Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
SilverStormm

Who, What, When, Where?!: Miscellaneous Celebrity News 2.0

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, GiuliettaMasina said:

I had to Google as I was unfamiliar w/Lynch, and one of the first things to pop up was this video. 😂😂😂😂😂😂 The press conference you mention here starts at around 26 seconds in.

 

He did a funny guest role on Brooklyn 99 as himself. He was interviewed as a witness to a crime and would not stop talking, mainly about his idea for a pizzadilla, a cross between a quesadilla and a pizza (I would probably eat that).

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 17

Share this post


Link to post

9 minutes ago, aghst said:

Unkind thing to say but does it still happen?  It supposedly happened a lot during the studio system days.

But I remember hearing on the radio that when the Brangelina thing happened, especially the way he left American's Sweetheart Jennifer Anniston, it resulted in a mountain of publicity for all of them.

They quantified it by the number of magazine covers they got, how much it shot up for each of them, probably helped their box office draw, etc.

Krazinski's response was good though, smart to take it in stride.

Perhaps it happens, who knows. I wouldn't want to judge anyone if they decide to do it, people can get married for any reason they want to, as long as both are consenting adults. But if I were to guess, Emily and John would be probably the last celebrity couple I would think that about, judging by few interviews I saw with them, they look lovely together.

In any way, Amy is IMO trying too hard to say something funny and both fails and makes herself look unnecessary nasty.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

a pizzadilla, a cross between a quesadilla and a pizza

I'm really on board with this too. As soon as I read that, I basically started channeling Withnail about fine wines. 

giphy.gif

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 8

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Enigma X said:

As a person struggling with social anxiety and depression I feel for Naomi Osaka.  I am glad Naomi Osaka decided to place her peace first. In my opinion, just because something has always been done a certain way or because others do it should never be a good enough reason when preserving one's mental health.

I have social anxiety due to bullying among other things which made matters worse as a kid.  My parents were big on ignore, avoid, stay away from, rather than dealing with the situations.  I think it was mainly because they didn't want to have to deal with it.  I was existing on the bullies terms and not living life on my terms.   My grade school years sucked.  I was terrified at the thought of going to school.  I never went to any school related events.  I graduated a nervous wreck.  As a result those problems got bigger and bigger.  When I became an adult I didn't have the luxury of running away from and ignoring my problems any longer.  I had to deal with them and messed up a lot along the way, because I never learned what I should have learned when I was younger.

I only bring that up, because I think she needs to find a way to deal with and do those press conferences.  If she does not, those issues will get more and more difficult to deal with, and IMO possibly start to affect other aspects of her life.

  • Like 16
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

Perhaps it happens, who knows. I wouldn't want to judge anyone if they decide to do it, people can get married for any reason they want to, as long as both are consenting adults. But if I were to guess, Emily and John would be probably the last celebrity couple I would think that about, judging by few interviews I saw with them, they look lovely together.

In any way, Amy is IMO trying too hard to say something funny and both fails and makes herself look unnecessary nasty.

I think Amy Schumer is trying to grab some headlines and get some buzz in a most vile way given that Emily and John have kids.

Another reason why I don't like her.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Macbeth said:

I think Amy Schumer is trying to grab some headlines and get some buzz in a most vile way given that Emily and John have kids.

Another reason why I don't like her.

I get not liking Schumer, but I will add that I don't see bad motives in what she said. I think (similar to an equally bad joke she made about Emma Stone), she just made a lame, bad, misfire of a joke. 

I think a year of not working in front of an actual audience has likely corroded any real sense of what's actually funny off of her.  Not that she hasn't always had a certain percentage of misfires, but the two equally bad jokes in a row show an even further reduced sense. 

15 minutes ago, Macbeth said:

Emily and John would be probably the last celebrity couple I would think that about

She doesn't really think it.  Like Emma Stone it was a joke of opportunity based on a movie release and a lame attempt to be topical. 

Edit - I know there's the wrong attribution on the second quote.  The board did that, and it doesn't let you adjust it afterward. Once you mistakenly highlight text from the wrong place, you're stuck with how the board labels it. 

Edited by Kromm
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

I can understand the tourny leaders wanting her to do press as it gives them free publicity, but if she's the only one not doing it, they have others. Trying to present it as unfair to the other players is just silly. 

The tournament's "unfair to other players" stance is based on the "well others may not enjoy it either but suck it up and do it because that's part of the tournament requirements. So it's not fair that they have to and you're just deciding to pull a tantrum. So we'll fine you accordingly". 

I do think there needs to be some clarification that a lot of the media obligations that are required from the players is not merely a random demand by the tournament organizers but part and parcel of the deal that's made between the tournament and the big sponsors that give the millions to these tournaments. The millions that then in turn allows them to give those big prize money to the winners and runners up and others. 

That being said, let me be clear that I like Naomi Osaka. I also completely understand about struggles with anxiety, having suffered from panic disorder and social anxiety myself. That said, I think part of the problem with Naomi and this is where maybe hiring a proper PR company will help, is that her messaging isn't always clear or the best. And that allows for something like the shit show that has since ensued. 

The fact of the matter, in my opinion, is that Naomi did not handle this situation very well. Honestly, I agree with another poster above that for the most part, I personally do find most of these post-match conferences annoying. They're usually asking the same repetitive and inane questions. And yeah it especially sucks when a player has just lost and likely wants to just have a moment to deal with that and they have to go face a pack of media all asking them some variation of why did they lose. 

So I get that. However, there was a better way for Naomi to have handled the situation. She could have reached out to the tournament organizers and officials weeks before, expressing her concerns, her challenges and offered a compromise or suggestion. She did none of that. She waited days before the start of the tournament and unprofessionally made a statement on Instagram for crying out loud. Then per tournament officials, refused to respond and engage with them when they reached out after her statement, wanting to discuss the issue. That's unprofessional. 

And what especially bothered many is that the way this has all been handled by her and her muddled messaging, makes many believe that it's less media/post match press conferences entirely she just can't handle but rather she doesn't want to deal with any of the tough, some would say critical questions, when she's not at her best. 

It's no secret that clay is not Naomi Osaka's best surface. In fact, so far she's only been most dominant on hard court and struggled both on clay and grass. Unsurprisingly, she didn't have the best clay season heading into the French Open.

And so many are saying that what she really wanted to avoid were the tough questions in the press room about her form, her lack of tournament wins so far on the clay, etc. And basically anything that seemed even the slightest critical. And I'm sorry but that's just not realistic or mature. 

Criticism is a part of life and isn't always the worse thing in the world. Yes, some of the media can be assholes and it's not fun dealing with them and so she could, for those crossing the lines make clear she won't answer their questions.  But to just make a blanket media blackout declaration with no heads up to the tournament organizers and directors that she was even feeling this way was just not the way to go about this situation. 

And the thing she claimed to not want the most, i.e. all the press attention and focus and criticism, is exactly what resulted from this. And it will follow her for awhile. Because trust, she won't be able to just come to Wimbledon and expect that if she faces the press then, they'll just pretend the French Open saga didn't happen. They will bring it up and ask about it.

As I said, I empathize and understand with the struggle with anxiety and wanting what's best for one's mental health. But I just don't think Naomi went about this situation in the best way and I think it's time she get herself a publicist/PR that knows their shit, so this kind of messiness can be avoided in the future. 

Edited by truthaboutluv
  • Like 9
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Not to harp, but what I hear when I read things like "people are only saying stuff about Angelina because she's a woman" is that we (again, the royal we) aren't supposed to say anything negative about someone who happens to be female ever, because it's only since she's a woman and not for something legitimate. Unless it's Sharon Osbourne. Or Ellen DeGeneres. And sometimes Gwyneth Paltrow, which I guess means we can't make jokes about candles anymore. I kid. Sort of.

I don't really know or care to be honest anything about Pitt or Jolie or their marriage or their break up or their custody issues.  My point is, and remains, that when it comes to family issues, especially where children are concerned men almost invariably get kudos just for putting a bowl of cereal in front of a kid.  A woman gets credit for nothing and criticism for everything.

  • Like 22
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

It may as well be a press conference when it comes from People Magazine. People is the go-to magazine when celebrities and their team want information to get out without saying it directly themselves. They pretty much never post rumors, it's right from the horse's mouth. They just call the horse "Sources".

Now brainstorming how a book or TV show could include a racehorse named "Sources."

Quote

Is she joking about this?  If so it's a bad one. 

I'm not saying either were funny but the Emma Stone joke worked better because it was clear she was kidding. 

Quote

I had to Google as I was unfamiliar w/Lynch, and one of the first things to pop up was this video. 😂😂😂😂😂😂 The press conference you mention here starts at around 26 seconds in.

Honestly, I loved that. They're going to push a narrative anyway. Why not do as much as you can to not play into the game? You see it midway through where they try to bait him by calling him a "jerk" and "selfish" and attention-seeking. (You know they're thinking "uppity.") It reminds me of when celebs keep wearing the same outfit so the paparazzi photos will be worth less or when they are happy to sign autographs to decrease the value of those signatures for people who sell signed stuff. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

That's where I find the "it's not fair to the other players" thing interesting. I would think most player want the press, they want the publicity and want their name out there. It's self promotion, it's becoming a "star" vs just a player. So do the other players really care that she's not out there getting the attention, getting the press, getting the publicity? Are they really upset that she gets a half hour or so to do whatever while they are getting their names, words and faces all over the media? I can understand the tourny leaders wanting her to do press as it gives them free publicity, but if she's the only one not doing it, they have others. Trying to present it as unfair to the other players is just silly. 

I have bad social anxiety, like I have to work up the nerve to go grocery shopping, so I can't imagine going into a game with the fear and anxiety of the looming press attention afterwards hanging over me. 

Never in any sport gave I ever heard another player criticize someone for refusing or not doing interviews. 

Based on that fact I don't think the other players care one but. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I was existing on the bullies terms and not living life on my terms. [...]

I only bring that up, because I think she needs to find a way to deal with and do those press conferences.  If she does not, those issues will get more and more difficult to deal with, and IMO possibly start to affect other aspects of her life.

But isn't she doing that? Isn't she confronting the bullies and refusing to accept the treatment? Finding a way to deal isn't just conforming and learning to cope. It can also be challenging the system. That doesn't work for everyone but sometimes you create change or emerge out the other side to something better. (I understand that doesn't work as well for professional tennis if she doesn't get support from other players vs. something like blowing up Bon Appetit and getting better jobs elsewhere.)

Quote

Ohanian tweeted out part of a transcript from Williams’ press conference at the French Open in which a reporter – after calling her ‘baby’ – asked if she was intimidated by Maria Sharapova’s “super model” good looks.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/06/serena-williams-husband-rips-reporter-who-asked-awkward-maria-sharapova-question

Quote

While discussing topical things like playing against her sister, Venus, and the game of tennis, a reporter asked Williams why she wasn’t smiling. 

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/09/serena-williams-had-the-perfect-answer-to-a-reporter-who-asked-her-why-she-wasnt-smiling

Quote

"The prominence of narratives that depict the Williams sisters as ‘overwhelming' and ‘destroying' their female opponents are significant for they call upon enduring stereotypes of the ‘dangerous' black body and the ‘strong black woman,'" Douglas wrote, noting the way both Venus and Serena's strong black female bodies were "described as ‘pummeling,' ‘overwhelming' and ‘overpowering' (apparently frail and powerless) white female opponents."

It's true that sports metaphors include references to violence: "crushed," "killed," and "destroyed" aren't unusual words to hear when describing wins. But descriptions of Serena's power and the strength behind her victories have taken this type of hyperbole to another level — one that suggests she's absolutely unparalleled in her strength and capacity for violence, especially as compared with her white opponents.

[...] 

Even when Williams loses, she's perceived as an untamed source of power. Describing Serena's 2009 US Open loss, an ESPN column noted that Williams's opponent "seemed destined to win the match anyways," describing how she'd returned "Serena's savage strokes."

And if it's not clear what words like "savage" imply, some writers have spelled it out. In 2001, sportscaster Sid Rosenberg literally called Venus an "animal" and said she and Serena would fit better posing for National Geographic magazine than for Playboy. He later told the Daily News that his comments weren't racist, "just zoological."

https://www.vox.com/2017/1/28/14424624/serena-williams-wins-australian-open-venus-record-racist-sexist-attacks

While Naomi clarified in her second statement (and had said it in her first) that she has a good relationship with some of those reporters and wasn't trying to hurt them, all press is not good press. 

  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately for Osaka, all she managed to do was to attract attention that she didn't want or need.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post

Why would anyone consider Brad Pitt the same as Tom Cruise and Johnny Depp?  Especially, when considering parenting skills?  Ms. Jolie has made it clear who she is and how she operates.  Apparently, the courts have figured her out, as well as Mr. Pitt.  Evidence of their particular case should be considered based on their particular traits, imo.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Kromm said:

She doesn't really think it.  Like Emma Stone it was a joke of opportunity based on a movie release and a lame attempt to be topical. 

Yeah, I get that she doesn't really think that, it just seems like such a weird thing to say about them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Blergh said:

I find it very hard to believe that in 1999- at age 19, Miss Kemper didn't know what she was doing and what this was about but I suppose we should see if she attempts to make any sincere apologies owning her own role in this. 

She should, but I think she's going to face a lot of hysteria and accusations that don't take into account that as deeply racist as the origins of this thing are, that by 1999 those origins had been glossed over and generally forgotten about for so long that most of the participants apparently had no idea about them.  At worst, in most cases, it was reduced to rich people (yes, always white) showing off their influence by buying their kid the equivalent of a beauty pageant win.  

Again, she does need to say something, but for her sake I hope she's very careful with whatever statement she makes, because I'm sure she's in a very precarious position based mostly on something that I bet was her father's doing. 

Then again, Missouri has a ton of barely under the surface racism. And always has. So I could be wrong. 

  • Like 13
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

In any way, Amy is IMO trying too hard to say something funny and both fails and makes herself look unnecessary nasty.

As Amy often does.  

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

I think with the Amy Schumer jokes, it just relies the intended audience's understanding/perception of the people involved and she didn't pick great subjects. Like, the Emma Stone joke just works because (aside from being in Aloha and La La Land), people generally like her and think she's nice and funny. So it makes sense as a joke to call her toxic in jest. But it would work even better if you picked Kristen Bell or Tom Hanks. Someone whose brand is nice.

With the John Krasinki/Emily Blunt joke, it works even less because they're not well known as a couple. (Maybe they are if you watched his short-lived talk show, idk) But that joke would work better if you chose a couple like Kyra Sedgwick and Kevin Bacon or Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell. You can't twist the audience's expectation if they have no established understanding of what you're talking about.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, GiuliettaMasina said:

I had to Google as I was unfamiliar w/Lynch, and one of the first things to pop up was this video. 😂😂😂😂😂😂 The press conference you mention here starts at around 26 seconds in.

My favorite part is at the end when he actually answers questions at the Skittles press conference and the caption changes to "Marshawn Lynch, watches cat videos." Lol

  • Laugh 8

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Kromm said:

She should, but I think she's going to face a lot of hysteria and accusations that don't take into account that as deeply racist as the origins of this thing are, that by 1999 those origins had been glossed over and generally forgotten about for so long that most of the participants apparently had no idea about them.  At worst, in most cases, it was reduced to rich people (yes, always white) showing off their influence by buying their kid the equivalent of a beauty pageant win.  

Again, she does need to say something, but for her sake I hope she's very careful with whatever statement she makes, because I'm sure she's in a very precarious position based mostly on something that I bet was her father's doing. 

Then again, Missouri has a ton of barely under the surface racism. And always has. So I could be wrong. 

I agree.  I don't see a need for Ellie to do a prolonged apology for this.  Now if she had pledged the female equivalent of Kappa Alpha, then I would expect more.  Nineteen year olds in 1999 knew that fraternity was full of racists or at least they did in the South.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I agree.  I don't see a need for Ellie to do a prolonged apology for this.  

Sure, it shouldn't be her abasing herself unduly for something that's presumably not really her fault, but she's got to be VERY careful about what she says.  She's got to thread a tricky needle of sounding genuinely regretful, without either going over the top, or conversely sounding uncaring. 

It's got to acknowledge it's ugly, deny she knew it was, but somehow not sound like just an excuse. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Blergh said:

I find it very hard to believe that in 1999- at age 19, Miss Kemper didn't know what she was doing and what this was about but I suppose we should see if she attempts to make any sincere apologies owning her own role in this. 

19 year olds are pretty dumb (I know I was). A rich, possibly sheltered 19 year old, the kind who might do pageants in the first place might be even dumber. Plus even the article linked said that this weirdo society was allowing Black members since the 70's. So combine that with a teenager being out of touch with things and parental pressure and it hardly seems shocking at all. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

 

9 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

19 year olds are pretty dumb (I know I was). A rich, possibly sheltered 19 year old, the kind who might do pageants in the first place might be even dumber. Plus even the article linked said that this weirdo society was allowing Black members since the 70's. So combine that with a teenager being out of touch with things and parental pressure and it hardly seems shocking at all. 

I live in an area of the South where if you scratch the surface you find many things people take for granted have racist roots.  There is a local private school that opened in 1970 for one very specific reason that no one mentions.  This is a real thing that happens to people living in the South or in states like Missouri.  Yes, there needs to be discussion about the racist roots of these institutions, but some people's reaction to this news about Ellie on social media is extreme.  

  • Like 22

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting arguments. I, for one, am waiting to see what kind of explanation Miss Kemper attempts, to say nothing of how sincere any apology may be.   However, the longer she says and does nothing to address her participation in something she did as a legal adult, the less sympathetic she looks IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

 

I live in an area of the South where if you scratch the surface you find many things people take for granted have racist roots.  There is a local private school that opened in 1970 for one very specific reason that no one mentions.  This is a real thing that happens to people living in the South or in states like Missouri.  Yes, there needs to be discussion about the racist roots of these institutions, but some people's reaction to this news about Ellie on social media is extreme.  

I agree. Calling her a “KKK princess” for participating in a pageant that had diversified before she was born is over the top. Focusing on Ellie’s (or any of the other girls) participation is putting the attention in the wrong place. 

59 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Interesting arguments. I, for one, am waiting to see what kind of explanation Miss Kemper attempts, to say nothing of how sincere any apology may be.   However, the longer she says and does nothing to address her participation in something she did as a legal adult, the less sympathetic she looks IMO.

I know she needs to apologize from a PR standpoint but I really don’t agree that she did something apology worthy based on what is known. 

  • Like 20

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Dani said:

I know she needs to apologize from a PR standpoint but I really don’t agree that she did something apology worthy based on what is known. 

What really bothers me about this is yes Ellie Klemper will most likely apologize while people who have done things so much worse than this never apologize.

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post

I read up on the Veiled Prophet Ball, and I for one think it sounds not only grossly racist and elitist, but creepy and cult-y, as well (Veiled Prophet?! What is this, Game of Thrones??!). Quite frankly, I'm amazed debutante balls are still a thing in this country. 

I was certainly not the brightest color in the rainbow as a 19-year-old, so for now, until I learn more, I'll give Ellie Kemper the benefit of the doubt and assume that she participated in a questionable thing when she was young and stupid and that she doesn't harbor those views now. 

  • Like 7
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

Edited by GiuliettaMasina · Reason: grammar
  • Like 10
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/29/2021 at 1:05 AM, Zella said:

I'm just a humble peasant,

Same here.  It's difficult to imagine a life that has "people" to perform every.single.task, but I think that's what we're talking about here.  Their lives have been so incredibly ... layered, that they know no other way.

  • Like 3
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/29/2021 at 10:03 AM, merylinkid said:

Of course the only way to stop this is to fire the LE involved.   Which we know will never happen.

There's another way; the populace can stop being patrons of the celeb gossip products.  That will never happen either.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Dani said:

agree. Calling her a “KKK princess” for participating in a pageant that had diversified before she was born is over the top. Focusing on Ellie’s (or any of the other girls) participation is putting the attention in the wrong place. 

Yea I am not sure what kind of due diligence people would expect from a 19 year old beyond looking around and seeing black members and assuming it is not a racist hate group. Especially if it is something she was part of since before she had a choice.

Plus what would an apology even be for? Would it be "sorry I once belonged to a group that used to be really shitty"? If that is the case than a lot of people who just go to a church need to do the same thing, or people who belong to a lot of golf clubs, or people who went to a lot of Universities.

  • Like 21
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

If that is the case than a lot of people who just go to a church need to do the same thing, or people who belong to a lot of golf clubs, or people who went to a lot of Universities.

Yep.  I'm Catholic and right now in Canada there is a huge outcry (justifiable) about residential schools and the horrible things done there - I am appalled by what we have learned, and are still learning, but as a Catholic should I personally be apologizing because I was born Catholic?  IMO the only reason she should be apologizing is if she did indeed have personal knowledge of the racism inherent in that organization and chose to enter that beauty pageant as a way to reinforce her own racist beliefs.  If that was never true for her then any apology is only for show and has no deeper meaning.

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post

IMO,  the longer Miss  Kemper avoids saying ANYthing on the subject, the less I can give her the benefit of the doubt that re her having been clueless/innocent as a 19-year-old or currently being fair-minded. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, Blergh said:

Interesting arguments. I, for one, am waiting to see what kind of explanation Miss Kemper attempts, to say nothing of how sincere any apology may be.   However, the longer she says and does nothing to address her participation in something she did as a legal adult, the less sympathetic she looks IMO.

I agree waiting too long is a danger to her image, but as I said previously, she's got a really complex tightrope to walk here between a genuine sounding apology, while not sounding either too defensive or too blasé.  I'm not surprised it's taking this long. 

Heck, since I believe she publicly professes liberal political views, she might even be worried about how right wing media outlets are already using her/this situation to loft cancel culture accusations into the ether (because yes, if we're being honest, a lot of barbs are being thrown at her from the left). A careless response might seem to ally her with those right wing outlets. 

Edited by Kromm
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

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: 

 

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, GiuliettaMasina said:

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

I don't disagree, but the better question is if that was an equally fair expectation in 1999.  A time that arguably pretended to be socially enlightened, but often wasn't.  The notion of gay marriage seemed impossible.  The disparity in reprentation in media was only discussed in sociology journals and fringe publications.  The notion of dismantling racist statues was barely a blip.  Bill Cosby and Woody Allen were still heroes.  It was a long time ago. 

I agree with you that the tools existed, even in those days, to find things out.  But did the motive to do so exist? And I don't mean in any ultimate moral sense, I mean in a practical everyday sense that makes us think anyone else was doing it.  It may suck that's the case if not, but this takes a realistic look at where people's minds and values were at in that time.  Wishing it were better then means making sure it IS better now.  That's not true for all racist acts, but when we are looking at (possible) total blind ignorance, I think it does. That's why we need to hear from her to see if that's actually the case (and see if we believe her). 

Edited by Kromm
  • Like 13
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, GiuliettaMasina said:

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. 

Absolutely and I have no doubt there are racist aspects still today but pictures from the pageant around the time Ellie was involved does show black women competing. Obviously that doesn’t mean there wasn’t racism involved but I can’t blame a 19 year old in 1999 for not picking on the racism. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kromm said:

I don't disagree, but the better question is if that was an equally fair expectation in 1999.  A time that arguably pretended to be socially enlightened, but often wasn't.  The notion of gay marriage seemed impossible.  The disparity in reprentation in media was only discussed in sociology journals and fringe publications.  The notion of dismantling racist statues was barely a blip.  Bill Cosby and Woody Allen were still heroes.  It was a long time ago. 

I agree with you that the tools existed, even in those days, to find things out.  But did the motive to do so exist? And I don't mean in any ultimate moral sense, I mean in a practical everyday sense that makes us think anyone else was doing it.  It may suck that's the case if not, but this takes a realistic look at where people's minds and values were at in that time.  Wishing it were better then means making sure it IS better now.  That's not true for all racist acts, but when we are looking at (possible) total blind ignorance, I think it does. That's why we need to hear from her to see if that's actually the case (and see if we believe her). 

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.
 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

Angelina Jolie Will "Never Forgive" Brad Pitt

Pretends to be shocked that the ex-wife that spent the last years doing everything to alienate her-and-Brad's children from him is 'disappointed' that he was awarded joint custody. What exactly will she "never forgive him" for - not rolling over for her?

  • Like 15
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

The presence of a few black people doesn't mean the organization is not still hella racist.   There's a term for that ........

The tweet @GiuliettaMasina quoted hits the nail on the head.   We expect black kids to be all grown up and to act perfectly in the face of racism and cops physically attacking them but a white girl gets a pass at NINETEEN for being naive.

St. Louis has private streets STREETS for one reason only -- to keep the black folks out.   There is no way someone who was living there and probably either lived on such a street or had friends who did did NOT know this.   

Now maybe Ms. Kemper has grown and evolved since 1999.   But the best way to show that is to say "yeah I did.   Looking back it was wrong.   I've learned since then."  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

The tweet @GiuliettaMasina quoted hits the nail on the head.   We expect black kids to be all grown up and to act perfectly in the face of racism and cops physically attacking them but a white girl gets a pass at NINETEEN for being naive.

IFor me what it comes down to is that we should not be treating the white kids the way we've been treating the black kids but we should be moving forward to treating the black kids the way we've treated the white kids.  The situation with Kemper and with kids being physically attacked - and killed - for the 'crime' of being black aren't exactly comparable of course in this regard I do realize.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

The tweet @GiuliettaMasina quoted hits the nail on the head.   We expect black kids to be all grown up and to act perfectly in the face of racism and cops physically attacking them but a white girl gets a pass at NINETEEN for being naive.

I think that disparity in expectations is a fair point, but applying it retroactively isn't necessarily so.  Her parents would be much more rightfully criticized, even though she'd technically been an adult for a year. It's an excuse that's now (rightfully) disappeared.  

It might irk kids of the current generation, but their access to greater information invokes greater responsibilities.  It probably especially hurts, because Boomers now, to the point of it becoming a stereotype, often seem to revel in disinformation and shallow understanding of things. I'd argue the older people have lost their excuses too, but mainly for the things they say and do NOW. The past isn't gone and dead, though.  I just think the burden of proof for indicting people morally is a little higher when applied retroactively .  Not absent. Just higher. That's why how she responds now is important.  To help us figure out if it's the moderate crime of ignorance, or the greater crime of participating in something she knew was wrong. 

  • Like 8
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, LexieLily said:

Angelina Jolie Will "Never Forgive" Brad Pitt

Pretends to be shocked that the ex-wife that spent the last years doing everything to alienate her-and-Brad's children from him is 'disappointed' that he was awarded joint custody. What exactly will she "never forgive him" for - not rolling over for her?

