|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"The Humiliation of Bad Singers"
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-21-05, 01:03 PM (EST)
 
  |
|
1. "RE: The Humiliation of Bad Singers" |
I've often wondered as we watch these horrible singers go off in tears, what IDIOTS told them that they could sing in the first place??? Wouldn't is be more loving to, rather than support their decision to try out for AI, tell them that no they AREN'T that good, and spare them the public national humilitation? Even if you had to go upside their thick heads to convince them?
  
Handcrafted by Rolly - ain't it cool!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
Angelfood 2114 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Roller Coaster Inaugurator"
|
01-21-05, 01:24 PM (EST)
|
|
2. "RE: The Humiliation of Bad Singers" |
First off, I find it amazing that most of these kids claim that they've only performed for family and friends. No where else? I guess they've never had the time, effort or opportunity to sing a few bars for a voice teacher, HS choir leader, etc. And anyways, they don't believe professionals, as the professionals couldn't possibly right, cuz that would make their family and friends wrong, and that is too much for them to believe that their fam & friends either:
1. Have bad taste, judgment, or an ear for music.
2. Lie. to avoid hurt feelings.and there was a time when, before the all-public access of AI, you could go ahead and lie to your tone-deaf friends, as there was slim chance that they would actually seek out and find the TRUTH from professionals. At least Mary Roach analyzed this argument of judges vs. friends and pondered the truth of it. Maybe having many voices means that at least some are self-aware, open-minded and non-self-delusional. I vote for more candidates with multiple voices!! and I agree somewhat with Bacon, in that many of them deserve to have a notch taken off their self-esteem, as it is so high, and many of the "confident" ones still hold their pride and self-delusion above reality. There are so many auditioners who are: Falsely confident, too vain, and totally disrespectful. So, I love to see them put in their place. GO SIMON!! But there are a few humble innocents out there (like Willy Hung and the DC guy recently off alcohol), and those are sad but heartwarming. I think in most of those cases, the judges have been much easier.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
 |
|
|
ginger 22512 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-21-05, 06:17 PM (EST)
|
|
4. "RE: The Humiliation of Bad Singers" |
Generally I enjoy savoring the juicy sadistic goodness that is making fun of humiliated AI contestants. On the other hand, I felt really really sorry for the guy who just froze up on the first night, who left weeping. Every now and then I feel I'm pulling wings off of televised flies.And the Willie Hungs are sad, despite the fame/bucks they may glean, because they have their incorrect belief in their talent bolstered. Agree about the friends and families. SOMEONE should intercept some of these folks. 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angelfood 2114 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Roller Coaster Inaugurator"
|
01-22-05, 11:16 AM (EST)
|
|
9. "The pre-judges" |
LAST EDITED ON 01-22-05 AT 11:16 AM (EST)Yes, I totally agree with that part, my DH is always asking, why no one ever curses the producers for falsely sending them in there, or they don't say "The producers told me I was good.", not that it would make the cut of editing, imho. It's hard. I wish that they would have the pre-judged Bad Auditions receive their rejection There, before it gets to the Judges, and that could be aired on tv. But then the auditioners probably wouldn't put much stock into what the pre-judges say. So, that's why I mentioned the Arrogant and the Innocent, tho there are probably some in-betweens. It does bother me when they make fun of the innocents, like Adam & Dirk - but it also seems that the judges are kinder, and Ryan & producers are meaner, this season.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
consise10 399 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
01-28-05, 01:59 AM (EST)
|
|
64. "RE: The pre-judges" |
How are you Angelfood? It suprises me that Ryan Seacrest the compare is as you put it 'meaner'.On our Australian Idol we had a similar scenario with both compares playing a real 'dirty 'role.Infact our second and most current winner,Casey Donovan, had a real problem with conversing in general, but especially with them,as they cottoned on to it and would always make her feel so uncomfortable by asking the most ridiculous of questions which would put her on the spot. My thinking was since that scenario,over here, that these compares must think they are pretty popular,in their own heads.Especially one over here inparticular, who was crowned "Australias most sexiest eligible batchelor",(in my view he looked like the scarecrow from the wizard of Oz).
Why must they be so mean in their role? That really bothers me.What do you think Angelfood?
