Free Britney!

[xjx388]

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

Her mental state is not the direct issue. The issue is whether or not she can direct her own affairs. Most people with mental issues can direct their own affairs.

As for the courts, they get things wrong all the time. Not enough empathy.

 

[Warp12]

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

That is one way to interpret it, certainly. Another way, in this case, might be to appreciate someone putting more emphasis on the actual mental health of someone, as opposed to joining in the weeping, as-is very popular.

 

[xjx388]

That is one way to interpret it, certainly. Another way, in this case, might be to appreciate someone putting more emphasis on the actual mental health of someone, as opposed to joining in the weeping, as-is very popular.

I think that’s what most people are doing. I don’t see anyone joining in the weeping at all. Rather they are concerned for her as a human being. Regardless of what her mental state is, it seems obvious to most of us that a fellow human being is in a really bad situation. We’d like to see her out of that situation; we’d like to see her as free as we, mentally ill or not, are.

I don’t know if I speak for anyone else but for me, it’s much more basic than “weeping” for her. I just want her to get out of a bad situation that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.

 

[Warp12]

I don’t know if I speak for anyone else but for me, it’s much more basic than “weeping” for her. I just want her to get out of a bad situation that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.

You are assuming her situation is worse than what it might be, outside of the conservatorship. And that is based upon empathy. We will see how it plays out, agreed?

When you see a homeless person pushing a cart, do you say, "I'm glad they didn't have a conservatorship?". I doubt it.

 

[gnome]

If I accept the possibility that the situation might not be as bad as it looks and that evidence will give us more info, can we move on from that point?

 

[Matthew Best]

Latest Instragram post:

I'm not gonna be performing on any stages anytime soon with my dad handling what I wear, say, do, or think ������* ��!!!! I've done that for the past 13 years

https://www.instagram.com/p/CRcirTFgkEE/

 

[Bob001]

You are assuming her situation is worse than what it might be, outside of the conservatorship. And that is based upon empathy. We will see how it plays out, agreed?

When you see a homeless person pushing a cart, do you say, "I'm glad they didn't have a conservatorship?". I doubt it.

Once again, the choice is not conservatorship or nothing. And the whole concept of a conservatorship is to conserve someone's assets; how would a conservatorship help someone who has no home or property? It's not a mechanism to give people money. People are homeless for a lot of reasons, and not all are mentally ill. Many Americans live close to the bone. Losing a job, particularly as a result of illness or injury, can mean missing a couple rent payments, and without family support the next stop is the street. Actual mental illness can be treated with medication and therapy, if someone will provide and pay for it.

Making a crack like that reveals a deep ignorance of the issues. In Britney's case, the question is whether an adult woman is so severely mentally ill that she can't control the daily aspects of her life despite making many millions of dollars on a grueling concert schedule. All the evidence indicates that she is not.

 

[casebro]

Poll idea: a)When will we hear that her new lawyer has a new hearing date?
b)How soon will the hearing take place?

 

[xjx388]

You are assuming her situation is worse than what it might be, outside of the conservatorship. And that is based upon empathy. We will see how it plays out, agreed?

When you see a homeless person pushing a cart, do you say, "I'm glad they didn't have a conservatorship?". I doubt it.

I am assuming nothing. Freedom to live her life as she sees fit is better than being under her dad’s thumb. Even if she completely screws up her life.

Conservatorships aren’t designed to make people behave properly or ensure that they never make bad decisions. They are supposed to be designed to step in for people who are so incapacitated that they can’t handle their own affairs. They are supposed to, as Matthew Best pointed out, conserve an incapacitated person’s assets so that they can be properly cared for throughout their lives.

I’ve seen conservatorships up close. I am not a fan of the whole arrangement except in the most dire of circumstances. Brittney is not an elderly person with dementia or a person with mental retardation. Whatever her issues are, they don’t appear to hinder her ability to do a pretty grueling and exhausting job. She is obviously competent enough to make her own decisions even if she can’t get custody or maybe even shouldn’t have unsupervised visits with her kids just yet. Even if she decides to marry some loser and he takes advantage of her. Even if she makes every wrong decision.

 

[Roboramma]

You are assuming her situation is worse than what it might be, outside of the conservatorship. And that is based upon empathy. We will see how it plays out, agreed?

