Free Britney!

[Vixen]

The topic of the thread isn't her private life, it's whether or not she should have autonomy in her personal decision making. Her private life comes into it insomuch as it shows she's making poor enough decisions to justify the state limiting her free choice in how she lives.
That seems like a very high bar to me, but perhaps we have different views on the role of the state in limiting people's choices in life. Making poor choices, marrying the wrong man, etc. don't seem to meet that bar to me. Getting divorced isn't evidence that she should be constrained by the state in how she spends or time and money.

To the extent that her private life is in such a bad state as to justify the conservatorship she was placed under, its reasonable to bring it up here. The the extent that it isn't in such a state, I think arthwolipot is correct that it just becomes gossip.

Personally I think you'd need to demonstrate real harm to others, not just that she's unhappy or making bad decisions, but that's my own view. Others have a lower bar that might be met by grievous self-harm. But getting divorced is not something that should meet anyone's bar here.

The concern is that as a seemingly vulnerable person, she is a target or mark for fraudsters and panhandlers who seek out vulnerable persons to take advantage of. ISTM it is more about protecting her rather than punishing her or restraining her. According to 'an insider' Britney is now claiming Sam was appointed by her father to continue the control over her. Whilst there is a lot of speculation that Sam - like most of her circle of 'friends' - is actually paid staff, maybe it is possible that this is a delusion on her part? Paranoia is not fun or for public entertainment on Instagram. Turning a blind eye is not actually doing Britney any favours if she is in the grip of a mental breakdown.

 

[Vixen]

Ahem...

I may have mentioned from time to time, that a certain poster on this forum has a rather nasty habit of publicly hating on attractive women.

That's probably all you need to know.

Er, I think you want the 'Men Only' forum, three doors along.

Or do you believe your opinion on the attractiveness of females is any way relevant or does it come across as the male belief of having the right to publicly assess the attractiveness of each female they see?

Think about it. Because it does come across as misogynist to claim that only men have the right to debate a topic.

 

[Roboramma]

The concern is that as a seemingly vulnerable person, she is a target or mark for fraudsters and panhandlers who seek out vulnerable persons to take advantage of. ISTM it is more about protecting her rather than punishing her or restraining her. According to 'an insider' Britney is now claiming Sam was appointed by her father to continue the control over her. Whilst there is a lot of speculation that Sam - like most of her circle of 'friends' - is actually paid staff, maybe it is possible that this is a delusion on her part? Paranoia is not fun or for public entertainment on Instagram. Turning a blind eye is not actually doing Britney any favours if she is in the grip of a mental breakdown.

If she voluntarily decides that she is a vulnerable person in need of help and requests it, then cool. If not, I don't think the state should have the power to decide that it can restrict our freedoms just because it deems us vulnerable.

There are probably some reasonable exceptions to this, but I also worry that making room for them leads to a slippery slope where less extreme cases are also treated in this way.

Again, if she's shown to be a harm to others, that's a different issue.

 

[Darat]

If she voluntarily decides that she is a vulnerable person in need of help and requests it, then cool. If not, I don't think the state should have the power to decide that it can restrict our freedoms just because it deems us vulnerable.

There are probably some reasonable exceptions to this, but I also worry that making room for them leads to a slippery slope where less extreme cases are also treated in this way.

Again, if she's shown to be a harm to others, that's a different issue.

She might have not kept her father in the lifestyle he had become used to when living off her earnings - if that's not harm....

 

[Chanakya]

She might have not kept her father in the lifestyle he had become used to when living off her earnings - if that's not harm....

Agreed. Are lowlife parasites not human beings? Shouldn't freeloaders have rights? Don't the despicable have stomachs that need filling with food, in the manner in which they've grown accustomed to?