By the way did you get my PM early in January?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
dramamama 263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
01-22-05, 08:38 AM (EST)
|
|
8. "RE: The Humiliation of Bad Singers" |
Miller is a respected figure in the field of child psychology. It's a short book. If you're a teacher, you should check it out: don't judge it by my poor AI representation of it. As for teacher's power over and effect upon children, it can be quite profound and damaging, particularly in the early years. The one thing a lot of teachers get skilled at is shaming children. It's often the only method they are aware of for making children behave, now that they can't beat 'em with sticks or lock 'em in closets. The fear of public speaking isn't caused by insufficient practice; this is a phenomenon much studied. I know a number of people who are performers (public speakers, lecturers, singers, comics, musicians) and they all talk about the great and nearly disabling anxiety that precedes and accompanies their entry on stage. What gets them through is that they are DAWs, just like the AI auditioners. Their fear? is people responding to them as if they are dishing up a load of crap  No amount of practice makes palatable the cruelty of others.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
dramamama 263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
01-22-05, 11:45 PM (EST)
|
|
13. "RE: The Humiliation of Bad Singers" |
I didn't choose the sig "dramamama" for nothing. I could have chosen "hyperbole" but it doesn't rhyme. Still trying to get a feel for the kinds of rhetorical strategies that enable discussion of things that I find interesting, without grinding them into pedantic dust. But I certainly could have done better than "nearly disabling anxiety." By nearly disabling anxiety I should have written about reactions that are greater than a frisson of feeling--a butterfly--but less than paralysis: sleeplessness, nausea, vomiting, cold sweats, shaking, pacing. I've been in situations where performers have had to seriously dope up to go on: it depends on the stakes, the moment in their careers, how high strung they are--and in my experience performers tend to be high strung. That's just my experience--no stats, no studies, no nothing but seeing and dealing with pre-performance jitters and dramas, observing the objects and rituals and drugs some performers some of the time sometimes use to sometimes calm themselves But even if most performers suffer only a butterfly or two, as in your experience, this doesn't obviate the point I was making: that fear of public performance is not caused by insufficient practice. The most practiced performers have butterflies--fear--of public performing. Practice helps to *alleviate* the fear that you're going to tank, but the fear is about how people will act and judge you if you tank and as any performer knows, practice does not guarantee that you will kill. In fact, too much practice can make you tank, a thought that also sets off performance anxiety. I think that performers (and maybe DAWs) are driven by the hope that Eros will be in the audience, but the reality is far greater than Thanatos is out there in the dark, getting ready to pounce. For sure Thanatos is the more easily conjured and incited in a performance space. On a side note: I read somewhere, some time ago, that even experienced performers (I believe the article was focused on dancers) function at about 75% of their actual ability due to performance anxiety. And there was the other study, that people fear public speaking more than they do death (now there's a case where practice makes perfect).
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
consise10 399 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
01-23-05, 05:37 AM (EST)
|
|
16. "RE: The Humiliation of Bad Singers" |
Do you mean 'Death' when you refer to 'Thanatos' dramamama?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
dramamama 263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
01-23-05, 10:16 AM (EST)
|
|
17. "RE: The Humiliation of Bad Singers" |
yes, death (the god) and Freud's theory of the drives, which he borrowed from them...
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
RollDdice 5949 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-23-05, 01:54 PM (EST)
|
|
19. "Performance Anxiety" |
dramamama -Perhaps I should lighten up as well. My experience refers to executives and others who need to give presentations. True, the size of the audience and the importance of the event can be factors, but those who want to be successful take steps to minimize the anxiety. (Practice, previewing the venue, rehearsing with a smaller crowd, relaxation exercises, etc.) I've found that people who love what they do and are good at it find that the fear (AKA: performance energy) settles down and at some point they enjoy their moment in the spotlight. In other words, when you get in your groove you forget about the judgments of others, and your butterflies fly in formation. (Admittedly, that's more difficult to do in a 3 minute American Idol audition. That's part of the reason they talk to the person first - to give them a chance to settle down.) Pre-performance anxiety is one thing, but ask the same performer immediately after the event if they don't have feelings of excitement and well-being flowing through their body.
If they are still anxious and negative? Forget doping; get the hook. Finally, I don't know much about Eros or Thanatos. When I am presenting, I concentrate on Stavros. He's my bookie and I need to do well in order to pay off my debts from the track.
 
I'm thinking of screaming, "You're going to Hollywood, dawg!" at my clients instead of employing my more traditional positive critique.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
dramamama 263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
01-22-05, 11:56 PM (EST)
|
|
14. "RE: Prevailing?" |
Isn't this the sort of conversation one is supposed to have on OT or in a PM or whatever?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
dramamama 263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
01-23-05, 07:24 PM (EST)
|
|
21. "RE: Prevailing?" |
LAST EDITED ON 01-23-05 AT 07:29 PM (EST)I do think Miller is brilliant and, and as I've said before, don't let my reductive post guide your attitude toward her work. She is actually focusing more upon parents than teachers, btw. (Maybe I can now get the wrath of all parents to hail down on me). But do let me say I too respect the work *some* teachers do. I am not, however, as ready to exclaim that all teachers are superheroes. As a child, and as a parent, and as a teacher, my experience has been that one encounters a few extraordinary teachers as well as some who are variously indifferent, apathetic, damaged, cynical, bullying, or simply burned out teachers, and then those who fall between these two: the average person doing her or his job and getting through the day intact. But the truly heroic in my experience are not the majority, and by heroic I mean those underpaid brilliant dedicated people who work long hours, have tremendous compassion and insight, are brimming over with intellectual curiosity that ignites the same in their students, have taken the trouble to develop genuine mastery of the ideas and work at hand, and are inspiring and committed in every way to the children entrusted to their care and guidance. Now, back to Miller: Her basic position is that children are sensitive human beings and that we exploit their sensitivity as a means to making them behave. Rather like Foucault (only well preceding him) she argues that disembodied techniques of discipline although apparently benign and acceptable damage all of us, witness the way we get excited and cruel when we see people who aren't properly ashamed of themselves. Another way of thinking about this is that a teacher's reprimand generally depends for its force, its effectiveness, on engendering anything from mild to intense shame in the child. It's a socializing technique that singles out a child and his behavior, makes him feel different from others and from what is expected, and thus ashamed of himself. To avoid further shaming, the child conforms. If he is unmoved by this strategy, the teacher is likely to up the stakes. This technique is used in adult culture, as well. It's as ubiquitous and as insidious as the much loved "time out" (which does beat the alternative, if the alternative is beating). I'm not say that teachers (or parents) who use this technique are bad teachers or bad people. In fact, I think we use them often with the best or not the worst of intentions because it does seem benign and socially acceptable way of getting children to behave.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
consise10 399 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
01-24-05, 04:42 AM (EST)
|
|
23. "RE: Prevailing?" |
Hello dramamama.I have been following your posts with careful interest and always look forward to reading your insightful comments.You show great knowledge and seem to speak at times from experience.Some where I have read you reveal that you are or have been a teacher.To that,I say congratulations,for taking on the youth of this world.Teaching carries with it a great sense of responsibility in delivering an education to pupils who will shape,create and hopefully change our future for the better. Dramamama,the comments I am going to make to you are ones of my mere opinion only.I suggest that you have spoken the way you have and said the things you have because of a sneaking suspiscion that some of these posters are in the teaching profession.These topics are perhaps some of your favourite and you want to create a scenario for debate-but unwittingly you have created some conflict,which is also of great interest to you.People have been offended by some of your statements,in particular,the one about teachers and their general style of discipline.I assume your motive is to get teachers to think in a way which is outside their 'norm'-by challenging their methods,particularly disciplinary.If I am wrong in my assumptions please feel free to correct me dramamama. My question to you is what sort of a teacher are you or were you? As I have said, I do find your posts interesting and will be anxiously waiting for a reply on this one dramamama.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
dramamama 263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
01-24-05, 10:27 AM (EST)
|
|
28. "RE: Prevailing?" |
Consise, I have been invariably struck by the combined power and gentleness of your insights. You frame your thoughts and positions with such humility that I sometimes wonder if other posters appreciate how smart your posts always are. And I'm not just saying that becaue of your kind words here, though I do appreciate them: thanks You are spot on about the nature of my posts, though I should add that I'm not playing devil's advocate (the devil doesn't need any advocates, in my experience). I am, however, putting my strongest feelings and positions to the test of a diverse and thoughtful (if now and again painfully antagonistic) set of posters. What I most like about this board is how so many thoughtful people of different ages, backgrounds, and political positions, career paths and even nations, participate. And I've come to see that what brings us together is a shared interest in reality or lack thereof: that's an invaluable winnowing process if you want to puzzle out different points of view. I am enjoying the relatively anonymity of this board; I like having a space where, within the framework of the guidelines, I don't have to censor or edit my views or hold hands or bolster egos or fear I'll set off a chain of anxiety, which happens when one speaks freely in most lines of work (though let me quickly add, mainly not true in the case of forest rangers, and so I hesitate to talk too much about my credentials or career path. I don't want to be read as the "teacher" or the "washer of cars." I also don't want anyone to feel as if they will insult me if they critique car washing or teaching or whatever job title I currently bear. I'd rather hear full force why someone has issues with my position or my current line of work rather than have someone tiptoe around, and I hope others on the board feel generally the same. But once you know what each person does and who they are, you are put in an increasingly more constricted position in relation to them, as with coworkers and friends (for example, I wouldn't *quite* so bluntly announce to my teacher and professor friends that I think they should reconsider humiliating their students... But I do, in the milder, necessarily more informed fashion one uses with those whom one knows well, try to insinuate this view: just not in five paragraphs of an evening. And by the way: thanks for asking!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