No, it's really not. You don't get to take away people's constitutional rights because you think they're going to make bad decisions.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

Is this going to be your entire routine? Say something offensive, baiting, and/or factually wrong and play the "Well at least I'm not being emotional" card in response?

It's adorable in a 13 year old on 4Chan in 2009 kind of way, but it's getting old.

 

[CORed]

Look at how her fortune is being "plundered", lol.

We can only imagine how much better she would be at handling it.

Whether, on her own, she would manage it better, or blow the entire $60 million is not the primary consideration. The primary consideration is that it is money that she earned and that she should be allowed to manage as she chooses. It's enough money that she could invest it conservatively and have a comfortable to luxurious living for the rest of her life, if that's what she wants to do. Or she could expend the principle at a rate that will leave her nearly broke when she dies and live a truly extravagant lifestyle. Or she could blow through the entire $60 million in a few years and end up broke. People have done it before and will do it again. The point is that it's her money, not her fathers. If she is not so mentally deficient as not to be capable of understanding her choices, the decision should be hers, and hers alone, not her father's, or anyone elses.

 

[Bob001]

Another overview of the Spears saga. I noted particularly that she was initially placed in what was called an "emergency temporary conservatorship." Not so temporary after all.

In January 2008, Spears was twice placed under a psychiatric hold. A month later, her father petitioned the courts for emergency “temporary conservatorship” over his daughter. The order was granted.

https://www.vox.com/culture/22565683/britney-spears-conservatorship-testimony
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/02/musicnews.usa

 

[Bob001]

Poll idea: a)When will we hear that her new lawyer has a new hearing date?
b)How soon will the hearing take place?

Next hearing already scheduled:

Another hearing in the conservatorship scheduled for Sept. 29.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/14/ente...rs-july-14-conservatorship-hearing/index.html

 

[Cain]

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.

Anyone who runs the conservatorship would have an incentive in keeping it going. As for "he does NOT work for her" -- well, he does. A rhetorical argument to the contrary assumes unestablished priors. It's a stolen base. As for Spears working for HIM -- she's called for a general strike. She's not working. The estate pays him. The estate he manages, the one that has been growing in size, pays his salary. And this is beyond boring.

 

[Checkmite]

The fact of the matter is, she is clearly not well.

Groundless statement.

I have seen nothing during her recent statements in court - or indeed of her in any context at all in the last few years - that suggests she presently carries any kind of mental incapacitation or deficiency that would render her unfit to handle her own affairs the way any average adult in the country does.

 

[jollyroger85]

Once again, the choice is not conservatorship or nothing. And the whole concept of a conservatorship is to conserve someone's assets; how would a conservatorship help someone who has no home or property? It's not a mechanism to give people money. People are homeless for a lot of reasons, and not all are mentally ill. Many Americans live close to the bone. Losing a job, particularly as a result of illness or injury, can mean missing a couple rent payments, and without family support the next stop is the street. Actual mental illness can be treated with medication and therapy, if someone will provide and pay for it.

Making a crack like that reveals a deep ignorance of the issues. In Britney's case, the question is whether an adult woman is so severely mentally ill that she can't control the daily aspects of her life despite making many millions of dollars on a grueling concert schedule. All the evidence indicates that she is not.

The whole pre determiner of a conservatorship is that every lesser extreme is exhausted first. No way that way was attempted in a 10 minute hearing

 

[jollyroger85]

Groundless statement.

I have seen nothing during her recent statements in court - or indeed of her in any context at all in the last few years - that suggests she presently carries any kind of mental incapacitation or deficiency that would render her unfit to handle her own affairs the way any average adult in the country does.

She's well enough to state coherently in court she wants nothing to do with her Dad or the Conservatorship. No dementia, no mental incapacitation. Give the woman her damn life back.

 

[Butter!]

When you see a homeless person pushing a cart, do you say, "I'm glad they didn't have a conservatorship?". I doubt it.

YES.

That's what I've been trying to say.

(Although in your example, a conservatorship likely wouldn't apply. More like involuntary commitment, which I am always against, unless someone is homicidal.)

 

[Belz...]

Gods, what a stupid question that was.

You don't put people in near-slavery just because you don't think they're handling their lives properly. This sort of thing only is supposed to happen when the person is essentially disabled.