 

[Chanakya]

The topic of the thread isn't her private life, it's whether or not she should have autonomy in her personal decision making. Her private life comes into it insomuch as it shows she's making poor enough decisions to justify the state limiting her free choice in how she lives.
That seems like a very high bar to me, but perhaps we have different views on the role of the state in limiting people's choices in life. Making poor choices, marrying the wrong man, etc. don't seem to meet that bar to me. Getting divorced isn't evidence that she should be constrained by the state in how she spends or time and money.

To the extent that her private life is in such a bad state as to justify the conservatorship she was placed under, its reasonable to bring it up here. The the extent that it isn't in such a state, I think arthwolipot is correct that it just becomes gossip.

Personally I think you'd need to demonstrate real harm to others, not just that she's unhappy or making bad decisions, but that's my own view. Others have a lower bar that might be met by grievous self-harm. But getting divorced is not something that should meet anyone's bar here.

Well said.

Just leave the poor woman alone. Let her marry whoever she wants, divorce as many times as she wants, sleep with whomever she likes, why should that be anyone else's concern?

It could be of interest, given the celebrity angle. But agreed, that's gossip, and maybe, if there's interest, the subject of a different thread.

Now what may be of interest here, is what happened to the lowlife freeloading father. Has he been prosecuted? Is he in jail? Or what? Since this thread has been resurrected, that info may be interesting, should anyone have kept up with this case.

 

[Vixen]

If she voluntarily decides that she is a vulnerable person in need of help and requests it, then cool. If not, I don't think the state should have the power to decide that it can restrict our freedoms just because it deems us vulnerable.

There are probably some reasonable exceptions to this, but I also worry that making room for them leads to a slippery slope where less extreme cases are also treated in this way.

Again, if she's shown to be a harm to others, that's a different issue.

I don't think anyone is asking the state to step in. The problem as I see it is that Britney's antics are being used as entertainment by her 41m Instagram fans and the tabloid press, when really ISTM she is unwell and being exploited by these people who think mental breakdown is amusing to watch.


Pretending it is not happening doesn't make it go away.

 

[Roboramma]

I don't think anyone is asking the state to step in. The problem as I see it is that Britney's antics are being used as entertainment by her 41m Instagram fans and the tabloid press, when really ISTM she is unwell and being exploited by these people who think mental breakdown is amusing to watch.


Pretending it is not happening doesn't make it go away.

The subject of this thread is Britney's conservatorship. That is precisely the state stepping in. If you're not arguing for something of this nature being reinstated, or that it was a mistake for it to be revoked, then I don't see how your posts relate to the topic here.

"Britney is making bad decisions" just doesn't interest me and isn't related to the topic of this thread. "Britney's bad decisions are evidence that she should be put under someone else's authority through the power of the state" is on topic, but something I strongly disagree with.

(I'm not actually convinced that she has been making bad decisions, but I'm also just not interested in that question if her actions don't rise to the level of justifying state intervention, which, again, is the subject of this thread)

 

[novaphile]

Er, I think you want the 'Men Only' forum, three doors along.

Or do you believe your opinion on the attractiveness of females is any way relevant or does it come across as the male belief of having the right to publicly assess the attractiveness of each female they see?

Think about it. Because it does come across as misogynist to claim that only men have the right to debate a topic.

Yeah, you've tried that dodge before, didn't work then, doesn't work now.

Me commenting that your posts appear to regularly feature hate, slurs and innuendo about attractive women is nothing to do with a 'mens only' forum.

It's a comment about your posts, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Vixen]

Yeah, you've tried that dodge before, didn't work then, doesn't work now.

Me commenting that your posts appear to regularly feature hate, slurs and innuendo about attractive women is nothing to do with a 'mens only' forum.

It's a comment about your posts, nothing more, nothing less.

