October 20, 2007

• (it's called sensationalism)
• First of all, appologies to kamus. This is not a personal attack. But I'm personally tired of these type of what tend to be "celebrity" posts. It's time we all grow up, myself included. We obsess about celebrities. If Michael Jackson had for example, a hammertoe, it'd all over the net and eventually discussed here at Monkeyfilter. Who really fucking cares. Am I right? Then why is it worth our time? If you are likewise tired of this sort of not-story being discussed, then stop posting and reposting about it. I know that my response breaks that very same rule, but unless we all just stop posting shit about stupid shit, then the web, and likewise mofi, will be smarter. Feel free to tell me to fuck myself.
• I've haven't noticed people gathering on the streets about anything having to do with dogs, or Ellen DeGeneres. kamus, I don't get my news from entertainment.timesonline.co.uk, and maybe you should bother with it either.
• hump. shouldn't.
• Squid- I actually agree. My immune system for dealing with the maddening injustice, that is normally low level daily background radiation, suffered a momentary overload. It's sadly ,nothing new and I was perhaps unwise to post. My apologies. (Tracy, I won't be offended if this is deleted.) OTOH, in the face of the drain that the US is circling and dragging everyone else into with it, the fact that these celebrity junk stories receive massive attention while the loss of civil liberties, etc.etc. fall under the radar screen of the voters who have the theoretical ability to do something about it is an important story in of itself- one of the most important of our time perhaps. My mistake was in presenting here on the FPP as something new. Again, sorry. Goofyfoot- well if had just been one news outlet, I wouldn't have bust my gasket, but it got a fair amount of coverage on most major media outlets. That particular headline was just the last straw.
• Rethink where you get your news, kamus. Maybe the outlets you prefer aren't giving you the news you need to hear.
• Tough crowd. It's a post about the weird world of celebrity obsession, as far as I can see. Kamus was making a point about the headline used and the reaction to this person's doggy story. It's not like we're turning int Heat magazine or anything. On the other hand, Kate Moss' new hair-do does NOTHING for me.
• Kamus: First of all, I agree with you. This story pales in importance when compared to the others you mentioned (loss of habeus corpus, state sanctioned torture, police state etc). One of the reasons is because a celebrity cried on TV...but another is because it's about puppy dogs. If the 'state sanctioned torture' you mentioned had been torturing dogs, there would be near 100 percent opposition to it. But thankfully it's only human beings, which aren't valued as highly by most people in our society. Celebrity posts are OK by me. If I don't care I'll skip them. In fact...every time there's a post about some SF author, or who's going to play Kirk in the new movie, or some Dr. Who character, or Radiohead's latest album; that's a celebrity post. There's a lot of room on MF for different interests, and much of it is fluff. I kind of like it that way. I wouldn't want it all to be serious political stuff.
• Ruff! Ruff ruff!
• What?
• I think what kamus is saying is that this story has much more attention in the US than things that really *should*, such as the outrageous bullshit being perpetrated by the Bush Junta, etc. I don't agree that ignoring this does any good. The morons will still lap this shit up. We have to talk about it and bring attention to the fact that this doesn't deserve attention compared to the real news. If we can bring this viewpoint to the forefront of even just a handful of people, we are changing things slightly for the better. The wingbeats of a butterfly in Cheltenham may affect the weather in Rangoon... or whatever that saying is.
• I think this post is fine.
• On the other hand, Kate Moss' new hair-do does NOTHING for me. You look at the mantlepiece when you're stoking the fire?
• squidranch is attempting to steal the title of MoFi's most grumpy member from me. I won't have this.
• MonkeyFilter: The morons will still lap this shit up. Hank, down boy! I think you're safe.
• Oh, yes. I can't be arsed to RTFAA, but I always love hearing your comments, my Monkey Comrades. Even Mr. Assho Grumpy.
• damn html
• Ironically I LIVE in the US, and read news on a regular basis, and didn't have a clue about this until it was posted here....
• Interesting related thread over on the Blue. See also (NSFW Onion video)
• Every week there's another sign of the apocalypse. It's always been that way. It's the same way now, but even moreso. Interesting times, huh?
• I agree. This post isn't about a celebrity, it's about the huge deal that's made of this. I actually put on E! news weekend this morning (hey, they had a teaser for a story about Heroes--sue me!) and even they were saying it was over-hyped.
• But doesn't this all seem like an echo chamber? I mean once we establish the fact that most people are dipshits and stupid enough to get excited about the last thing that Brittany did, aren't we more or less guilty of the same thing by pointing out their "foolishness"? Celebrities are going to do stupid shit and the people who get worked up about celebrities are going to get worked up about it. So then we get outraged about their outrage. It's a hall of mirrors. The weird thing is by commenting on this phenomenon I am feeding the very same cycle. It's holding a mirror to a mirror. But I think you all can get what I am trying to point out. Fluff is fluff, we can all recognize it. All I am pointing out is that we don't feed this "outrage cycle." We put ourselves up on an intellectual pedestal by scorning the plebes because they scorn celebrities, while we do the same thing to them... Am I wrong or is this hypocritical?
