GiuliettaMasina

I had the same thought, at least on the part of the tv-makers (not sure how true it was to real life). I think they left it open as to whether she truly had issues understanding reality, or whether she was just responding to the rampant misogyny around her (under the influence of narcotics). The most outlandish thing we hear her believe in is the reality of UFOs, which is not a belief limited to "crazy" people. I'm not one of them, but lots of otherwise rational people believe in them. Either way, she was a piece-of-shit for abandoning her 17-year-old child and telling him that it was his fault.

Racism Homophobia White privilege

https://www.pal-item.com/story/news/local/2018/03/11/taryn-twine-richmond-teen-driver-fatal-crash-featured-netflix-show/409875002/ "A documentary series about girls at a juvenile detention center in Indiana features the story of a Richmond teen who chose to spend time there after one of her friends died in a car accident."

Yup. Wernher von Braun was one of the most important figures in NASA history and a key figure in the Apollo program. From Wiki: "Von Braun is widely seen as either the 'father of space travel', 'father of rocket science' or 'father of the American lunar program'." He was also a Nazi, SS member, key figure in the development of Nazi warcraft, and his work for the Third Reich employed concentration camp labor. When called to answer for his crimes, his answer was pretty much exactly the same the one Saul used : "I was too afraid for life to do otherwise." People get away with outrageous crimes all the time.

That's exactly how I felt and exactly what I would have done. But, reporting to your boss was considered reporting where I was--those people did have an obligation to follow up with authorities, but I had zero trust in that process.

I taught at a parish school from 2007-2014 and our training specifically told us NOT to call the authorities, but to report to our direct higher up. I remember this vividly because in my head I was responding with "not a chance in hell; do not pass go, go straight to 911." Mileage likely varies here.

If a male celebrity dumped his wife via text after she left him at home to care for their 3-week-old child while she partied with male strippers in Vegas, I suspect that not only would he be celebrated as Father of the Year, the woman would be eviscerated to pieces publicly and repeatedly.

She's free!!! https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/britney-spears-conservatorship-ends-1235045703/

Just wanted to chime in as a biracial person here--having children, relatives, or a partner of another race is very, very, very much not a guarantee that a person does not harbor racist thoughts/engage in racist behavior. Sometimes, in fact, they are the ones you should be the most suspicious of. See: the DeBarges.

Christ on a cracker.

This! I'd also note that she runs in a milieu that to this very day is casting white Spaniards as POC Latine people. The U.S. as a whole does not have a good understanding of ethnicity vs race especially when it comes to Latin American populations--when all you see is white/white presenting Latines, and you don't understand that, well, they're white, you might start to think you could "pass" for one.

From Scientific American: Science, Context, and Gender Fluidity in Public Policy: Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation: To say someone is culturally fluid is meaningless--if you have go to work, engage with your family, and have friends, that's at least three "cultures" you're fluid in. Spanish is a nationality, and Spain has just as much cultural diversity as other places its size. Maybe more so, considering there are at least two groups of people in the country who consider themselves culturally different enough to seek independence. If she's so fluid, let's hear exactly what particular type of Spanish culture this woman who has never even lived in the country feels "a deep attachment" to. As far as "racial fluidity"....well as biracial person, I'd be amongst those to have it if any, and...I don't. Because race, as we understand it, is completely made up, and bears no relation to biology, actual long-standing ethnic or linguistic groups, nor thousands of years of interaction between Europeans, Asians, and Africans which bear no evidence of a belief in an immutable racial hierarchy with whites at the top. "Race" as modern concept serves no purpose except to justify the exploitation of the labor and lands of people of color by the colonizers and slave-mongers who invented it. And, it's still profiting from our pain today. So, no, those who reap all the benefits of being at the top of that hierarchy don't get to pretend to share the same experiences as those being exploited by it. What she wants is the fluidity to maintain all the power she has as a white woman while also having the caché of being "Hollywood exotic."

If she is this ill, and one of the symptoms of her illness is that she struggles to maintain a consistent understanding of the choices she makes from day to day, then how is it in her best interest to be signing multi-year deals, where she is contractually obligated to be consistent across many areas from remembering what deal she signed, to remembering when precisely to step a foot left so she doesn't get burned by the pyro? If what they are saying is true, then they are revealing their own negligence as conservators. She does not need to work, all of these stressors and conflict could easily be avoided by just not having her tour/do residencies. Her conservators want it both ways--she can't pick her own kitchen cabinets or remember what she's agreed to from day to day, but somehow she's able to handle the pressures of being a pop star (which the public has repeatedly seen break down people who do not have debilitating mental illnesses). The math continues to not math for me.

