The most amazing part of this story to me is that anyone still gives a crap about Sinead OâConner.
OâConnor is pure class at a level that the moron who wrote this piece will never hop to attain.
"OâConnorâs remarks are beautiful and sincere, yet unapproachable in an anxious, edgy way thatâs hard to define. "
Exactly.
To Rob: Why is it so uncomfortable to you that someone is sincere and you have no snarky commentary to add? Isnât that a normal response for a person who is unaccustomed to sincerity on social media (and on the greater internet)?
And "Miley Cyrus succeeds at a form of celebrity shock behavior that Sinead OâConnor often attempts and fails at. "
How are the two at all analogous? Yes, trying to bring attention to institutionally-sanctioned child rape sure is the same thing as faux-satirical cloyingly aware twerk-parody.
Geez, I just donât understand this article. I donât dislike Miley any more than another youth who makes popular music I donât care for, but to somehow conflate their careers and methods, itâs beyond me.
OâConnor gets just as much out of this cultural dumpster fire as anyone else. A thousand words in the Guardian selling some squishy platitudes about feminism and ânot being a prostituteâ doesnât make her any different from the conservative hacks tut-tutting on Fox News.
The only way to stop it is to cut off the oxygen supply and ignore the whole thing. Cyrus is the Sarah Palin of popculture.
[quote=âmrmcd, post:5, topic:11323â]
A thousand words in the Guardian selling some squishy platitudes about feminism and ânot being a prostituteâ doesnât make her any different from the conservative hacks tut-tutting on Fox News.
[/quote]Good god.
Amanda Palmer has also contributed a lengthy and quite thoughtful open letter of her own.
Some (including Cyrus, judging by her tweets) seem to be interested only in gawking at a flame war. But there ARE some interesting and quite personal thoughts being put out there about feminism, art, the entertainment industry, etc.
I wonder if Cyrus actually has the maturity to respond in long form after her (extremely hectic, Iâm sure) week at SNL is done. Or will we just be treated to some horribly mean-spirited mocking of OâConnor on SNL this weekend?
âtransitively self awareâ
I actually googled that (quotes in place) and got 5 hitsâŚall related to this article.
All snark aside, perhaps an article on âTransitive Self Awarenessâ would benefitâŚor maybe a Wiktionary entry.
Maybe itâd only benefit meâŚnonetheless, I put out this suggestion.
I dunnoâŚ
ââŚbeautiful and sincere, yet unapproachable in an anxious, edgy way thatâs hard to define.â
ââŚher own fluency seems part of an act designed to fit 2013âs knowing buyers of music.â
How could anyone presume to render a value judgement between those two artist descriptions?
Theyâre virtually identical!
Mean spirited, self-indulgent snark is now called âtransitively awareâ?
Who knew?
To me, the most amazing part of any story about a celebrity is that one of the first posts is invariably a comment expressing amazement that anyone gives a crap about said celebrity.
It isnât. You read this post looking for snark, then took its absence as evidence that I simply couldnât think of anything snarky to say. If those are your expectations, you know there are plenty other sites on the internet that can scratch that itch for you.
Transitive means âcharacterized by transitionâ
âtransitively self awareâ
No idea what this is intended to mean. Anyone?
To quote Louis Armstrong, âthere are some people that if they donât know, you canât tell them.â
There was no way Sinead OâConnorâs letter was going to have the effect she was hoping for.
Somehow, when I liked this I focused on the word âclassâ and not the word âmoronâ. I symbolically retract my âlikeâ. Calling someone a moron for a post you donât agree with is something only a moron would do.
Should I not be surprised when a celebrity that flamed out in the mid 90s is still considered relevant?
Oh I donât know. I think it totally had the effect she was looking for, youâre talking about her arenât you?
Drawing any kind of equivalence between OâConnorâs pope-shredding actions and Cyrusâs twerking, licking and sexual displays has all the authenticity of processed cheese, and shows less intelligence.
Cyrus is practicing a time-old tradition of shlocking the world (well, prurient America - no-one else cares) with a quick-change into another person. Sheâs pouring money into her coffers. Madonna did it, and what a wealthy example to follow. Itâs textbook. Sheâs a businesswoman, using her assets to her greatest advantage. Where does feminism enter this? She doesnât care.
OâConnor didnât exactly have the same objectives. Mixed up, crazy, fuelled by drugs, whatever. The impact of her actions resonates today, and probably made a boatload of people pause and examine catholicism. I donât think Hannah Montana is going to do quite that.
Why should anyone care, about either? Because theyâre both icons of pop culture - and you and your kids are going to be aware of, and influenced by, them for a long time to come.
Publicity. Publicity. Publicity. Jackpot.