• Celebrity gossip is valium for the masses.
• So we should also stop talking about the war, because we keep saying the same things.
• And gossip about the masses' valium is prozac for the intelligentsia.
• No, that isn't even close to what I am saying. I'm surprised you could you even conflate the two. The war is a valid, substantial topic. You can change things in your discussion and interaction on it. Ellen, her dog and the folks who care about them aren't issues aren't likely to affect you, I or the Queen of England in the slightest. You can get worked up about the war and in doing so, have an impact. You can get worked up about Ellen and... get worked up about Ellen. That's about it.
• I've completely run out of outrage, and am now running on mild irritation. (Except for Burma.)
• Fluff is fluff, we can all recognize it. All I am pointing out is that we don't feed this "outrage cycle." No, I don't think we can all recognize it. We're not a single mind here...we like different things. And don't kid yourselves...we worship celebrities every bit as much as the "plebes", they're just different celebrities. I don't like the elitism that says anything popular among the masses is beneath us.
• No, I don't think we can all recognize it. Really Rocket88? I've read your posts and think that you actually could. As for being of a "single mind." There isn't such thing and besides that isn't what I am suggesting. All that I want to point out is the circular outrage about outrage that is consuming people's attention when it could very well be put to a higher purpose. However if prefer to participate in getting worked up about stupid shit, then go for it. Whatever turns you on.
• And I am not saying that says anything popular among the masses is beneath us. I am saying that we should be "above being above" the masses. Let's try not to obsess about their obsessions. Or, let them obsess and then be honest when we obsess about the same thing. But let's not think that we are better than them by thinking we are somehow intellectually superior to them when we are participating in the same game.
• I've completely run out of outrage I've hunkered down for the long war, in emotionless killer mode.
• Firstly, to Squid, thank you for giving us permission to tell you to go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself. Secondly, to Ellen D., you think you have dog problems? I have dog problems. What I don't have is a nationally syndicated TV show and Portia de Rossi, so maybe you should go fuck yourself, too. Thirdly, I am quite aware that I am posting this on Monkeyfilter, a place where it is not at all unusual to find threads festooned with pictures cats in sinks, dogs in shawls, animated GIFs and cuddly pandas. It seems a bit disingenuous to be claiming the higher moral ground when we routinely populate our most active threads with Tom Cruise-isms, zombies, and Werzogian feats of strength. This is Mofi. Deal with it.
• *taps microphone* Hello, is this thing on? Apparently I am not making myself clear. I think if you want to post stupid shit, you should i.e. pictures cats in sinks, dogs in shawls, animated GIFs and cuddly pandas, just recognize that when you post about how silly it is for someone to post about a thing (yet you are posting about it), you are implicit in the game. And Ralph, fuck you and the muppet you rode in on.
• Okay, wait. Does this mean that I do or do not get to see the nude photos of Lindsay Lohan in rehab?
• Is it shallow of me to admit that I'm outraged that I haven't received my subscription to Hello magazine yet?
• The war is a valid, substantial topic. You can change things in your discussion and interaction on it. Ellen, her dog and the folks who care about them aren't issues aren't likely to affect you My point was that the phenomenom that underlies this celebrity worship actually contributes to the war and the exacerbation of other problems we have here in the US. It contributed to the war insofar as the American people were too busy paying attention to this vapid bullshit to notice that an illegal war was being perpetrated in front of their noses. Intelligent, aware people were not taken in by the carefully crafted soundbites out of the White House ("the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud" etc.), but the dull witted masses who think Ellen's dog issue is a big deal swallowed it whole (Soma anyone?). This makes it a significant problem IMO because today, they are still buying the latest B.S. from Bushco ("we do not torture" etc.) and the country continues to slide towards the abyss. My post perhaps would have played better had I used another link, such as to the MeFi discussion linked to above. It was a crappy post, but still a subject worth discussing methinks and a problem hopefully to be addressed and solved- though how to that is currently beyond my ken. So Squiddy, go fuck yourself. Not because I really mean it, but you did say it was OK and it feels kinda good now that I got it out. Thanks man.
• Amusing post, hysterically funny headline. Go eff yourself, Squid. *gives squid some fluffy valium*
• Someone posted a thread recenly about how one of "THE ATHEISTS" basically came out against naming themselves as such. I believe the jist of it was that by calling themselves "Atheists," they were just giving more life to what they are trying to break down. The response to this (The Ellen) post by the squid is tapping into that. It also makes me think of Jon Stewart going on Crossfire. If I came to this site and I was only able to find posts on political strife, war, famine, poverty, and the people who want to throw their two cents in on those topics, I would probably just go buy a TV and pay for cable. Then I could just watch the news instead. As humans, I like to imagine that we are a bunch capable of peace, but I think we need some comic relief to live through it all. We aren't built for constant trauma, and to only discuss the endless trauma of the world would induce a state of tiresome unrest and guilt in many people. I like cats. And I like starting a sentence with a preposition. Also, I like really good cheddar cheese.
• All I can say is it's about time Ellen did something to get back into the spotlight, and if it means giving dogs to children and then taking them away again, so much the better. I think Ellen's the next Andy Kaufman. Go Ellen!!
• I had coffee cake this morning. Also, coffee.
• OK squiddy...you're right. Either you weren't making yourself clear or I wasn't getting your gist. It looks like we're saying basically the same thing, so I apologize for directing my comments at you specifically. I don't think obsessing about celebs is a huge problem...nor do I think obsessing about other people obsessing about celebs is a problem. The only problem I see is obsessing about what kind of posts we should or shouldn't have here of MoFi. We should have whatever post the poster thinks is worthy, as long as it doesn't break the guidelines. There's tons of stuff posted here that I really don't give a shit about. You can tell them by the fact that I don't comment in them.
• Whenever people post things here that I don't give a shit about, I steal their cats.
• *goes to check whether rocket has commented on his posts* I always knew you despised me!
• I just want to tell squiddy to fuck off :)
• ...this time I feel it, and I can't deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!
• oh, fuck off
• Ralph, give me back my cat.
• For dinner, I had eggs and bacon and these praline meltaway things that I got the recipe from out of a Bisquick cookbook. I'm having whiskey now.
• *ears perk up at the idea of praline meltaway thingies Pass the Praline meltaways, please. nom nom nom nom
• Kamus, the linked article is presupposing a correlation that simply does not exist. Rest assured, the number of news stories about the Ellen debacle has no correlation to the number of Americans who care about it, or the vehemence of their opinion on the subject. Any more than the linked article means that Britain is obsessed with America's obsession with the Puppygate fiasco. The Ellen story struck it big simply because it has the perfect formula for a news story. Ellen is a national figure, and the story involves both a puppy AND a child. What more could a hungry, 24-hour news outlet want? The fact that not one person in the country cares about this story is utterly irrelevant to the news outlets which pushed it heavily all week long. The news media talks AT us, not WITH us or FOR us.
• I love threads like this, as they tend to bring out the best in everyone. Therefore, I'm not about to complain. What rocket said about ignoring the posts that do not interest him. Easy enough, and you can spare the yourself getting all worked up - typing madly to defend your comments or drag them out further. Who the hell is Ellen DeGeneres? *gives Ralph a few pats on the head* *doses the thread with some ectasy*
• I notice 'Dogs In Shawls' is getting mentioned like it's a bad thing again. GET WITH THE PROGRAMME YOU FUCKING 'TARDS!!!!
• I'M TRYING BUT IT'D BE A LOT EASIER IF THE BASTARDS AT HELLO! WOULD CASH MY GODDAMN CHEQUE AND SEND ME MY GODDAMN MAGAZINE SO I HAVE SOMETHING TO READ IN THE JOHN!!!
• WHY NOT SPEND YOUR TIME IN THE JOHN PLAYING WITH 'CORPORAL RENAULT' INSTEAD????
• I'm having whiskey now. That's pretty much a given.
• MAYBE JUST TELL US WHEN YOURE NOT HAVING WHISKY?
• ALSO HOW KN U MAK PRALINZ WITH BISKWIK?
• WHY NOT SPEND YOUR TIME IN THE JOHN PLAYING WITH 'CORPORAL RENAULT' INSTEAD???? Why don't YOU spend your time playing with 'Corporal Renault' instead??? PFFT.
• *with glum resignation* I had a bowl of Life cereal this morning.
• Isn't it sad that sometimes you have to read a thread in order to prove to yourself how happy you are that you're not reading a thread? /goes back to not reading thread
• "That Ellen story" had fnord written aaaaaallllllll over it.
• Actually, I think this whole discussion is fairly interesting. (I might be the only one...) I've been polling just about everyone I've run across, and here are my results: - 100% of respondents indicate that they don't give a rat's ass about Ellen's puppy-related debacle. - 85% of respondents hadn't heard about it, because they have abandoned traditional news outlets. (I fall into this camp. This thread was the first I'd heard of it.) When further questioned, those who hadn't heard about the Ellen story indicated that they have abandoned traditional news outlets because of precisely these sorts of shenanigans. (Posting frantic news stories about some celebrity's dog as if it was actually news.) This Ellen thing, then, is a perfect shining example of what's happening to the news industry. Increasingly, traditional news outlets are yelling in an empty room, and this sort of thing is why.