It's not their job to maintain her professional reputation, especially at the expense of her mental health. She doesn't even need to work. If it's causing her stress, maybe stop suggesting "sign this high pressure contract that will place huge demands on you physically, mentally, and emotionally and on which millions of dollars and thousands of jobs are depending" as an option when she asks for "something to do."

She's not allowed to change her mind? I get that there may be penalties for breaking contracts that were signed, and they could, you know, just explain that to her. They have the power to make her do it anyway. Showing up with months old documents saying "No, see, you actually want to do this," as if people do not change their minds all the time sounds like gaslighting and only serves to humiliate/shame the very person whose well-being they are legally bound to protect. If they are claiming she literally cannot remember what she agrees to from month to month, then how is she capable of retaining complex choreographies for months on end during tours/residencies? How is it safe for her to be around pyrotechnics and rigging and other common stagecraft that requires careful adherence to safety guidelines? The math is not mathing here.

I find weed to be a great treatment for my medical condition as well. It can actually motivate my depressed mind by making mundane tasks more bearable. But I view it in that case as no different than my depression medicine, or even my glasses--as an accommodation for my disability (this is how I identify, not pushing that language on you). Anti-depressants and similar medications for other cognitive/mood conditions aren't banned, so I don't see why weed should be. I am o.k. if they enforce the rule this time; she knew, and has already taken accountability. But, there is no reason to not change it going forward.

They develop the code and everyone else enforces it. They are responsible only to themselves. To you second point: a) you can be racist against people other than Black people, b) you can be racist against Black people even if you don't know any.

Yes. Yes, but WHY are those (expensive, hard to obtain) resources approved while cannabis (literally a weed) is not? You cite the WADA study, but as I said, I read it and found its science suspect. Just in the portion you quoted the health risks cited--"increased risk taking, slower reaction times and poor executive function or decision making"--are all performance de-enhancing. Cannabis is not heroin or even anabolic steroids--you're not going to o.d. from it. If "slower reaction times" is the type of "risk to health" that requires banning a substance, it seems like alcohol should be put back on the banned list. Meanwhile, all the so-called performance enhancing qualities it cites are symptoms of a well-adjusted childhood. It's not going to physically transform you or allow you to perform superhuman feats. It might help you get through a hard-time and show up in your best frame of mind to competition, but isn't that what we want? Athletics are more impressive to watch when the athletes are in peak condition physically and mentally.

Yes, but unless the rule-maker is a tyrant, they should be pretty concerned when large numbers of people question the wisdom of one of their rules. I actually went and found the paper WADA cites in its defense of why weed is banned, and....it's unconvincing. This article gives a good rundown of its inconsistencies and lack of vigor, and in it, the founder of WADA seems to give the game away: “People were worried about sport appearing to thumb its nose at criminal law," Dick Pound, the founder and first president of WADA, told Yahoo Sports on Friday. So WADA lumped marijuana in with hard drugs like cocaine and heroin. And, said Pound, “it just sort of stayed there." Cannabis is on the banned list because it is (mostly) illegal, and since we know that cannabis was made illegal for racist reasons, it might be time for WADA to reconsider this one. Even if we take WADA's science at face-value the potential performance enhancements they discuss (help managing stress/anxiety, ability to relax) are all things that can be achieved by access to a masseuse, therapist, psychiatrist and housekeeper, but we aren't banning rich people from competing.

Yup. This is where I am. If she is so mentally incapacitated that thirteen (13!) years after a breakdown, she still needs a court appointed guardian to make decisions from as large as birth control to as small as kitchen cabinets for her, then there is no way it is healthy for her to be going on tour or doing Vegas residencies. Arguments of "she likes to work" and "she likes structure" fall flat when she could be doing all the same things in her home dance studio without the pressures of multi-million dollar contractual obligations. Ugh. This needs to be looked into.

YMMV, but I don't see "Not being great with money" and "having poor taste in romantic partnerships" as sufficient reason to take someone's freedom away from them. Do we even know if first of these is even true in Britney's case*? Usually, the (presumed) access she gave to Sam Lutfi to her $ is cited as a reason why outside forces needed to step in. But, if being the source of someone's grift is reason enough, than most everyone in show biz (and good portions of the rest of the population) should be in a conservatorship. Were her bills going unpaid? Her child support? Was she about to be evicted? Starving? And, most importantly, did she lack the insight to understand her situation? That's when the law should step in, imo. Otherwise, people are free to waste (or not waste) the money they have earned as they wish. From what I saw, Britney's behavior in 2008 involved her assessing her situation (overworked cash cow for everyone from her family to random paparazzo whose "education" did not prepare them for adulthood) correctly, but responding inappropriately with self-destructive (although not necessarily self-endangering) behavior. Which... is how a lot of people in their early to mid-20s respond to such pressures. We saw it happen to pretty much everyone else in her peer group and none of them needed a conservator to guide them through their growing pains. Even the ones whose egregious behavior rose to criminal levels (I'm thinking of Paris and Nicole's DUIs here). *I want to be clear that I'm only speaking to the claims of financial abuse on Lutfi's part. He was endangering her in other ways, which is a) a whole other kettle of worms, and b) also not a problem to which putting Britney under conservatorship was the answer.

I agree and disagree. White supremacy operates systemically not only by punishing Black and white children disparately, but also by excusing actual harms caused by white children. To use a patriarchal comparison, both "girls/non-binary people can be rambunctious, too" and "yeah, no, that action is causing harm and needs to be addressed," are appropriate and necessary responses to "boys will boys." Any 19-year-old is old enough to and should be held accountable* for participating in racist nonsense. If the teenager later goes on to be a public figure and said actions are brought to light, I don't think the public is wrong in asking, "Hey, we know you were young--but you understand now that was some racist nonsense, right?," before they continue to support the person with their money/attention. *"Hold accountable" is not necessarily synonymous with "punish." We're in 100% agreement here.

Black people have been working to enlighten others about the carefully obfuscated histories and continuing harmful actions of many normalized U.S. institutions for hundreds of years, so, yes, I think it's fair to say there where plenty of people with such a motive in 1999. I had to start learning about it in Sunday school (significantly before 1999), because this type of knowledge is vital to the survival of people of color in this country. In terms of Kemper's particular environment, I matriculated into a university in 2000, and, absolutely this discussion was happening, and plenty of kids were trying to disabuse themselves of their conditioned prejudices (racial and otherwise). To use your example, the notion of gay marriage didn't seem impossible, just hard to reach and how/whether to make it easier was a topic of wide debate. We lacked sophisticated terms to describe the discourse, but the discourse was happening. Kemper absolutely would have been called out by my peer group, and I'm sure many others.

I don't think it's too much to ask someone in their late teens to critically examine the norms they've been taught and make an active decision as to whether to wholly or partially continue to take part in such traditions. From where I'm standing, we actually routinely expect teenagers to do this? That's not to say they'll always get it right, but, yes, this is the time we start expecting people to grow in this regard. It's not like doing due diligence on the org would have required a quest to the temple of doom--1999 may have been a little too early for it to be an easy Internet search, but a trip to the local library would have revealed tons of primary materials. She was from the area and likely attended prestigious private schools--were there really no other adults besides her family she could ask for an objective view of an org she could see with her own eyes was heavily white and centered around an event where a guy wears a hooded robe? No resources at Princeton to help put it in context? I don't think she needs to be burned at the stake, but, I don't see how a simple, "I could've done the research and didn't, sorry," is too much to ask. We've all been there, no shame if things have changed, but, do let us know that they have. This tweet sums it up well for me:

I don't think that what Kemper did is the worst thing in the world, but she wasn't just some naive, sheltered kid who never stepped outside their racist enclave long enough to see it for what it was. She was a student at Princeton at the time of the pageant, and is from one of the richest families in Missouri. Maybe they were the kind of rich people who didn't go on fancy vacations, but I'm guessing she got out the mid-west more than the average person. Thinking back to my own college days (I started undergrad in 2000), if we had found out that classmate was participating in such a pageant, we would have criticized them. The internet existed at the time, and St. Louis is a city absolutely STEEPED in racial tensions. I find it hard to believe that she "just had no clue." Likely, she had, at the very least, some clue, but was privileged enough that she didn't need to follow up and incurious enough that she didn't want to. And, while "I participated in a racist event because I didn't care enough to research it" isn't the worst of offenses, it is still on offense. And, one worthy of an explanation and apology. I also want to note that just because they changed the rule to let Black people join, doesn't mean they were actually welcome. I'll hold off on calling them an "diverse" institution until I see some membership numbers.