It's not the first time you have made the slur. In the Brian Kohberger thread, you claimed out of the blue that I was not allowed to refer to Kohberger's former Criminal Psychology* tutor, Katherine Ramsland who was in personal correspondence with the serial killer BKT, because you found Ramsland attractive. I am not sure why you think we should be interested in your finding Britney and the Ramsland person attractive, and in any case, it shouldn't give you the right to try to censor others from a debate that has nothing to do with whether you find a female figure attractive or not. Reflect on whether you should be telling female posters they are not allowed any debate because of your fantasies about female attractiveness and subjecting them to sexist slurs implying your ratings of attractiveness is the criteria for whether they can be discussed by female posters.


*This topic was my second year psychology option, so I darn well will debate it if I wish. Any objections?

 

[arthwollipot]

There are tales of her son waking up to find Mom hovering over him with a knife, and strange behaviour in public creating scenes, so she clearly has some unspecified issues that cause concern.

"Tales" = "unreferenced anecdotes".

Turning a blind eye is not actually doing Britney any favours if she is in the grip of a mental breakdown.

If. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

...Britney's antics...

"Antics". Again with the stigmatising language. Why are you characterising her behaviour as "antics", which is a term usually reserved for clowns and slapstick performances? Is Britney a clown to you?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again 21 pages and we're still expected to believe the insanity that Brittney magically was able to perfectly balance "Crazy and unhinged enough to need to be a perpetual child with parents" but never enough to stop touring, making albums, doing media appearances, etc.

It's just SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ******* convenient that she never got crazy enough to stop making her handlers money.

 

[arthwollipot]

And apparently she's still "crazy and unhinged".

And therefore...

 

[ZirconBlue]

ISTM that once a person in the public eye gets a reputation for being "erratic" then it's almost impossible for them to shake off regardless of their current behaviour. I don't know whether there's any science to how the media makes its decision of whether it's just whether some showbiz editor decides that someone deserves to be taken down a peg or two.

Brittany Spears has been awarded the "erratic" label and I don't see any way for her to shake it.

I'm not sure there's anything nefarious about it. 2 or 3 events establish a "pattern" of behavior and then confirmation bias sets in.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm not sure there's anything nefarious about it. 2 or 3 events establish a "pattern" of behavior and then confirmation bias sets in.

Exactly. Which is why I have been asking Vixen why Spears' behaviour is characterised using the stigmatising language. Because oh, everyone knows that she's crazy. Look at her, dancing on the TokTik and going out in public dressed in a manner of which I do not approve. She's sooooo erratic. Must be off her meds.

 

[novaphile]

It's not the first time you have made the slur. In the Brian Kohberger thread, you claimed out of the blue that I was not allowed to refer to Kohberger's former Criminal Psychology* tutor, Katherine Ramsland who was in personal correspondence with the serial killer BKT, because you found Ramsland attractive. I am not sure why you think we should be interested in your finding Britney and the Ramsland person attractive, and in any case, it shouldn't give you the right to try to censor others from a debate that has nothing to do with whether you find a female figure attractive or not. Reflect on whether you should be telling female posters they are not allowed any debate because of your fantasies about female attractiveness and subjecting them to sexist slurs implying your ratings of attractiveness is the criteria for whether they can be discussed by female posters.


*This topic was my second year psychology option, so I darn well will debate it if I wish. Any objections?

Again, nice try at dodging, but what I think about a person has nothing to do with you posting slurs, rumors etc.

 

[arthwollipot]

George Hrab, on a recent podcast, talked about a "cultural grudge". The context was that he was watching a Beatles tribute band at Musikfest, and at one point the "John" of the group said "This one's for Yoko". And the audience booed. Though Yoko's involvement in the breakup of the Beatles has been largely debunked by the footage presented in the Get Back documentary, society has decided so strongly that Yoko killed the Beatles that audiences will boo her name fifty years later.

I think this is what is happening in this thread. Culturally, Britney has been stereotyped. She's the poster child for pop stars going crazy. Never mind that mental illness is very serious. Never mind the years she spent in an abusive conservatorship. She's crazy and in the cultural grudge, she always will be.