.
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
Just so you know, suggesting someone is "off their meds" is stigmatising language. Whether she is taking psychiatric medication or not is none of your business, or mine. Suggesting that someone is off them or should take more when they are behaving unusually or erratically is a form of pill shaming. It's a subtle form of stigmatisation, but it's definitely not helpful.
Click to expand...

Well, most people just say she is a dingbat, or ******* crazy. I'm saying, she seems way, way off. And that is my way of expressing it.
 
Warp12 said:
Well, most people just say she is a dingbat, or ******* crazy. I'm saying, she seems way, way off. And that is my way of expressing it.
Click to expand...

Bravo. Way to turn it around. Mean old Arth was shaming the way you were expressing yourself, how dare he.

It sucks that people try to stifle your bigoted views. Cancel culture!
 
TheGoldcountry said:
Bravo. Way to turn it around. Mean old Arth was shaming the way you were expressing yourself, how dare he.

It sucks that people try to stifle your bigoted views. Cancel culture!
Click to expand...
Now now, my comment was intended as a polite notification, not a rebuke. A lot of people just don't realise how pill shaming harms those who require psychiatric medication to live a normal life. Stigmatisation of mental illness is so ingrained that it just comes naturally to many people.
 
arthwollipot said:
Now now, my comment was intended as a polite notification, not a rebuke. A lot of people just don't realise how pill shaming harms those who require psychiatric medication to live a normal life. Stigmatisation of mental illness is so ingrained that it just comes naturally to many people.
Click to expand...

"Pill Shaming" is what happens when you Super Size your "woke".

"Shaming" galore! It's everywhere!
 
arthwollipot said:
Now now, my comment was intended as a polite notification, not a rebuke. A lot of people just don't realise how pill shaming harms those who require psychiatric medication to live a normal life. Stigmatisation of mental illness is so ingrained that it just comes naturally to many people.
Click to expand...


This is absolutely an out and out tangent, and if the conversation goes further then the subject of a separate thread, but it seems to me there's something in us that's ingrained, that gets us to denigrate people and things in order to properly express ourselves. The specific nature of that denigration changes with changing ethical/political/esthetic norms, but apparently simply and literally labeling something doesn't quite do for us.

Thus we must call people bastards, although bastards can be harmless enough creatures, at least no less than people born within a legally recognized marriage. We call them wankers and jerks, although wanking and jerking off are surely amongst the least toxic things people can do with their hands and genitals and minds and time. We call people nutjobs, while (probably) enjoying eating nuts. We tell them they're off their meds or that they're crazy in order to denigrate them when, when you think about it (and that's what kills the buzz, thinking about it) there's nothing remotely belittling about mental illness, it's like telling people they've got a frozen shoulder or that they're lame. Although, wait, that's another slight right there, calling people and things lame.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
"Pill Shaming" is what happens when you Super Size your "woke".

"Shaming" galore! It's everywhere!
Click to expand...


That this impulse to denigrate others is universal, or nearly so, is something I agree with you about. Where I disagree is your thinking that that somehow makes acting out that impulse acceptable. It isn't.

Simple decency is "super sized woke" now? What a very weird POV that is.
 
Warp12 said:
Well, most people just say she is a dingbat, or ******* crazy. I'm saying, she seems way, way off. And that is my way of expressing it.
Click to expand...

Are you really speaking for "most people?" How much do you know about her, really? The fact that she's been very successful for decades in a grueling, competitive industry has to count for something.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Just so you know, suggesting someone is "off their meds" is stigmatising language. Whether she is taking psychiatric medication or not is none of your business, or mine. Suggesting that someone is off them or should take more when they are behaving unusually or erratically is a form of pill shaming. It's a subtle form of stigmatisation, but it's definitely not helpful.
Click to expand...
I take meds and I'm not feeling particularly bad about that expression. When I am acting unusual it is sometimes because I'm off my meds. Seems a bit oversensitive for this thread.

I read a BBC article recently complaining about other phrases like "Falling on deaf ears" which is supposedly a shot against deaf people because some people feel that, for one, being deaf is an advantage. Yes that's what it said.

I don't think, with all the disparaging remarks we all make about people in these threads that Britney is going to care. Seems kinda out of left field to me - no offense to left fielders.
 
Warp12 said:
If you follow some of the back-and-forth between the sisters, it clearly sounds like Britney is off her meds...or needs more of them.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are under some delusion that you know what's going on. All the brains and talent in that family belong to one member. It's the one with the money that the rest are trying to get a piece of.

1- If she is sane enough to work in Vegas and make the money, she is sane enough to control the money.

2- She is also sane enough to control her own life.

3- speaking as a father of 3, if any one of my kids needed a conservator and I was appointed, it wouldn't cost then a penny. If I had to take over raising my grandkids, it wouldn't cost them a penny.

It isn't that Britney is off her meds, it's that she's the sole talent, and moneymaker, in an otherwise parasitic family and is forced to protect herself.
 
California responds! They want to make it easier to put somebody in a conservatorship.
In California, however, the wind has been blowing the other way. Prompted by the growing number of homeless people in visible mental and physical suffering, lawmakers have been trying to make it easier, not harder, to force residents into the state’s care. Under that controversial process, which begins with the kinds of police-initiated hospital stays that Sady endured, a court can appoint a guardian to compel medical treatment, including placing a person in a locked psychiatric unit for periods of months or years. It is the state saying: You are unable to take care of yourself, so we are going to do it for you.
Click to expand...
https://slate.com/technology/2022/0...ric-holds-mental-illness-homeless-rights.html

Obviously Britney is hardly comparable to a street person, but relaxing the existing laws could only make it easier for anybody to be locked up against their will.
 
Bob001 said:
California responds! They want to make it easier to put somebody in a conservatorship.

https://slate.com/technology/2022/0...ric-holds-mental-illness-homeless-rights.html

Obviously Britney is hardly comparable to a street person, but relaxing the existing laws could only make it easier for anybody to be locked up against their will.
Click to expand...

Hallelujah! It's obvious that many people who live on the streets are a danger to themselves. Choosing to live that way is proof. Skid row bums should be put away for their own good. Some cities have so much public defecation that the streets are loaaaaddded with hepatitis.* Living in that squalor is certainly "a danger to yourself".

But the Britney debacle does point out that there needs to be some protections too.

* and they can't just hose it down the drains, EPA says it is a hazardous waste.
 
casebro said:
Hallelujah! It's obvious that many people who live on the streets are a danger to themselves. Choosing to live that way is proof. Skid row bums should be put away for their own good. Some cities have so much public defecation that the streets are loaaaaddded with hepatitis.* Living in that squalor is certainly "a danger to yourself".
.....
Click to expand...

That's easy to say. But will they actually get medically appropriate treatment that will allow them to return to more-or-less normal life? Or will they just be warehoused out of sight? I think there are real problems with locking people up indefinitely.

And I'm not sure everybody living on the streets is severely mentally ill. Some actually work at jobs, but can't afford big city rents. Providing lower-cost housing or rent subsidies could get people off the streets, too. You could even, as a stop-gap, establish authorized tent camps on vacant lots and provide sanitary facilities and security. That would be a lot cheaper than hospitalization.
 
May 15, 9:00-10:00 p.m. ET

"TMZ Investigates: Britney Spears: The Price of Freedom"

Airs May 15, 9:00-10:00 p.m. ET, on FOX.

"The special will also break down how the singer spends her days and reveal concern among those closest to her that she's a danger to herself and others." from a FOX press release, according to The Futon Critic

I have concerns that this TMZ investigation is propaganda and may present intentionally-biased and misleading viewpoints about Britney Spears.

The corrupt conservatorship/guardianship/power-of-attorney machine is a ginormou$, sticky and tangled web of people, places, and things. The machine is constructed of symbiotic relationships. The machine will attempt to shield itself from transparency, traceability, and accountability.

I will watch "TMZ Investigates: Britney Spears: The Price of Freedom" with critical eyes.
 
Bob001 said:
In other news, Amanda Bynes has just been released from her own nine-year-long California conservatorship.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/3...rvatorship-mental-health-wellness-celebrities
Click to expand...

It's certainly perverse that parents can get these conservatorships over their child-star children that flamed out spectacularly. These are the very same parents that enabled, if not forced, their children to be child stars in the first place and deprived them of a normal childhood.

Kinda seems like if a conservatorship is deemed necessary, the parents of these child stars turned drug-addled washouts should be the very last people to be granted a role of responsibility. These former stars are often certainly rich enough to pay a dispassionate professional to take the role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom