AFP being delightful as always, but if this is the same clip which she linked to a number of days ago (I am guessing that it is) then it might be nice to warn people that it contains full frontal nudity at one pointā¦ (Of course, anyone familiar with AFP would kind of expect that, and the idea that there are boingers out there who are not familiar enough with her to at least know that seems pretty unlikely, but still.)
alsoā¦ OMFG! Nipple! hahaha. She cracks me up. 
Edit: Just watched it again even though at work, and itās low enough resolution that you basically have to take her word for it that sheās naked up there, so nevermindā¦
also alsoā¦ āDear Daily Mail, you misogynist pile of twatsā¦ā describes them quite accurately, me thinks.
So, letās recap: a professional attention troll whose every breath is dedicated to making sure everyone knows how outrageous she is provoked a tabloid whose every breath is dedicated to being outraged, and the professional attention troll responds by being even more outrageous!?
Iāve think weāve discovered a perpetual motion machine.
Iām just curious, do you define every performer or celebrity as āprofessional attention trollā or just the ones that donāt align with your particular interests?
Oh, so now Amanda Palmer canāt tie her own shoes?
Neither. I just find people who are so desperately provocative without actually saying anything meaningful to be kind of tiresome. I donāt think sheās a terrible person or anything. I just think sheās a bore.
Is there an articulate, persuasive piece out there that accurately describes just how bad The Daily Mail is? I am already inclined to be dismissive of links to any of their articles (particularly given the celeb photos that inevitably cover the right-hand side of the page), but perhaps there is not sufficient cause.
Iām with you, Raskolnik. I think Coryās description āā¦a kind of one-note joke of immense and terrifying popularityā¦ā applies just as well to Amanda Palmer as it does to the Daily Mail.
Surprisingly enough, the tabloid has remained silent on the matter.
ā Leah McLaren
The Globe and Mail
to be fair i define every performer and celebrity as professional attention troll, i mean attention IS kinda the thing they do for a livingā¦likeā¦a professionā¦
but i say it in the kindest way possible.
yes there is in fact an entire magazine dedicated to it, itās called the daily mailā¦
Oh. You mean an ENTERTAINER, right? Like, every other fucking entertainer that has ever existed, male or female, right?
No, not really. I mean someone whose talent for getting attention far outstrips their talent for making art.
Again, Iām not arguing that Ms. Palmer is a terrible person, or that there arenāt others in the world who are deserving of more criticism for the same thing. I just think her light to heat ratio is not exactly admirable.
What the hell is ālight to heatā ratio? Iām not even a fan of hers (Iām just not that cool), but man. I wonder how often you call male artists āattention trollsā. All of your opinions are painfully subjective and really, not particularly relevant to the topic at hand.
Sheās a writer and a pretty dang good piano player and has great stage presence and has made some cool songs and videos and even a not-really-a-fan like me can tell that sheās very talented.
Sheās an outspoken female entertainer and she gets naked sometimes and she says and does things that you donāt really understand or feel a personal connection to! That means sheās an attention troll, amiright? Because she makes you uncomfortable?
I wonder how much her not being mainstream attractive while also being very outspoken about her sexuality in various ways has to do with itā¦
@raskolnik, I bet you were looking for attention by posting that, werenāt you?
Disclaimer: Iām looking for attention by posting this.
But his ālight to heatā ratio isnāt off-balance, dude!
Iām sorry, I thought the concept was fairly well known. When one says something generates a lot of heat but very little light, it generally means that it produces a lot of emotion/attention (i.e. āheatā) but does not produce a similar amount of illumination (i.e. ālightā). Does that help?
Fair point, but Iām also not trying to make a career of this.
Iām also not trying to make a career of this.
Right, no money involved.
Youāre just doing it for the attention, then?
the lighting is so blown out, you canāt see anything anyway, other than some glowing sideboob.