If Brad Pitt had done something horrible to the children (besides his scuffle with Maddox), I'm pretty sure it would have come out by now.   So yeah, I don't understand what she won't forgive him for. 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Crashcourse said:

If Brad Pitt had done something horrible to the children (besides his scuffle with Maddox), I'm pretty sure it would have come out by now.   So yeah, I don't understand what she won't forgive him for. 

Because she's not getting what she wants. And if Pitt isn't a demon she isn't the Earth Mother angel that swooped in and saved them from him.

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

IFor me what it comes down to is that we should not be treating the white kids the way we've been treating the black kids but we should be moving forward to treating the black kids the way we've treated the white kids.  The situation with Kemper and with kids being physically attacked - and killed - for the 'crime' of being black aren't exactly comparable of course in this regard I do realize.

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."

 

48 minutes ago, Kromm said:

That's why how she responds now is important.  To help us figure out if it's the moderate crime of ignorance, or the greater crime of participating in something she knew was wrong. 

We're in 100% agreement here.

Edited by GiuliettaMasina · Reason: clarity
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Interesting arguments. I, for one, am waiting to see what kind of explanation Miss Kemper attempts, to say nothing of how sincere any apology may be.   However, the longer she says and does nothing to address her participation in something she did as a legal adult, the less sympathetic she looks IMO.

Quote

What really bothers me about this is yes Ellie Klemper will most likely apologize while people who have done things so much worse than this never apologize.

 

This is what I mean about "ignore it and wait it out" being a strategy employed with varying results depending on who you are. I do think twitter especially and the internet in general is too quick to demand responses, especially for things that happened years ago. 

Quote

  8 HOURS AGO, BLERGH SAID:

Interesting arguments. I, for one, am waiting to see what kind of explanation Miss Kemper attempts, to say nothing of how sincere any apology may be.   However, the longer she says and does nothing to address her participation in something she did as a legal adult, the less sympathetic she looks IMO.

I agree waiting too long is a danger to her image, but as I said previously, she's got a really complex tightrope to walk here between a genuine sounding apology, while not sounding either too defensive or too blasé.  I'm not surprised it's taking this long. 

I agree that it's tough to just tweet or put out a quick press statement when you know that your words are going to be scrutinized intensely. I do think she should respond but, if it takes a week, I don't think we should start collecting the wood to burn her at the stake. She's not a world leader/politician. As far as I know, she's not even working on a show right now. There's no urgency. When you're on twitter and online all the time, I think it's easier to think that everyone should respond like they're also online all the time. Honestly, I think a quick apology tweet would come off terribly (it always feels glib and insincere) and she probably needs to put out a longer statement after some thought.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Kromm said:

It might irk kids of the current generation, but their access to greater information invokes greater responsibilities.  It probably especially hurts, because Boomers now, to the point of it becoming a stereotype, often seem to revel in disinformation and shallow understanding of things. I'd argue the older people have lost their excuses too, but mainly for the things they say and do NOW. The past isn't gone and dead, though.  I just think the burden of proof for indicting people morally is a little higher when applied retroactively .  Not absent. Just higher. That's why how she responds now is important.  To help us figure out if it's the moderate crime of ignorance, or the greater crime of participating in something she knew was wrong. 

Hold up partner!  I'm sure you meant that as a generalization, because some of us boomers are enlightened, evidence-based seekers of knowledge.  It may have not been talked about much in 1999, but I sure knew it was wrong when my parents (depression era) made terribly outdated racist comments.  In the 70's, well before I was 19,  I recognized my parents were wrong.  

Because of that, and staying on topic, I'm in the camp of not giving her a total pass.  I like the suggestion from merylinkid where she says something along the lines of "yeah I did.   Looking back it was wrong.   I've learned since then."  

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
OtterMommy

Please do not post only non-descriptive links to celebrity news stories.  Some context should be provided for your fellow members. Context may be as simple as a link that describes the story, or a line or two of text. Thanks.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size