Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5651
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Angua » Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:49 am UTC

This seems like such a weird idea. From the article it doesn't sound like there's any evidence of government officials being involved, but apparently the bill allows for suing for 'suspected involvement'? Where is this court case going to take place? How will they even get the defendants to turn up? I must confess I have only heard about this through here, so I'm hoping there's more and it's not as ridiculous as it sounds.

Also, I'd like to see people start suing the US government. Could get interesting.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Chen » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:43 am UTC

Is there a link to said article? Or did a post get deleted or something?

Mutex
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Mutex » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:50 am UTC


User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5651
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Angua » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:25 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Is there a link to said article? Or did a post get deleted or something?

Sorry, was pretty tired this morning, have editted in the one I saw.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4774
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby HES » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:26 pm UTC

BBC wrote:"If we're not funding terrorist organisations and killing people, then we don't have anything to worry about," she said.

She seems to forget that the US funds rebel groups deemed terrorists by certain governments, and routinely kills people (including civilians) through drone strikes.
He/Him/His Image

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Chen » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:43 pm UTC

HES wrote:
BBC wrote:"If we're not funding terrorist organisations and killing people, then we don't have anything to worry about," she said.

She seems to forget that the US funds rebel groups deemed terrorists by certain governments, and routinely kills people (including civilians) through drone strikes.


Her quote is way off base anyways. Just because the US only broke the sovereign immunity "rules" with the terrorism caveat, doesn't mean other countries need to reciprocate in that way.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8733
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:20 pm UTC

The thing about criticism of US foreign policy is that it's usually done by wide-eyed idealists who don't understand just how ruthless you must be to survive in the international world. That said, the moral high ground does have a few tactical advantages, the biggest being that your agents are less likely to have attacks of conscience and your enemies' agents are more likely to defect. Because it turns out even "evil" people have a conscience. That's actually how we did get an inside man in Al Qaeda; one of their bombers had an attack of conscience when his bombs blew up a hotel and killed innocent Muslims, but his superiors were flippant about it saying that "oh well, this Hadith says that if the Mongols are using muslims as human shields, you can still shoot arrows at them because it's life or death". The bomber wasn't convinced, and defected. But he wouldn't have defected if he thought that the US was far worse than that.

Which brings up the question of the role of the media, in that as much as good journalism keeps governments honest, constantly "exposing" the US makes it look far worse than actual tyrannies that are smart enough to make nosy journalists "disappear".

cphite
Posts: 1155
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby cphite » Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:53 pm UTC

Angua wrote:This seems like such a weird idea. From the article it doesn't sound like there's any evidence of government officials being involved, but apparently the bill allows for suing for 'suspected involvement'? Where is this court case going to take place? How will they even get the defendants to turn up? I must confess I have only heard about this through here, so I'm hoping there's more and it's not as ridiculous as it sounds.

Also, I'd like to see people start suing the US government. Could get interesting.


It's basically a feel-good thing... even if someone were to successfully sue the Saudi government, they'd never see a dime of any awarded damages, because it's unenforceable. So basically the person suing might get some closure in that they can say that yeah a court agreed that the Saudi's were responsible - but they're not going to get any money.

Likewise, any foreign national who sues the US government might get some personal satisfaction; but there would be no obligation to pay them anything.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby SDK » Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:55 pm UTC

So why on Earth would you even allow it? Assuming anyone actually goes through with wasting their own money on lawyers, etc, it's a huge waste of money for the American justice system as well.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8733
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:00 pm UTC

What makes you think the people won't see a dime? While Saudi Arabia itself would never pay up, the country has various assets in the US, and those could be seized to pay their debts. The result being a MASSIVE sell-off of foreign-owned assets in the US, a massive plunge in the dollar and then a sell off of the US debt which causes the borrowing interest rate to skyrocket and causes international chaos and a global recession that puts the 2007 one to shame. That's kind of why Obama opposes it.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3755
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Dauric » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:01 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Likewise, any foreign national who sues the US government might get some personal satisfaction; but there would be no obligation to pay them anything.


Ehhh... not quite.

The differentiating factor here is how much of a presence the government being sued has in the suing country. Most countries have some amount of assets in other countries, things like bonds or assets of one sort or another. A country that has assets in it can freeze those assets and prevent access to them (possibly prevent interest from being paid on those assets, but i'm not entire sure if that's actually doable).

The U.S. is especially vulnerable to this however as we have military assets in a lot of places. Now the hosting country is unlikely to try to say "capture" those assets (as that would be monumentally stupid thing to do), but they could demand greater "rent" on the territories where our bases are at, or increase restrictions on military personnel who go off-base, or even go so far as to revoke our privileges to operate from their territory.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8733
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:07 pm UTC

Many of those bases are on 99 year leases. That's why we have 3 bases in Cuba...

cphite
Posts: 1155
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby cphite » Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:14 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:What makes you think the people won't see a dime? While Saudi Arabia itself would never pay up, the country has various assets in the US, and those could be seized to pay their debts. The result being a MASSIVE sell-off of foreign-owned assets in the US, a massive plunge in the dollar and then a sell off of the US debt which causes the borrowing interest rate to skyrocket and causes international chaos and a global recession that puts the 2007 one to shame. That's kind of why Obama opposes it.


None of that is realistically going to happen over a lawsuit filed by a private individual. The US isn't going to seize the assets of another sovereign state over a civil case; nor vice versa.

cphite
Posts: 1155
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby cphite » Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:30 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
cphite wrote:Likewise, any foreign national who sues the US government might get some personal satisfaction; but there would be no obligation to pay them anything.


Ehhh... not quite.

The differentiating factor here is how much of a presence the government being sued has in the suing country. Most countries have some amount of assets in other countries, things like bonds or assets of one sort or another. A country that has assets in it can freeze those assets and prevent access to them (possibly prevent interest from being paid on those assets, but i'm not entire sure if that's actually doable).


Sure, any govern could freeze or even seize the assets of another nation for any reason. The question is, do you actually believe that they're going to do that, realistically, over a lawsuit filed by a private individual?

The U.S. is especially vulnerable to this however as we have military assets in a lot of places. Now the hosting country is unlikely to try to say "capture" those assets (as that would be monumentally stupid thing to do), but they could demand greater "rent" on the territories where our bases are at, or increase restrictions on military personnel who go off-base, or even go so far as to revoke our privileges to operate from their territory.


The agreements you're referring to are generally made out for very long periods of time, and their terms survive disagreements that are much, much greater than any lawsuit. We have maintained bases in Cuba for decades, for example, despite major political disagreements and a fifty year trade embargo. We maintain bases in countries that we actively bomb. They aren't going to up the rent because someone wins a civil case.

This whole thing is a feel-good political farce. Obama opposed it because, as POTUS, he ultimately has to deal with the diplomatic bullshit that it creates. Congress passed it because very few of them wanted to be seen as being opposed to 9/11 victims getting justice, even when said "justice" is an illusion.

In short, it's much ado about nothing.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Djehutynakht » Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:32 am UTC

SDK wrote:So why on Earth would you even allow it? Assuming anyone actually goes through with wasting their own money on lawyers, etc, it's a huge waste of money for the American justice system as well.



As mentioned, because it looks really, really, really politically bad to oppose a bill that seeks justice and support for 9/11 victims and their families. Especially in an election year. Which is why Obama couldn't wrangle enough democrats to defeat the override, like with any other veto (unless he had a reason to let the override happen, but that's dubious).

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Liri » Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:23 pm UTC

Obama probably doesn't care too much that it was overridden, he may have even wanted it. As head of state, he had to be diplomatic.

Note that Sanders and Kaine were the two abstentions.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby ahammel » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:31 pm UTC

To summarise:

1. Congress passes bill
2. Obama vetoes bill
3. Congress overrides veto
4. Congress decides bill is bad after all...
5. ...and the fact that they passed it is somehow Obama's fault
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby SDK » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:45 pm UTC

"Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were but nobody had really focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships, and I think it was just a ball dropped."

If I and a million other random readers can immediately identify majors issues with this, clearly there is something wrong with the people currently being put into power. The United States is a great nation. You guys don't deserve this shitty leadership.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5651
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Angua » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:18 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:To summarise:

1. Congress passes bill
2. Obama vetoes bill
3. Congress overrides veto
4. Congress decides bill is bad after all...
5. ...and the fact that they passed it is somehow Obama's fault

Oh, FFS.

Seriously, do these people not think?
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby ahammel » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:32 pm UTC

Angua wrote:
ahammel wrote:To summarise:

1. Congress passes bill
2. Obama vetoes bill
3. Congress overrides veto
4. Congress decides bill is bad after all...
5. ...and the fact that they passed it is somehow Obama's fault

Oh, FFS.

Seriously, do these people not think?
If they don't it's Obama's fault for failing to clearly communicate the consequences of not thinking. Thanks, Obama.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Liri » Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:01 pm UTC

This should be moved to the humorous news thread at this point. It's infuriating yet hilarious.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

RCT Bob
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:05 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby RCT Bob » Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:02 pm UTC

"Corker said last week the bill only passed the Senate on a voice vote the first time around because members didn’t think the House would take it up. But the House sent it to the president’s desk."

Seriously what is wrong with these people? The fact that these kinds of bullshit excuses are actually accepted by press is ludicrous

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby PeteP » Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:18 pm UTC

That is one of the negative aspects of democracy (or democracy with term limits at least, without term limits has its own problems) politicians sometimes vote for optics even if they think it is a bad (or good when they vote against it) idea.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5651
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Angua » Sun Oct 09, 2016 9:50 am UTC

'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

jewish_scientist
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby jewish_scientist » Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:49 pm UTC

SDK wrote:The United States is a great nation. You guys don't deserve this shitty leadership.

That is really nice of you to say. However, I think that this graph is all the evidence I need to prove that we do deserve explain why we have such horrible leaders.
Last edited by jewish_scientist on Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:00 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7502
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Zohar » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:03 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:
SDK wrote:The United States is a great nation. You guys don't deserve this shitty leadership.

That is really nice of you to say. However, I think that this graph is all the evidence I need to prove that we do deserve such horrible leaders.

That's a really shitty graph. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Kim Kardashian. Popular culture always existed, and always will, and it's wrong to shame people for liking something. Your literary elitism is also completely irrelevant, see same point re: popular culture. The presidential election, while important, is sporadic, and not relevant to many people who can't vote (including everyone under 18 who uses the internet). Also take into consideration all the old people who are very invested in the election but don't use google for their data. Finally, consider that if I want to look for something regarding news or the election, I go straight to NY Times, or 538, etc. - I don't use google, and I doubt many others do, either. At best, they google the name of a news website they appreciate. The same considerations are true for cancer and physics, but you have to add in the consideration that it's much easier to learn and understand Kim Kardashian's life than the latest news regarding cancer and physics, and a lot more research articles discuss those topics than the Kardashians.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby ahammel » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:58 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:
SDK wrote:The United States is a great nation. You guys don't deserve this shitty leadership.

That is really nice of you to say. However, I think that this graph is all the evidence I need to prove that we do deserve such horrible leaders.

Do you imagine that Americans are unique in being interested in celebrities?

And yeah, what Zohar said.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Chen » Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:58 pm UTC

Yeah and who just types "physics" or "cancer" into Google when they're looking for something regarding those? Presumably they'd look up the exact topic they wanted to get information on.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby SDK » Fri Oct 14, 2016 3:06 pm UTC

Indeed, even those people entertained by Kim Kardashian deserve leaders who are able to consider consequences.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

jewish_scientist
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby jewish_scientist » Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:55 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Zohar wrote:There's absolutely nothing wrong with Kim Kardashian. Popular culture always existed, and always will, and it's wrong to shame people for liking something. Your literary elitism is also completely irrelevant, see same point re: popular culture.

Kim Kardashian is the best example I could think of someone who is 'famous for being famous'. The majority of her Wikipedia page is about her personal life, with her acting career and fashion designs being mentioned in passing. Compare this to the entry for Sarah Jessica Parker. Kim Kardashian does not contribute to society and has preformed no notable feats. She is a part of pop culture because she feeds the desire for drama and scandal that saturates society. Even though I do not care for sportball, I understand why Peyton Manning is a celebrity and have no objections to people's interest in him because he is preforming actions that require great strength and skill. The same logic applies to Jon Stewart, Dan Reynolds and Elon Musk. It is specifically Kim Kardashian and people like her that I have a problem with.

The presidential election, while important, is sporadic, and not relevant to many people who can't vote (including everyone under 18 who uses the internet). Also take into consideration all the old people who are very invested in the election but don't use google for their data.

You are correct.

Finally, consider that if I want to look for something regarding news or the election, I go straight to NY Times, or 538, etc. - I don't use google, and I doubt many others do, either. At best, they google the name of a news website they appreciate. The same considerations are true for cancer and physics...

I could say the same for Kim Kardashian; people go directly to TMZ rather than do a Google search.


ahammel wrote:Do you imagine that Americans are unique in being interested in celebrities?

So people outside of the US are interesting in these types of celebrities, then their political leaders should be also be bad at their jobs.

Chen wrote:Yeah and who just types "physics" or "cancer" into Google when they're looking for something regarding those? Presumably they'd look up the exact topic they wanted to get information on.

Something really cool is that Google Trends can search for specific terms or general topics.

SDK wrote:Indeed, even those people entertained by Kim Kardashian deserve leaders who are able to consider consequences.

You are right, so I edited my post.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7502
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Zohar » Fri Oct 14, 2016 7:01 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:It is specifically Kim Kardashian and people like her that I have a problem with.

Well, first, she does contribute to culture - she produces content that people are interested in and entertained by.

Second, why? Seriously, what bothers you so much about her? That she's just famous for no particular reason? Why is that bad?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8733
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:13 pm UTC

I think it has to do with a sense of "justice" in the world. People that become rich and famous for producing great works of art or literature or inventing something new, such as The Beetles, JK Rowling or Bill Gates, mesh well with the idea that hard work and talent should pay off, making us feel that the world is in at least some way fair. People that become rich and famous for simply existing or for accident of birth without apparently any talent or hard work, on the other hand, make us angry for the same reason.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7502
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Zohar » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:53 pm UTC

It is hard for me to be upset at her (or any other celebrity) for trying to make the most of their situations. When someone's video goes viral, is that person incredibly talented? Not necessarily. Like, are we hating Ken Bones because people know his name? If I have an amazing novel in my desk drawer that I wrote but isn't published, do I hate JK Rowling? I find it strange and futile to spend energy on hate.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Liri » Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:09 pm UTC

Yeah. It isn't taking any value away from my own life, monetary or otherwise. If I so choose, the only exposure I'll have to someone like her is on the cover of tabloid magazines at a grocery store.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:36 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:It is hard for me to be upset at her (or any other celebrity) for trying to make the most of their situations. When someone's video goes viral, is that person incredibly talented? Not necessarily. Like, are we hating Ken Bones because people know his name? If I have an amazing novel in my desk drawer that I wrote but isn't published, do I hate JK Rowling? I find it strange and futile to spend energy on hate.


And yet, that latter thing happens too, puzzling as it is. Many people will describe a person who did something sort of like an idea they had once, and did nothing with, as "stealing their idea". Even if there is no connection whatsoever between the two people. They are jealous of success, and feel entitled to it, somehow, despite not actually doing the thing.

It's odd.

jewish_scientist
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby jewish_scientist » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:48 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:It is specifically Kim Kardashian and people like her that I have a problem with.

Well, first, she does contribute to culture - she produces content that people are interested in and entertained by.

Second, why? Seriously, what bothers you so much about her? That she's just famous for no particular reason? Why is that bad?

I am sorry for not posting sooner. I am having trouble thinking of a response to these two statements. I have not responded to the first because I am not sure what it means and cannot think of a way to tell you why without sounding like a complete jerk. The second is giving me trouble because I cannot think of a definition of 'famous for being famous' that includes Kim Kardashian and excludes hypothetical people I would have no problems with.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7502
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby Zohar » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:00 pm UTC

Well, you wrote she doesn't contribute to society - I'm wondering what you think that means. I would argue she does, in the way I think of the word at least - she creates content people are interested in, people discuss stories revolving her, she has products that are associated with her that people consume. I may not like the contributions she does (though to be honest, I don't know much about them), but she definitely does that sort of stuff.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby PeteP » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:26 pm UTC

It is not like soap operas are much different they are looking at a over dramatic version of some peoples lives. The Kardashians are presumably not as dramatic and actually real but the entertainment in derived in a similar way. Yet while I see people looking down on soaps I don't see the hand wringing about people watching them that occurs with the Kardashians.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8733
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Americans can now sue the Saudi gvm for 9/11?

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:42 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:
Zohar wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:It is specifically Kim Kardashian and people like her that I have a problem with.

Well, first, she does contribute to culture - she produces content that people are interested in and entertained by.

Second, why? Seriously, what bothers you so much about her? That she's just famous for no particular reason? Why is that bad?

I am sorry for not posting sooner. I am having trouble thinking of a response to these two statements. I have not responded to the first because I am not sure what it means and cannot think of a way to tell you why without sounding like a complete jerk. The second is giving me trouble because I cannot think of a definition of 'famous for being famous' that includes Kim Kardashian and excludes hypothetical people I would have no problems with.


Can you name one 'famous for being famous' person in that latter group?

Also, the Wikipedia entry on "Famous for being Famous" includes people I have never heard of before. Except, it's ruined for me, but for you there's still time. It is uplifting to know that decades later, no one will give a shit about the 'famous for being famous' people.

Spoiler:
Who here under 40 has ever heard of Angelyne?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sardia and 28 guests