this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
26 points (93.3% liked)
BBC
219 readers
301 users here now
BBC News - News Front Page
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, she wasn't complaining about being famous. She was complaining about fans who invaded her space and manhandle her without consent, like that guy who forcefully kissed her in a bar. Would you believe, even the rich and famous are human beings! I know, it's wild, but they also have a right to privacy, and to not be assaulted when they're out and about.
That happens to lots of women in bars, famous or not. Maybe the problem is these asshole entitled guys who can’t keep their hands to themselves. I don’t know what I can do about it though. I hardly ever leave the house! I can’t remember the last time I was in a bar.
If someone came up with a plan to throw all these creeps in jail I’d vote for it! These days the pendulum seems to have swung away from “tough on crime” politics however.
Being famous is like having a psychotic ex husband, isn't that what she said... That's complaining about being a celebrity in my books.
But yeah, people can develop a fan base in exchange for money, to the point that a) they're rich, and b) they can't just go meet people at bars anymore.
So yeah, most people would go that deal. Most people learn that that's the deal... Because that's the deal, that's why fans are called fans - it's short for fanatic.
That's part of being a celebrity. She was definitely complaining about being a celebrity... And most people would love it. I'll take her celebrity if she doesn't want it anymore.
Nobody loves not being able to go out because they don't feel safe doing so. Nobody signs away their bodily autonomy by gaining recognition for their talent. You should sit down and have a think about what the words you're saying really mean, because you sound absolutely unhinged with this nonsense.
Maybe back in the 60 70s etc. It was a surprise. EVERYONE who has become a star in the last 40 years knows what becoming a mega star means. They could just shut down performing tomorrow. And in five years they would mostly be normal. They could even keep the money.
Doesn't change the fact that that's the exchange. Hence fanatics. You're acting like this is a phenomena I'm creating, but it's a product of fanaticism. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word though, you seem not to get it.
"Hey wouldn't it be cool if sharks and black bears didn't sometimes kill people"
...yeah sure, but they do.
Hey wouldn't it be cool if there was a world without celebrity, and ergo, without celebrity fanatics.
Yeah sure, but that'd be contingent on celebs giving up the systems that make them. Do you get the picture? Celebrities and fanatics are two sides of the same system. The system of the celebrity industry and mass media.
You're asking for a car without an engine to move it... A spaceship without oxygen in it. You're asking for the end of celebrities, when you ask fans not to be fanatic about them... Without that; far less money gets made because they're going to be seen as far less meaningful people.
So yeah, she can stop being a celebrity if she wants. Just change her look, name, and stop performing, but complaining about this stuff legitimately? No, there is no way to do so, because celebrity is fanaticism and vice versa.
Maybe this is too complicated for you, so you'll resort to calling me unhinged again, but hey, I've tried to explain it to you at least. You're either a celebrity mega star and that entails some fanatics/fans or you're not really a celebrity.
Same coin. Same social forces drive the creation of both: mass media. Live with it... In a mansion.
...and it's not like celebrities are unaware they're entering into a kind of machine or industrial instrument when they start this process. I believe Chappell travelled to NYC to participate in a "musical showcase" basically an audition with a bunch of other artists some of whom will and won't get signed. It's an industry. Celebrities are produced in an industrial process, she's been working on this since an early age.
Good for her and everything but you'd have to have blinders on or be on drugs to not consider there's an obvious cost: the loss of normalcy, of an uninterrupted public life, of anonymity. Yes, celebrity is the opposite of anonymity and requires fanatics to produce.
I'm not unhinged for stating the obvious, even if you simply don't like what I'm saying.
I'm just telling you how the sausage is made. You're an idiot if you choose to dislike me for being the one who tells you the truth.
You don't want fanatics, you'd have to stop selling celebrities as "Sensational" or "Special" or "Stars"...and that would drastically reduce profits and audience appeal. They'd cease to be celebration worthy. They'd just be like normal people again. They'd have to get other jobs.
But these are not sharks or black bears. These are humans who can change their behavior. The more people act like you and just accept it as normal, fine, business as usual, the more this becomes a problem.
It is not acceptable, never should be, and we should never consider it so.
Ahh, so humans aren't animals because we think where as stupid animals don't thinking? No animal has never solved a maze or cognitive puzzle eh? No, animals think too.
Oh but they're more guided by instincts? Is that what you're saying?
...well, I guess we'll have to throw out every scientific paper on what humans do if there's a fire, a crowd, or a stock market crash. What we do when hungry, or at war, or when we're lost.
Nope we also have instincts.
We, the humans with the thinking "rational brains" are also just animals. We also have instincts and responses. Statistical range of them. Not all people panic in a fire, or when lost but ENOUGH do that it's a known instinct we can write about as "human nature".
.... and we have social instincts too. A statistical range of them.
Like, say when we're meeting a big chief, or tribe leader, a hero or someone important to the tribe.... We have social instincts.
So the tribe is telling us Chappell Roan is one such important person. Some of us, perhaps those who are particularly vain, or insecure, have a stronger reaction.
It's instincts. It's produced by social knowledge of celebrities as socially important. As financial opportunities, as minor miracles - aka as "Sensational" - as "Special" - as "Stars". Everything advertising tells us they are.
....oh look, it's the same problem. The instincts are already being manipulated, in aa money making direction.
But you're right - there is a solution - something we can do to mitigate the problem to reduce it. We can NOT promote certain people as celebrities. We can not have celebrities.
We could for instance just have bards who are well paid, but not promoted as products so much. We could limit broadcasts, and the more massive wages of entertainers, try to localized them to single cities or states.
Basically we could try to get rid of their celebrity, and the industry around it.
But we'd probably still have these problems. Because we're dealing with human nature.
"Oh we're not like bears and sharks".
I really wish that was true. I wish we'd focus that understanding of ourselves in places like Palestine, South Sudan, or Ukraine.
We're not bears or sharks... Except when we are!