General Lady Gaga Discussion | Page 1262 | The Popjustice Forum

General Lady Gaga Discussion

Discussion in 'Pop & Justice' started by cherryboomboom, Dec 22, 2009.

  1. Re: Lady Gaga - ARTPOP (Album, 2013)

    I really hated that look.
     
  2. MFW

    MFW

    Re: Lady Gaga - ARTPOP (Album, 2013)

    I loved that look, especially at the Grammys. It all went horribly wrong when she decided to go for a full piss-yellow wig.
     
  3. Re: Lady Gaga - ARTPOP (Album, 2013)

    I loved full piss yellow, it was cartoonish yet bombshell at the same time.
     
  4. Re: Lady Gaga - ARTPOP (Album, 2013)

    Baby girl needs a good toner.
     
  5. Someboy

    Someboy Staff Member

    First of all, the grammatically correct spelling is "It's" not "Its." Secondly, just get over yourself.
     
  6. How is this a mess? This is the biggest non-controversy ever. I don't get why people here are getting their tail feathers in a twist over it.
     
  7. TeenIdle

    TeenIdle Guest

    F*ggot-gate with Azealia Banks and Perez seems to have everyone in a "EVERYTHING DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SO PC! STOP TRYING TO BE SOME MESSIAH! NO CELEBS ACTUALLY JUST WANT TO DO GOOD!" mood.
     
  8. I agree with Gaga about fashion police, but Sharon makes a far more convincing case with the meat dress/fur thing which is just the very essence of "fugly".
     
  9. People have been complaining about Gaga's Messiah complex for yonks. It's not a new thing.
     
  10. Rmx

    Rmx

    You know the straws have been grasped when people resort to grammar and personal digs. You might want to read this.
     
  11. Yet Sharon Osbourne is a huge fan of wearing leather - both cattle and pig - and recently became a spokesperson for scoffing loads of meat as part of the Atkins diet (http://blogs.atkins.com/Blogs/Sharon Osbourne/Default.aspx), having been a preachy, judgmental vegan for just over a year. THAT is a fucking hypocrite if ever there was one.

    She has no right to judge others who wear animals, when she eats and wears them too, particularly in a desperate attempt to compare animal rights with human rights.
     
  12. EDIT: Oop, I thought that was playboy! <3
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2013
  13. Someboy

    Someboy Staff Member

    Thank you, but the point is bythebay needs to grow up and stop trolling through this thread.
     
  14. Ha. Is Gaga really such an insecure floppy-turd that she now writes open letters to fellow C-listers? Kelly was just casually making an observation in an interview that, despite all of Gaga's insincere preaching, she gets harassed the most by little monsters. It was quite clear she wasn't making some massive point and had nothing against Gaga herself. Then Gaga goes and writes a big homily about how she's a woman who "cares deeply about humanity" while nasty Kelly has taken a "less compassionate path". Unlike Gaga's stans, Kelly never wishes rape or suicide on anyone. And, despite being ridiculed for her appearance since she was a teen, has never resorted to the fakery of cosmetic procedure, as opposed to Lady Lip Injections, who is blatantly in no place to talk about bullying over appearances, "born this way" etc. And why not joke about jumped-up celebs for what they're wearing? The celebrity and showbiz industries are interrelated with the fashion industry, so they deserve it. The fashion industry is largely why celebrities get to those privileged positions. Plus, you'd think with all their success, they'd have better things to worry about than people gossiping about their free designer clothes. And Gaga, if you make yourself the Mommy of some kind of sad little cult, if you have built most of your career on anti-bullying and market yourself towards "freaks", you do have responsibility for how the extreme ones behave. It doesn't matter about the fact that all artists have deranged hardcore stans, or about vicious "Crihanna" fans or ignorant "Katy Kat's", Gaga is the only one who acts like she's the female hybrid of Jesus and Beethoven, and act like she's her fan's Messiah, yet proportionally more of her stans seem deranged than any other fan-base.

    All Gaga needed to do was tweet "come on now, the couple of monsters picking on Kelly are letting us all down! Be nice like the rest of us! Kindness and bravery at all times!" or something. No effort, and would have made her look good. She is so distanced from reality of her current status. She thinks she's the master of her own fame but has become completely caught up in her own hype and image. She appears to have no idea what she should be doing for her career any more. As people have said it's not a big controversy, to me it just shows how far up her own arse her head is, and how she's become seemingly incapable of managing her public image and separating fantasy from fact. 4 years ago I would never have guessed that smart, ironic Gaga of all people would fall harder for her own hype than any celebrity since Michael Jackson.

    Good for Queen Sharon for sticking up for her grown-up baby. Gaga got her mum involved first. (Wouldn't it be amazing if this degenerated into a "your mum!" fight?)

    Exactly. There are such double standards in people's attitude towards animal protectionists. (And I concur with the rest of your post.) Plus it's quite disgusting that no one is allowed to speak out against fur without being criticised or belittled as silly and irrelevant, when pro-fur propaganda is so utterly ingrained and mainstream that it's part of everyday life (no doubt someone will reply to this bitching about the tiny amount of brave anti-fur campaigners who get attention, without remembering that they are a repressed minority, and without thinking of things such as how powerful the fur industry is, how the laws, fashion and culture by nature will be forever in their favour, and how there is a pernicious attitude of bullying against anyone who supports animal welfare). It's really quite brave for Sharon to talk about a cause that is constantly degraded as "childish" and completely unimportant, and by its very nature will be forever out-of-fashion (the Peta-thing in the 90's was a lucky fluke). Unlike Gaga's cause, who knows that no one will ever be picked on for supporting anti-bullying. She only gets criticised because she doesn't actually do any good and people can see she's there for hero-worship, not to make a difference. Well she does want to make a difference, but only so she can be praised for it. Plus, she's quite the female dog herself.

    And please people, her sudden fur-haggery in the past year is entirely related to bullying. No one should criticise someone calling out a woman who spend most of her time lecturing about compassion, kindness, bravery, equality blah blah blah (and who once used anti-fur as an excuse for muppet "art") for promoting fur. She doesn't just normalise it by wearing it, she actively gets involved in producing it: http://www.kopenhagenfur.com/news/2012/september-2012/both-lady-gaga-fozzi-love-wearing-fur/

    Not only that, back in August, Gaga tweeted a link to that vile, slanderous "PETA kills animals" site (run buy Centre for Consumer Freedom, funded by cattle ranchers, KFC, steakhouses, and also alcohol and tobacco companies who test on animals) Because of this site, the majority of people now totally, and totally incorrectly, believe that PETA are animal rights "terrorists" who kill animals anyway.

    http://www.consumerdeception.com/index.asp

    http://www.citizensforethics.org/in...ainst-center-for-consumer-freedom-tax-exempt/

    http://www.redorbit.com/news/health..._to_smear_tactics_by_american_meat_institute/

    http://features.peta.org/petasaves/

    ^read these links if you won't believe me. So Gaga actually attacked a charity to justify her behaviour. People are inherently suspicious of anything to do with animal protectionism due to intense prejudice, and animal charities get the least funding of any type of charity (such as health, children's, research, etc) and don't any get lottery or Government funding either. So she has attacked the weakest, most defenceless, most unfairly criticised type of charity for her own ends, therefore bullying animal protectionists and deliberately keeping us (and the species we want to protect) down. How brave and rebellious of her! Thus people are fully entitled to mention Gaga's fur use whenever we fucking want without being sneered at or bitched at. How comes people can keep bringing up all of Gaga's other questionable behaviours, whether it's relevant or not to the point, but whenever someone mentions fur its "DEAD HORSE!!!!!!!11" and we're suddenly not permitted to speak? Such fucking double standards.

    Do I need to remind anyone of the links between animal abuse and abuse of other vulnerable individuals - ie women and children, and that the amount of land and resources used to feed the 50,000,000+ battery-farmed fur animals could feed tens of thousands of people? Or that, for example, the $200,000 she spent on a single fur coat could have funded the entire education of 10,336 Indian children? I suppose I have to apologise for daring to mention the absolute cruelty faced by fur-farmed animals, who spend their lives in small cages, become mentally ill and chew their own bodies, who are genitally electrocuted to death or have their necks broken, and some of whom are skinned alive, because the skin comes off more easily when the body is warm. That is what "compassionate" GandhiGa is actively promoting, to get herself respected by the fashion crowd, and probably also to get herself more attention. The fashion lot always prefer fur hags, because these individuals care about the fashion clique more than anyone else, and because they are willing to wear (thus advertise) a material with a high-profit margin that makes the fashion industry a lot of money. That is one of the reasons why fur will always be in fashion and why most celebrities will always wear fur - their popularity largely depends on the fashion set.

    The end point is: I dislike the snarky, demeaning attitude towards people who dare to speak up against the fur industry or for animal-welfare in general, and resent the fact that some individuals on this thread a have displayed that attitude. It's great that Sharon used Gaga's fur hypocrisy against her, and yes it was entirely relevant. I'm pre-empting criticism here: that this post will be sneered at for "preaching", but no one will stop and think that: fur adverts and celebrities wearing it are propaganda, the many articles against animal-welfare are preaching, that the fur industry is absolutely pernicious and spends a lot of their time and money persuading influential people and governments and destroying the reputations of campaigners in order to keep their business strong (which animal welfare campaigners would never have the power - or immorality - to do), and that the posters on this thread who, for example, denied that fur is related to tolerance and that it's "silly" to mention it, are not pulled up for "preaching" for stating their (uninformed) opinion as though it's fact. If the fur and fashion industries can spend millions on their own propaganda and win, the public can belittle the cause and discriminate against us, and other posters on this thread have already delegitmised the pro-welfare stance (and not get criticised), then I'm entitled remind people of these facts, and how it makes Sharon O correct and Lady Fur Hag a compassion-free hypocrite.

    *sigh* I only came on PJ again (after I went off pop music) during an idle moment, after hearing about this little spat to see the typical PJ humour about the three of them... *sigh*
     
  15. TeenIdle

    TeenIdle Guest

    And it's been annoying for how ever long people have felt the need to point out how "fake" it is or how "annoying" it is. You're dealing with people who call themselves "artists" and feel as though they're so deeply troubled that they need to express themselves in 10-minute long videos about French photography and burning cars. And people are shocked they feel as though they have some possible power, especially in their position, to maybe make a positive change to the world, even more so if it relates to an issue they've personally dealt with for years?

    I don't "get" the criticism of the "Messiah complex". It seems more like people being uncomfortable with their popstars being flawed or not caring enough about issues that affect people outside of themselves to even give them a thought or reflection. The woman's reportedly suffered from anorexia and bulimia for over ten years and she's apparently "pretentious" and sees herself as a "Christ figure" for apparently wanting to make the world a possibly more positive place regarding body image and self-esteem because she possibly knows first-hand how devastating such illnesses can be? What kind of pretentious from Pitchfork hell shit is that? I'm expecting to hear that she's blonde and makes pop music and is a woman too as reasons why she's some kind of Messiah figure.

    And I don't buy the "Well, she can't do X if she wants to be a pop star" or "She does X, so she can't do Y" arguments because it trivializes the extremes of not only the mental illness but the struggle to overcome it. So only people who have completely conquered their eating disorder or negative body image can speak on it? People who don't smoke weed or cigarettes or drink can speak on not hating one's body?

    Kelly Osbourne makes her money off of criticizing and demeaning people's appearances. It's obvious why someone dealing with eating disorders and negative body image would be sensitive to any criticism from someone like that.

    The thinking in this thread is so backwards, just like with the Born Brave announcement. "She's offering free therapy sessions with professionals and mental health sessions in a country where mental illness still holds a stigma and many with such illnesses simply don't have any kind of health coverage for it?! That witch/hypocrite/Messiah-complex whore/attention-seeker/Madonna-wannabe."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2013
  16. Re: Lady Gaga - ARTPOP (Album, 2013)

    If your piss is ever that yellow, I'd recommend drinking more water as a matter of urgency.
     
  17. TeenIdle, the next time you get on someone's jock for being "pretentious", I'm going to draw a mustache on your face with a permanent marker.
     
  18. Lady Gaga's fanbase is a toxic society full of stupidity and pettiness. But I agree with Gaga over Kelly's occupation and fully support her open letter. Kelly takes the piss out of how people look and how they dress. She was fat for years and recently attacked Christina for being fat; Gaga is just stating the obvious. The Mother Monster foolishness must stop - it is actually going to work against her at some point, I feel it. Insecure Monsters should really be their own cheerleaders - they don't some woman they see dancing on a screen to be their main source of support.

    And why does Sharon Osbourne need to get involved? It would be like my mother logging on here to attack everyone for disagreeing with me. It is stupid. She is stupid. They're all stupid.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2013
  19. RJF

    RJF

    Good Lord.

    Only a Queen! Have your faves ever inspired a thread as horrible? Yeah, didn't think so!
     
  20. Ha ha post something about Tulisa did ya..!

    Well I think Lady Gaga need just forget about it all why should she care when there are billions of people that love everything she does..!
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.