rigorousintuition.ca

Some people on the slut-shaming thread targeting Miley Cyrus have not wanted to take this question head-on, so here it is as a poll. Call it a false dichotomy, whine that there is no "both" option, I don't care. You can only choose one or the other as the worse.

The idea that some of their parents are currently being asked to consider which is the worse of two "eivils",( though I would personally prefer misdirections)?

slimmouse » Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:26 pm wrote:The idea that some of their parents are currently being asked to consider which is the worse of two "eivils",( though I would personally prefer misdirections)?

Clearly, I'm the worst for your children. Not that this question is directed at "their parents" per se. Nor has a statement been made here about "evils."

Yawn. How I wish you would keep your endless tedium on the David Icke boards, where you belong.

Next!

JackRiddler » 01 Sep 2013 18:33 wrote:

slimmouse » Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:26 pm wrote:The idea that some of their parents are currently being asked to consider which is the worse of two "eivils",( though I would personally prefer misdirections)?

Clearly, I'm the worst for your children. Not that this question is directed at "their parents" per se. Nor has a statement been made here about "evils."

Yawn. How I wish you would keep your endless tedium on the David Icke boards, where you belong.

Next!

My apologies Jack for putting words in your mouth. Theres enough of what I believe to be truly misinformed thinking coming out of there already, without me making matters worse for you.

I'll reframe my question within the context of your reply.

Whats worse for children?

The idea that some of their parents are currently being asked to consider which is essentially the worse of two misdirections?

And for what its worth I base a lot of the thinking that went into that reply on Neil Kramer as opposed to David Icke.

For your information.

In order to vote with a clear conscience I would have to watch both of them and I've still seen neither, so I will abstain.



Meanwhile, could a shark beat a tiger? I say yes, but only if the fight was under water.

Mac, I was compelled to watch the one by my son at an age when there was little pretending there'd be any more effective control over his viewing habits -- or, really, much credible worry left that he in particular would be exceptionally fucked up by it (more than any other viewing in this age of over-viewing).

I watched the other thanks to the outsize moral hysteria expressed on the thread to slut-shame Miley Cyrus in particular, as if humanity reached a special low point during last Sunday's VMA broadcast (it most certainly did not).

The question comes naturally because said hysteria was a function of Ms. Cyrus having formerly played the Hannah Montana role. You see, her entirely uninteresting number was a horror only because Ms. Cyrus was now supposedly teaching all the little kids who had watched HM to be whores of Illuminati Babylon.

Which I find to be extraordinarily diversionary bullshit that can only be advanced in a culture that has demonized expressions of sexuality as the worst of all moral outrages - even as the bombs keep fallin', the planet keeps burnin', and, as an admittedly lesser evil, Hannah Montana, the show, keeps brainwashin' children in the cults of narcissism, consumerism and celebrity.

None of the intellectual cowards on the other thread want to answer this question, or even acknowledge that it has been asked of them.

Thus, a poll. Two choices. Too bad.

None of the intellectual cowards on the other thread want to answer this question, or even acknowledge that it has been asked of them.

Or maybe they simply didnt want to expose too much of their individual viewpoint?

FWIW Jack, Im voting for the first. You see, Im in this nuts and bolt world too.

No argument, Jack. I presumed I agreed with you anyway. Sorry if I came across as blasé or a wiseguy or above the fray. I just can't bring myself to watch any of that stuff.

Miley Stewart is a preteen who just moved from Tennessee to Malibu, and now has to adapt to a new lifestyle. She also lives a secret life as a pop star: Hannah Montana, overseen by her manager and father, Robbie Stewart.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493093/

Ffs. That's already more than enough. (The only slightly encouraging thing is that it gets an average viewer-rating of 3.7/10. But they all had to sit through the damn thing before rating it, thereby performing the only really indispensable task: paying attention.)

Not unrelated: About 18 months ago, somebody roped me into joining her for "a Glee evening", a semi-public showing of the whole first series in a bookshop. I managed with difficulty to sit through an episode and a half. I found it literally insufferable in too many different ways to list. Just gruesome, just totally creepy. Who needs it?



Clearly there are people with a strong vested interest in arresting the population's development at the age of about 14 (max), while also pushing "preteens" (sic) to that ideally exploitable age without unprofitable delay.




ON EDIT: Incidentally, while I was googling "hannah montana" on this public computer, Google was also eagerly suggesting "hannah montana hot" and "hannah montana hot pants".

Is this poll broken? At the time I'm viewing it I"m seeing:

"Hannah Montana," the show and its merchandising. 83%
Last week's VMA number by Miley Cyrus et al. 17%

Of course, this is only from 6 votes so it seems starker than that. But do people honestly believe that a mindless teen pop sitcom is worse for children than said star of program having to go on and grind her junk nearly nude on television to stay relevant? Bizarrely, that is like saying Alan Thicke's show Growing Pains is more misogynistic than his son Robin Thicke's blurred lines video. Do people think that for young viewers Screech's oeuvre from Saved by the Bell is worse than his porn vid? Ok, that last one a bit of a stretch but still. What I've seen of the video (the VMA one not Screeches) is that it is more about desperation and an attempt at vulgarity to shock than any expression of sexuality.

There are some interesting precursors to this. Annette Funnicello comes to mind. She was a mouseketeer and then she became a swimsuit actress in all those Beach Blanketesque films. David Cassidy of the Partridge Family going on to show his pubes on the cover of rolling stone, etc But those examples are much more natural progressions of sexuality emerging. This to me this is different and bad for children, "the digital natives" as they say, coming up. Why?

Well, it seems it is sending the message that even for the already mega-rich and famous female to remain relevant you have to basically hoe yourself out. Since for the uber rich and famous it is a simulated hoeing out there are very few real repercussions. But for all the impressionable female fans who aren't young monied it is selling the stripper lifestyle and ethic as trendy. Since young viewers tend to be interested in material for older demographics as they age I think it is a dangerous path. I mean most people try to get to a comfortable place in life so they don't have to gyrate nearly nude against older men in public. Miley is saying hey, I'm set for life at 20 and after a bubble gum pop career I'm choosing the pole so somebody will hopefully buy my records still!

Of course Britney, Miley, Gomez, and a few of the other ones who escape my mind for the moment as far as I know have only marginal singing/dancing talent. Young fans tend to not notice this but as time goes by I imagine they become less forgiving of the lack of talent or relevance from their teen idols. So with few options for those without real talent I imagine the plan is become hard, edgy and trashy. I think this is probably a corporate strategy now and many of the young actors and teen idols are really trojan horses for demographic scaling. Miley is the fresh faced alternative to Britney that families invite into their home. She stays for a few years behaving and selling your kids harmless junk. And then she transforms from Autobot wholesome teen pop idol to Decepticon trashy stripper hot ass mess.

ON EDIT: I think also perhaps why this Miley Mr. Hyde situation is so bad is because Cyrus's cachet from her show (from what I remember of 5 minutes I've caught here and there) was that she was a normal girl who also had a secret identity as a famous pop star, Hannah Montana (It was a wig thing I recall). The premise took off I imagine because families probably felt safe that the normal girl would help keep their young girls grounded while hand feeding them piecemeal dreams of fame and riches. It is obvious that Hannah Montana killed the everyday normal girl persona on the altar of commercialism to eke out a few more years of a marginal existence.

JackRiddler » Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:26 pm wrote: because Ms. Cyrus was now supposedly teaching all the little kids who had watched HM to be whores of Illuminati Babylon.

if only.

Well, without the first option, there would be no second option. Without the first option, the second option would be meaningless. Soft porn/porn has been around since time immemorial, but unlike today, it was only available to those who sought it out... .

I have seen the show, Hannah Montana , due to my now 17-year old daughter watching it when she was small, but I have not seen the recent debauchery because I don't need to see it. I've read enough to get the picture. While I will admit that Hannah Montana influenced my daughter more than this recent skit, because she doesn't care about Miley Cyrus, there are young children who are probably watching the Hannah Montana reruns, who have also seen her latest show, and who will be influenced. One can argue it's up to the parents of the child to shield them from the recent Miley Cyrus show, but in today's society, that's practically impossible unless you raise your kid in a bubble. If they have friends, if they go to school, if they have any kind of life at all that takes them away from their parents, the chances of them seeing it are good.

I think it's gotten worse. I also have 25-year old twins and I do not recall a show like Hannah Montana, although maybe I missed it. They grew up watching Urkel, who doesn't seem as bad, although I know NOW that all TV is bad for kids, as TV was created as an instrument of mind control...to indoctrinate the public.

oh come on. Urkel spent the majority of every episode he was in trying to get into Laura Winslow's pants.

and hate to be the one to break this to you, but at the ages you've listed, it is extremely statistically likely that all of your daughters have done things much dirtier than anything Miley Cyrus has ever pretended to do onstage.

television wasn't created as an instrument of mind control. hell, it wasn't even created by any one person at one time, but evolved slowly over a long period in many places before assuming its current monolithic status. governments were a while behind in taking it seriously. you may find it interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television

brekin » Sun Sep 01, 2013 4:16 pm wrote:
Well, it seems it is sending the message that even for the already mega-rich and famous female to remain relevant you have to basically hoe yourself out. Since for the uber rich and famous it is a simulated hoeing out there are very few real repercussions. But for all the impressionable female fans who aren't young monied it is selling the stripper lifestyle and ethic as trendy. Since young viewers tend to be interested in material for older demographics as they age I think it is a dangerous path. I mean most people try to get to a comfortable place in life so they don't have to gyrate nearly nude against older men in public. Miley is saying hey, I'm set for life at 20 and after a bubble gum pop career I'm choosing the pole so somebody will hopefully buy my records still!

I would agree with this.

I blame Kim Kardashian.

In fact, the whole Kardashian thing has become so pervasive and so creepy I think there should be a thread, like this one, about them. Kim Kardashian is basically a whore who started her trip to fame not by dancing at the VMAs but by actually making a porn tape.

And the Miley Cyrus fan base is UNBELIEVABLY fascinated and obsessed, and for some fucked up reason admires and emulates that fucking whore.

Then look at Bruce Jenner, who has become so emasculated and facially mutilated by this female clan that he literally looks like an aging lesbian.

Now THAT is some sick sick shit, that show, and that family, and the way they have taken over the media.

I think the Miley Cyrus thing is exactly what Brekin describes above, a girl who had it all, is already way past her peak at 20, and is desperately trying to out-Madonna Madonna in order to stay in the picture.

The most horrifying thing about the dance she did, for me, was how clumsy and awful it was. That tongue -- yuck -- it looked like she had a dismembered penis stuck in her mouth.

And what's weird about this is that when she was younger, at 15 years old, she actually seemed more talented, and even more sexy, although sexy in a about-to-pop, repressed-but-blossoming sort of way.

It was really just pathetic and hard to watch.

My stepdaughter is 17 now, and was an avid watcher of the Hannah Montana show. She's probably the average age of the Hannah Montana audience now. That show is done. My stepdaugher did want to see Miley's first few movies, because it was Miley Cyrus, but now I really don't think she gives a rats ass about her.

I met Miley Cyrus. I did a shoot with her and her dad, back when she was 15. She has a huge personality. She's very smart. She was obviously the dominant person in the father-daughter relationship. I really doubt that anybody coerced her into this. And everybody also seems to forget that these things don't just happen, they are planned, they are choreographed, they are gone over by the star, the manager, the choreographer, all those people, most of whom do not want to piss off or offend the star. Usually it's "yes, that's SO wonderful!" Because they can be fired. At least at her age now.

When they're kids, that's another story. I worked with Mary Kate and Ashley when they were 14, and it seemed like a different story. For instance, their manager showed up on set, and he was one of the creepiest motherfuckers you'd ever want to meet. His last name was Stone, I believe. Nobody wanted to let him on set he was so creepy, until we found out that he REALLY was their manager. And those girls had a look in their eyes, a worldly look, like they'd already seen pretty much everything. Miley was very different from this. She seemed to have already lived a sheltered, rich life as the daughter of a big "country" star who reminded her to pray to Jesus every day.

It's not Stone, it's Thorne. Robert Thorne. This guy:



Creep.

OP ED is much more offended by Nordic's posts than by anything related to anyone Cyrus. and that includes the dad with his irritating country pop song OP ED heard everywhere for about 35 minutes back in the day.