|
I seem to have spent many frustrating hours over the last few years trying to point out the sterility of the kind of attitude that makes people want to say "Stop making excuses for her", "It's her own fault", "She has to take responsibility for her actions" etc. etc.
The mindset that motivates people to make those kinds of remarks is an extremely depressing one because -
(i) it seems to arise from arrogance - the specific meaning of which, in this context, is a tendency to claim the right to make assumptions about OTHER people's states of consciousness and the deliberateness of their intent;
(ii) it seems to go along with a tendency to want to bully everyone else into sharing that mindset by calling them "retards", "deluded", "weak", "sheep" and "naive", accusing them of "making excuses" and so on... and to refuse to accept that anyone else's viewpoint is a valid one;
(iii) their position doesn't actually LEAD anywhere, except to a load of frequently baseless assumptions. Some people seem to have difficulty understanding this point, so let me explain. Once you have pointed your finger at someone and decided they're guilty of something ("it's her own fault" etc. etc.) you really don't have anything left to say because you've already acted as judge and jury and found the accused guilty of whatever it is you think he or she has done. The case is over. You've said all there is to say, apart from passing sentence;
(iv) people who think like this see EVERYTHING in terms of "guilt", "fault" and "who's to blame". It's a tabloid journalist's (or celebrity blogger's) mentality. The former editor of one of the UK's biggest-selling tabloids once articulated this activity as follows: "We give everybody somebody to hate every day". He seemed proud of it, but this encouragement of tabloid readers to make judgments on others has led to a cynical, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, "I would never do it" attitude. To me, the old "there but for the grace of God go I" attitude of humility seemed a lot healthier.
(v) the "guilt allegers" and "fault attributers" don't leave the discussion with anywhere to go. While most of the "retards", "sheep" and "deluded fans" are actually trying to find out what really happened and pick the bones of reality out of the morass of speculation, they're being lambasted by these judgmental bullies for "making excuses" and not rushing to judgment themselves.
But what's worse, the "judgmentalists", by their "she's to blame and that's all there is to say" attitude, also have the effect of distorting and inhibiting discussion of how their "blame figure" (in this case, Britney) should take positive steps to get herself OUT of the mess she's in. By insisting that "it's her own fault and she should take responsibility for her actions" they don't seem to be leaving her with many options other than to confess her guilt.
But THEN what? Their position seems to imply or assume that everything she has done has been done consciously, deliberately, and either maliciously, recklessly or irresponsibly. Society usually considers that when somebody has "fessed up" to a bunch of that, punishment is in order.
So is the problem for "judgmentalists", and the cause of their bitterness and frustration, their unease that Britney (or Jamie Lynn or whoever) has somehow managed to ESCAPE punishment and that the "retards", "sheep", "deluded fans" etc. etc. seem content to let her get away with it by "making excuses"?
The whole "judgmentalist" mode of argument seems to hang on the twin assumptions (whether conscious or unconscious) by the people who take that attitude that (i) THEY know what Britney (or whoever) is REALLY thinking and why she REALLY did what she did (and anyone who disagrees is deluded, dumb or insane - or all three); and (ii) that everything that's happened was because of her own deliberate choices.
The fact that she's turned out to be mentally ill has thrown some of them into disarray but the more determined "judgmentalists" are now trying to rewrite history. The latest twist is that the "retards", "sheep" and "deluded fans" didn't want Britney to get help. They wanted her to drive around Hollywood forever with Sam, Adnan, Alli and her 50 personal paparazzi. They didn't care if she never got her babies back. They didn't care if her career had hgone to hell. Apparently THEY were the ones who believed that she wasn't mentally ill.
Judgmental people seem to be an irony-free zone but to the rest of us it seems ironic that they've tried to hijack the very reason why the "retards", "sheep" and "deluded fans" were "making excuses" for her in the first place. Now it's not an "excuse" - it's an explanation. Ironic too that the entire judgmentalist case ("she's to blame" "it's her own fault" etc. etc. - remember?) has always been based on a firm belief that all of her actions were conscious, but reckless and irresponsible, and that's why she was fully liable for "blame".
 |
Anyway, I'm gonna put this to you a different way, and I want you to really READ this and THINK about it.
Look back on EVERY article you've written on Spears - blogs, articles, in depths - the lot.
Now find me ONE quote where you've stated Britney was responsible for her own actions.
I'm not saying she is or isn't - I want you to find where YOU have stated it.
Chances are, you'll have a rather tough time.
THIS is what I, and the other "judgementalists (lmao)" get angry about.
That "not to knock Britney at all!" attitude. It's not a healthy way to view anyone and the ONLY reason you're doing it is because you believe, only from what you've heard, that she is a sweet, innocent, girl with a big heart and makes catchy songs.
There could be a million girls like Britney in the world. Divorced with kids, a bit mad, lost, confused, gone back to younger mentalities....but you don't worship them.
You don't dedicate websites to them and dedicate detailed articles into how they've changed you and how they warm your soul. Because you don't know them.
The reason you love Britney so much is because you know OF her. And now it's gotten to the stage where you think you really do know her more than anyone. More than she knows herself even!
For all we know Britney could be a cold, hard, forward biatch ala Madonna. She might be a fantastic actress.
The fact that you get outraged at those who believe she is a certain way is laughable especially when you're doing the same thing, only in a "nice" way. You still don't know her any more than I or anyone else does.
As I've picked up on her numerous times, you take ANY positive thing about her, even if it's from National Enquirer, as 100% fact.
I've never stated Britney was to blame for EVERYTHING that's happened to her.
But, from what I can tell, she was pretty damn stable right up until the divorce. If not, she hid it well (another point for the "good actress" theory).
For a while there, while hanging out with Hilton, everything seemed to glide along nicely and even though she was hanging with Paris, she still seemed happy and aware. Do you really want to try and convince me that she didn't know what she was doing hanging out with Paris Hilton? Doing guest spots on Letterman? Wearing low cut tops to show off her massive momma boobs?
Are you really going to try and convince me that Britney isn't somewhat addicted to her own attention and doesn't know how to get a crowd talking?
How oblivious can you be when you wear your old wedding dress out in public and continually flash the paparazzi (I'll note you never got back to me in the nudity thread when I gave you a link to all the flashes she's done after you seemed convinced there were only 3 instances...she's still doing it now...there were 2 last week).
Anyway, my point is this website has never held Britney responsible for anything she's ever done EVER. It'd be okay occasionally because everyone needs to catch a break every now and then. But all the time? Bad. Unhealthy. Untruthful. Naive.
Like I've said, even the crotch shots, where Britney left her own underwear at home, you still tried to say those shots were somehow "stolen" from her.
I don't doubt Britney isn't well in the head. Don't doubt it at all. I believe that her people around her probably taught her how to be controversial and now she's taken control of it but her mind has gone to mush. So we're stuck with an attention seeking semi-crazy "adult child" (her parents words, not mine) who won't go away even though the spotlight is what's sending her crazy.
A woman who sees nothing wrong with adopting British accents and abandoning underwear but still has the cheek to yell "get out of my face" to the paparazzi.
I ask you, do you ever consider the phrase "You get what you give"? Karma?