• Yes, absolutely. Only hardcore Ellen fans give a shit. That's maybe half her audience, which is admittedly numbered in the millions, but is hardly the national crisis the article makes it out to be. Not to mention that I wouldn't exactly trust the Times to accurately depict ground-level US culture anymore than I would the New York Times to give us a truly authentic look at London culture.
• "Hardcore Ellen fans"... well, I suppose there must be a FEW, right? I always assumed that the driving force behind her high profile is that she's just so... inoffensive. Rotten Tomatoes gives her an average overall score of 57%. Sounds about right to me. Maybe we should give our British monkeys a chance to critique this NY Times article about chav culture.
• Just for the record, again, my post really was not about Ellen or her doggy problem but about the meta-issue of how people are hypnotized by pop culture/media while the world burns around them. With few exceptions I found the comments in this thread to be largely off-topic at the same time I admit that my post could have framed the issue better. Sigh.
• hypnotized by pop culture/media while the world burns around them. Y'know, what we should have is a certain week . . some kinda week where there's a special effort to . . I dunno . . focus on . . turn off . . something. For. Some reason.
• I might be called a shit stirrer, but kamus my critique was that if we all know it's crap, why post anything having to do with the crap? Even by supposedly placing your self above the material you are referring to by saying how silly it is for others to react to it, you are still participating in the outrage cycle. They (whoever they are but for our purposes celebrity hack "journalists") have won because you are still publicizing their swill.
• Then by your conditions, all references to the "thing" feed the "thing" itself and thus render impossible any intelligent discussion of the ramifications of the underlying social/political problem. Is that right? (really ready to give up on this)
• Squiddy, I think that kamus's post is more about our tendency to unthinkingly lap up media-generated cultural swill, for whatever reason, than it is about publicizing said swill. The Ellen/doggy fiasco was merely an example.I also don't think that kamus was attempting to place himself or other Monkeys above anyone. So what the hell are we going to do about the handbasket we're in? And why is it that every human conflict always comes down to some version of "them versus us" when we are us? I'll be fucked if I know. But I suspect that while commenting on blogs may be cathartic and all, there is more we could be doing. And so what if somemost MoFi threads collapse into sillness? The world needs some of teh silly too. And here in Canuckistan we call people like you "shit disturbers".
• On preview - don't never give up.
• Sillness - a state between frivolity and silence.
• No kamus, try not to post stupid things that we all know are stupid to begin with. If you want to feed the publicity machine by posting how a stupid a thing is, yet still give it inertia by doing so, then as I said go ahead participate in their game. But do so knowingly as by doing so you play into the hands of the crap spinners.
• I should have wrote "post about stupid things that we all know are stupid to begin with".
• I think someone needs a special dose of kitfisto happy lovin'. C'mere ya big lug! unzips
• MonkeyFilter: try not to post stupid things that we all know are stupid
• And why is it that every human conflict always comes down to some version of "them versus us" when we are us? And A should die in miseree, That is, assuming I am B.
• If you want to feed the publicity machine by posting how a stupid a thing is, yet still give it inertia[sic] by doing so, then as I said go ahead participate in their game. Arrrgh!! OK, you've convinced me Squiddy! You've convinced me that I'm wasting my time trying to have a meaningful discussion in this thread. It seems we're having two separate conversations here. Maybe, I'd have better luck here.... or not...
• Monkeyfilter: I'm wasting my time trying to have a meaningful discussion.
• In more important celebrity news Dumbledore is gay!
• I think of him more as jovial.
• C'mon... the guy's name is DUMBLEDORE. Was there ever any doubt he was gay?
• Never occurred to me. Maybe if his name was "Backdore"... I'm Sorry. I truly am. Not really.
• 
• kamus, calm down. The difference is that post was that I wasn't knowingly or unknowingly promoting dreck from the Hollywood (or Fox News, or whatever) echo chamber. But if you can't see the difference I can't do anything about that. As I said before, you have every right to post what you wish, in fact please do. But even when we post in distain we are actively participating and promoting their crap. These things are "sticky memes". There is a book called "Don't think of an elephant" that speaks to this phenomenon quite well. BTW, inertia was correctly spelled and used in the proper context. I'm not quite sure why you felt the need for the sic.
• I must be in the Seinfeld thread, because this is an argument about nothing.
• Liza loved Chachi?!!?!?!!
• no argument here. movin' on...
• The Hills is fake!!
• I met the guitarist from Echo and the Bunnymen last week. I was pretty pleased with myself. TAKE THAT, ELLEN!
• He told me your fly was undone the whole time. How we laughed!
• zips
• This thread needs a bath. Nothing worse than the smell of wet dog!
• Jan loved Marsha?
• Damn, that's hot.
• That story is USELESS without pictures.
• POLL: Britney's mom vs. Lindsay's mom.