h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've always wanted to be one of these super-human people who actually do 'live and let live', totally respect other people's rights to like whatever they want, be totally un-judgemental about other people, see things entirely from another's point of view, etc, etc

It's a lovely aspiration and I've no doubt many on here even manage it ... but I really really can't help looking down and feeling slightly superior in some way to people who slavishly follow celeb culture, buy celeb magazines, can name every a,b,and c-list celeb they see, know all about their lives (as reported by the celeb press, i.e. unlikely to be true), their ears prick up when any celeb news is on the TV.. they watch x-factor..

I know this make me seem unpleasant in some people's eyes, but is it understandable? Should I work on this and try not to judge these people unfairly? Is it just a harmless interest like any other?

I can let go of hate and refuse to bear grudges. But I will never rise above my dislike of people who think celebs are more important than things like politics or the environment.

You see, the thing is, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd *admit* to that (except perhaps for your stereotypical brain-dead 18 year-old party, drink and tan-obsessed bints). They often perhaps have an incline that politics and the environment *should* be more important, but their actions betray them when they sit glassy eyed at the news, then their heart quickens and they sit forward when a 'celeb' story comes on...

Yet, I know folk who are well educated and aware of the world around them, even the falseness of celeb culture, yet like moths to a flame, they get entranced by x-factor and the like. What's that all about? I don't get it.

I don't get it either... Is it just a shallowness in such peoples outlook on life? Or is that in itself a bit of a harsh judgement call? The rise to prominance of this celib thing, was one of the main reasons behidn my descision to never again own a TV, which the more time that passes seems to have been the right descision. I've never even seen X-factor, which is also something I am quite glad about Though I did hear a smidgin of someone from X-factor 'singing' as it was played on the Radio some time back... If that was representative of the quality of their 'singing' then I am even more baffled as to why anyone would listen/watch this stuff, they were so totally out of tune and had no redeaming quality to the quality of their voice

Don't we all secretly yearn to be performers and receive adulation?

Me neither.

Here's what I don't get - the idea that this is somehow a new phenomenon.

The only thing that's changed recently is the amount of information it's physically possible to disseminate about such people, and the disposable income available to the consumers of it.

There was "celeb culture" in the 20s. No doubt if I could be bothered learning about it I'd find there was celeb culture in Victorian times for particularly popular music hall stars or whatever. People have always obsessed and fantasised about the lives of people in the public eye.

All we've done is get richer and more connected - ALL of us - to the point that we now require more slebs to exist to fill our demand for information.

I don't look down on people who are "into it" any more than I look down on people who are "into", say, watching rugby union. Which is to say I do look down on them, as I look down on anyone whose primary hobby is concerned not with *doing* something, but rather concerned with something *other* people do, whether it be sport, acting, singing, dancing or flower arranging. There's nothing wrong with watching a bit of sport, or acting, or singing, or dancing, as long as your primary interaction with those activities is, er... active.

I don't think it's wrong to look down on people who dumbly consume, regardless of what it is they dumbly consume, if they're doing so *instead* of doing anything more active.

On the other hand, if their consumption is just an adjunct to active participation in either the same thing or something else (avid runner who reads Heat magazine while they cool off, say), then hey, where's the harm?

The only possible argument against it is the tendency towards privacy invasion. If we could avoid that, I'd have no problem with the Heat/OK/Hello culture at all.

>>Is it just a harmless interest like any other? I've recently asked whether it might be harmful to the celebrities themselves. http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=8285814

Indeed. Gladiators were the X-Factor contestants of the Roman Empire.

As to "schleb culture", you can understand the attraction. Politics is, for the majority, deadly dull, boring and populated by ugly, shouty people. The evening news is a litany of doom & gloom, the "serious" papers are all moaning & complaining. Whereas the celebrity lifestyle is the opposite of that - seemingly fun and colourful.

Life for most consists of 15hrs down t'pit milking whippets, standing on t'picket line with a bunch of torn-faced trouts or sitting in an office trying to resist the temptation to staple a phone book to the boss's head. Faced with a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals sneering at them or hysterical activists berating them, I can't blame folk for going home, shutting the door on reality and settling down to watch Corrie.

Mr D:

>>But I will never rise above my dislike of people who think celebs are more important than things like politics or the environment.

Are you thinking of anyone in particular, or are we talking People in general? (Sometimes known as 'These People')

'I watch football...but it's obviously not as important as politics or the environment'

'I like Heavy Metal...but it's obviously not as important as politics or the environment'

'I'm interested in The English Civil war...but it's obviously not as important as politics or the environment'

'I sometimes pick up a copy of OK magazine...but it's obviously not as important as politics or the environment'

Could the last one be possible?

swl:

Don't diss Corrie! Have you seen it? Great acting and writing...we're not talking Emmerdale or Eastenders here!

I'm not going to try and dissect why swl post has me , only that it has, genuinely swl,

and mental image the stapling of phonebooks on to heads does really appeal right now, although I'd use blutac and make it role playing exercise

where was I, celebs, no, I don't judge,

celeb culture, the sellling of celeb, more judgey

Ach, maybe I should just accept that I *am* judgemental... very. And should stop trying to live up to this 'happy-clappy, everyone's beautiful' ideal. One of the joys of getting older; you start to accept those characteristics which you can't (easily) change.

This should probably be in the other thread, but isn't one of the disturbing things about the cleb culture the sexism?

Women have to be:

Be able to balance on 6" heels - all the better to fall over in
Have big doey eyes - all the better to adore you with
Have bee-stung lips - all the better to suck you with
And of course, be thin to the point if eating disorders and beyond though a "baby-bump" is ok; but having an ounce of slack so much as half an hour after delivering a baby isn't.

It's the fatuity of what is demanded from women that is depressing. Get an education, get a job, get a credit card, get a new wardrobe in the latest on trend faux-fur and body-con fabrics. And if you've a spare ounce of imaginary flesh, then you should be depressed and full of self-loathing because you are a worthless, fugly and risible.

If women cannot be kept barefoot and pregnant or legally descriminated against, then let's make them *want* to be vacuuous, lacking in confidence and obsessed with trivialities.

It's certainly notable that when there are photos of WAGs on the town, they tend to look like clones of each other; but that might just be because footballers have a very narrow taste in women, perhaps seeing them more as trophies than as people.

@Blue:

What I'm distressed at is the re-branding of Feminism as The Right To Wear Spiky Shoes. Well, yes - that should be a right. But it shouldn't be the only choice.

@Edward: Are you paraphrasing me or putting a counter-point?

There are some aspects of culture that are contempatable

The way it promotes image and appearance over substance is harmful

The way it is used as a marketing tool to promote rampant consumerism

The way it gives unrealistic expectations to many young people who believe they can become famous and wealthy without any effort or apptitude

The way people who make large amounts of money from doing something they enjoy and then take even more for promoting unhealthy products to a natrion of obese children and promoting sweatshop produced clothing are dfescribed as heroes while the truely heroic are largely ignored.

Image and appearance are everything.

In the words of Dogbert: "Inner beauty is irrelevant. It's what's outside that counts." To which Dilbert replied "I never knew you were such a philosopher." To which Dogbert, brilliantly, responded - "EXACTLY!".

Blue:

>>Are you paraphrasing me or putting a counter-point?

Neither. You made what I saw as a Feminist point. There was no need to paraphrase - you put it well. I was building on it with one of my own.

If you were genuinely and deeply, but not just superficially looking down on them you'd be calling then slebs...