Jump to content

The Taylor Swift Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator

Please register in order to view this content

Taylor is literally standing, clapping and SINGING one of her songs, and looks really excited to see her.  Like come on guys.  This is ridiculous.   Look, if she intentionally was bitchy towards someone and did something truly malice, I would say so.  This was not it.  And Taylor is not a negative person.  I wouldn't follow someone so closely if they were because I don't like to have a lot of negativity in my life.  I gravitate towards Taylor because she is genuinely a positive person, and yes of course it helps that I love her music.  She would not have this huge of a fanbase if she was a negative person - parents would not be sharing her music with their daughters/sons, bringing them to concerts, bringing them to the movie theatres to see the concert movie.  They wouldn't expose their children to her. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 776
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

Look, I am not going to fight... but you basically think Taylor Swift is vapid, rude and self-absorbed, but isn't the person in your profile pic one of the most vapid, rude and self-absorbed people we've seen ever on television. A person you have defended thousands of times here in this board. Is this a double standard or am I stupid? I just am shocked at how shocked you are. That's all. I am not attacking you... just curious.  

Edited by OpportunisticSlut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Please register in order to view this content

I never claimed to not be entertained by mess. I have no delusions that she is some great upstanding citizens. And Ive never defended her treachery. Ive called her out on her lies and messiness. Ive always maintained that she is good tv and entertaining to watch in spite of all that. Context is everything. Watching a reality show (where one is expected to fight and get involved in drama in produce scenarios) vs a real life moment of respecting a living icon hit differently. I like Beyonce for example. I have different expectations for how she conducts herself vs a Real Housewife

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is your biggest mistake, in my opinion. Celebrities of any stature are not dolls on strings that could be moved by public's expectations. 

Just imagine what IF Taylor doesn't LIKE Celine Dion. I am sure this is not the case. But, Just IF. Does she have a RIGHT to not like her and not want to appreciate her? Does she? 

There are some people in my life that are GREAT, but I don't appreciate them, since I have a personal view of them. Again, this is not the case here, BUT EVEN IF IT WAS - Taylor doesn't have to live by your expectations.

What you are saying sounds like it comes from an old dictatorship rulebook. If a certain person A /Taylor for example/ doesn't do what you expect of them, when person B /Miley, as you mentioned her, yourself/ does it, then person A is a bad person that needs to be condemned and publicly shamed.

It's scary how powerful people think they are, when commenting about celebrities' characteristic and morale. If that was your neighbor or your friend, you wouldn't be so quick to write this, since they could pretty much sue you... But when it's Taylor Swift, it's a free arena to judge and condemn. I myself have done it too, but only when the said person is CLEARLY doing wrong and being a bad example. Which Taylor isn't.

In the end, it's easier to accept that some people have a different reality than yours. And don't expect anything from anyone. You are not their mother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

True, but I'm telling you as someone who follows Taylor's every move (LOL), she's not a negative person.   If Taylor constantly did the stuff like Nicki's doing, I wouldn't be such a huge fan of Taylor's.   And the size of Nicki's fanbase is nowhere near the size of Taylor's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

I forgot to ask, for those who were upset with Taylor "snubbing" Celine, did you just see the clip of her accepting the award or were you watching live?  If you were watching live and saw Taylor standing up, clapping, and singing to Celine's song, how could you see that and then think Taylor intentionally snubbed Celine?  It doesn't make sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Right.  It's okay to admit mistakes and say you're sorry about being wrong.  That's a good character trait to have.  There's always situations where people just want to be angry about the littlest things just so they can bring out the pitchforks to make themselves feel better, or justify their beliefs.  It's like context doesn't matter.  Truth doesn't matter.  Just "being right" matters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Absolutely. And I expected this reaction based on other observations I've made so far.

It's easy to bash Taylor, but it's harder to defend an argument and prove it. And people believe anything these days, just because someone wrote it somewhere. That's how bad reputation gets around, when people speculate about someone's character that they don't know. It's just interesting to me why Taylor does not get a break and she is judged by some HIGH-MEGA moral standard. She is a pop megastar. She is not Mother Theresa or Princess Diana. Even so, she has done nothing wrong to be accused of being vapid, rude or self-absorbed. These are strong words based on a 3 second clip. Without context. 

 

Edited by OpportunisticSlut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
    • Interesting.  It seems to allude to that statement that Warren Burton made around that time about some AW actors getting special treatment.  I wonder who was resentful about not getting to go. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy