We certainly do. But when we went to Facebook yesterday to crow about our prescience, we learned something odd: The story had been blocked.
Yes, blocked. Best we can tell, anyone who tries to share the link may post it on Facebook, but it will be displayed without a headline or photo — which, in the precarious world of the popularity-dependent personalized newsfeed, means certain death. Sure, you can post Lees’ story, but no one is going to read it without a headline or an image attached.
This wasn’t just user error (though we’ve been known to make those). When we ran the story through Facebook’s debugger, the usual way to fix the problem, Facebook noted that the URL “has been blocked.” That happened on multiple computers, from various browsers.
I just don’t get the hatred that some people seem to have for certain celebs.
Not your obvious assholes who don’t seem to appreciate how very blessed they are, like your Beibers and your Chris Browns; I totally get it why they are so hated.
But… Taylor Swift?
Aside from being needlessly saturated in the media, what’s the deal?
Even my own mom has issues with her, for some inexplicable reason.
No, literally;
I recently asked her why she doesn’t like her, and her answer was:
“I don’t know; I just don’t.”
What kind of illogical shit is that?
Please believe it that anyone whom I dislike so intently; there’s gonna be a valid reason why…
My pet theory: people use celebrity culture in general to satisfy an unhealthy desire to judge people superficially in a way that tends to get them in trouble if they satisfy it on people with whom they actually meet and interact. Just a theory.
For real. Dunning–Kruger in the house. Not only are they doing something that it takes years of medical training to do properly even when you have the subject present for hours of direct deep analysis, they’re doing so based on a filtered and curated media image instead of the actual human being behind that image.
But that’s not why it irritates me. It irritates me because medical diagnoses are being leveled as insults, reinforcing the stigmatization of mental health problems and treatments. And they’ll leap to their own defense that that’s not their intent, but neither is the intent of most people who use cripple or retard or faggot to denigrate disability, sexual orientation, ect. As if intent magically makes it okay! To quote Captain Spock, What you want is irrelevant, what you have chosen is at hand.
I’ve speculated as to whether certain people were sociopaths, based upon their behavior patterns, but that’s not the same as outright claiming someone is for certain.
Though I admit that I have to wonder where it is that bad intentions lead, that’s worse than ‘Hell’…
If there were an afterlife (which there almost certainly is not), I’d rather be in the company of atheists and the majority of good theists who were unlucky enough to be born into or pick the wrong name of the creator deity to direct their prayers to.
The author’s inability to recognize this is appalling. From TFA:
Back in a more civilized time, editors took pains to “libel-proof” a story. If you knew you had something important to say, you had to make sure the target couldn’t win a lawsuit against you. You did so by making sure the truth was on your side and that you could back up your claims. If you were writing an opinion piece, like, say, “Evidence Suggests Taylor Swift Is a Sociopath,” your task was easier: The First Amendment is generous in protecting the right to publish opinions about public figures.
He straight up categorises mental health analysis an “opinion”, and not something that needs to be held to basic journalism standards.