consise10 399 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
01-24-05, 09:08 PM (EST)
|
|
36. "RE: Prevailing?" |
Hello dramamama and thanks for replying.I too find it fascinating the fact that one can be seated behind their desk in Australia or where ever and speaking to someone in Iran as an example.The advancement of technology with regard to internet chatrooms is such that it gives us instant access and quick response from individuals whom are annonymous.It rivals, and in great form I might add,the expensive use of the telephone whom you would use to call and communicate with a specific person you know. In these forums language is so important.The language adopted by each poster can be like a recognizable trademark.Thus if it`s loaded with heaps of hugely intellectual words and content then people will or won`t read according to their perceptions and ultimately choices.One poster you have been conversing with refered to people posting language such as 'Fantasia rulz' and 'Clay rokz',in a dissapointing and dissaproving tone.To that I ask why? Why does it bother him or her so much?Do they really need to adopt such language on these forums? No,ofcourse not-if they find it so beneath them.Ultimately it comes down to choice,in the style in which one chooses to speak and to whom they choose to converse with. Getting back to the idea of annonymity and the language one adopts in these forums as being a blueprint to that person.This arena provides an element of the unexpected in anticipation of ones response to a comment or a feeling that may bounce out at the reader.So with this in mind dramamama In this scenario I think It`s best not to have great expectations and criticize the way some one else phrases their statements.What is your view dramamama and any one else who`s interested?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
consise10 399 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
01-24-05, 10:03 PM (EST)
|
|
40. "RE: Prevailing?" |
Gothmog,hello. I am sorry,perhaps I misunderstood what you were meaning when you wrote that post.You have answered your own question anyhow.Keep posting,i find it all rather fascinating!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
dramamama 263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
01-25-05, 00:23 AM (EST)
|
|
41. "RE: Prevailing?" |
I agree. I think it's really quite challenging to find an appropriate voice, and that's why I also agreed with what I thought was Gothmog's criticism of my using the word "obviate," though as it turned out he was remarking how outside the register of the AI posts it was, and that's a legitimate observation. I felt embarrassed when I saw that I had used it, to be honest, and in another post I used the word "obeisance," but then another poster thanked me for adding a new (and mostly useless) word to her vocabulary, so I didn't feel so supercilious after that. OK, now, there it is: supercilious. I agree that it is wrong to judge someone by his or her vocabulary, spelling, grammar and punctuation, and such judgments can be elitist. Of course, you can be poor and educated, if self-educated, which is why it's important to pay attention to the content of the posts rather than the superficial flourishes (posts and people alike, yes?). How does this tie into American Idol? We better figure it out before we get a warning ticket from the blue peeps
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
consise10 399 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
01-25-05, 04:44 AM (EST)
|
|
43. "RE: Prevailing?" |
Do you have a desire in writing up some sort of modern day dictionary with new vocabulary such as the ones you refer to in your posts Dramamama? Yes,before you comment I do get the joke!It`s a real clever one. To deflect from my previous topic,I want to say that I really think you should try your hand at writing and perhaps performing comedy,if you haven`t already delved in this area.You are a very talented speaker at least what I have seen of you in these forums.You have captured my attention on each and every one of your posts.I sincerely love to read what you have to say dramamama,and believe you are a valuable addition to these boards with your refreshingly honest insights !
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
consise10 399 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
01-25-05, 10:43 PM (EST)
|
|
55. "RE: Prevailing?" |
Why?What do you mean mrc?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
consise10 399 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
01-27-05, 02:44 AM (EST)
|
|
60. "RE: Prevailing?" |
Thanks mrc.No offence taken,and by the way I like your signature chess board.How did you get that image?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
dramamama 263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
01-29-05, 12:51 PM (EST)
|
|
73. "RE: Prevailing?" |
thanks for the nice words, consise: you are such a sweetie 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Gothmog 2886 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"
|
01-24-05, 08:23 AM (EST)
|
|
24. "RE: Prevailing?" |
Miller's theory of discipline reminds a lot of Andrea Dworkin's controversial assertion that all intercourse involves a violent act (often misquoted as "all intercourse is rape"). You want to say, "well, I suppose that's true, in a way, but....." and males in response either want to cut off their balls and hand them to the nearest woman for breakfast or for Dworkin and other feminists to die a slow, painful death. The problem with Deconstruction is that it allows its practitioners to run ramrod through everyone else's theories and make them feel like shite for their very existence and the beliefs they hold dear WITHOUT having to espouse any alternative theory in its place. I read Miller (or your reductive version of it), and I think, Ok, so discipline does embody some humiliation and destroys some sense of self, but what is the alternative? Can there be discipline without exploiting a child's sensitivity? Would no discipline be better? The theory might be interesting and informative (to some; I find it less so), but it has little application in the real world. And the generalizations and stereotypes about teachers and parents? Unconscionable. 
I'm amused over words like "obviate" and "Foucault" appearing in the AI forum--it's sort of like an AI applicant singing Puccini.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
dramamama 263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
01-24-05, 10:00 AM (EST)
|
|
27. "RE: Prevailing?" |
That's an interesting comparison, Miller and Dworkin. I can't remember who it was that initiated the position, "All men are rapists" back in the last feminist cycle, which Dworkin borrowed and put to use in her anti-pornography argument.Dworkin (and feminist more generally) used a rhetorical strategy that conservatives of every sort later borrowed to great success: taking an extreme position in order to make people more thoughtful but also having the effect of replacing the extreme end of the continuum with a still more extreme position, moving the left (or the right) closer to the center. Thus what was once an extreme feminist position is now a moderate one--for example, even if a woman has a working husband, she should be paid fairly for her work--once a controversial idea, now a commonplace. Miller, on the other hand, is not a political activist. She is a therapist and scholar, and her work is based on years of experience and study. She is political in the sense that her work and views are deeply informed by the Holocaust. Onto the academical side of things: neither Dworkin nor Miller is a deconstructivist. Nor Foucault, who was theoretically opposed to Derrida. But these two men were poststructuralists (Dworkin and Miller decidely not). Poststructuralists assert that there is no essential truth, no foundation, no structure: nobody finally can refer to something or someone as the arbiter of truth: instead what we hold as truth is something we arrive at through agreement or force. Nothing new about poststructuralism if you take a broader view: the philosophy of ethics has always struggled with the idea of what it might be based upon (should we be good to each other because being cruel makes us feel badly about ourselves? because it's good for society or for capitalism?) Religious scholars, as well, deal with this issue, leading to such notions as the leap of faith (the leap being necessitated by the fact there's no foundation to walk across to get to God--no evidence, no proof, no final word). As for applying Miller to the real world? It has been done, and is being done, and works quite well. Quaker schools, the good ones, take nonviolence (emotional, rhetorical, physical) as their mainstay and children who go to genuinely Quaker schools prove to be quite mature, well-mannered young people. Just one example. There are cultures that never disciplined their children (it's rather a western notion, I believe, though I am not about to sally forth with research on this topic . I recall reading some years ago about some African and Native American cultures that never beat or reprimanded their children, though it barbaric: western europeans arriving in America helped to change their minds with our special brand of discipline, put to great use in slavery, for example. I think it's important to consider the origin of our unquestioned faith in the notion that children need "discipline." Which in a roundabout way gets us back to Eros and Thanatos. As for "obviate"--I apologize for that. I don't know where it came from and I regretted seeing the word hanging there in the post. Then again, what's the big deal? I like to learn a new word now and again, or see someone use an uncommon word. On citing sources: this has been an ongoing request on the part of posters, so I now do it. Can't please all of the posters all of the time. I'd just as soon not bother and keep it informal, indeed plagiarized but then again I like to learn about books and ideas, as well as to hear others' readings or interpretations of them. For example, I enjoyed your post and your conjuring up of Dworkin and relating it to Foucault and Miller. As for teachers? I don't consider my view "unconscionable." Forgetting all the high-minded evidence and debate, I have spent many a night from high school on complaining about teachers and exchanging horror stories about terrible ones and singing the praises of the great ones. There have always been great and crummy teachers; there's nothing sacred about this particular cow, to me. There are people in far worse jobs, who do not have the education and means to quit just because it's not what they expected it to be. That said, I wonder if you've visited any urban grade schools and high schools to see what a state they're in and what kind of teaching, heroic or otherwise, is or even can be done. Many of our schools are in a shambles--toilets not working, walls crumbling, lights broken, students fighting or simply not attending--and those who survive as teachers are not always doing so because they're heroes of the sort I suspect is meant by that term. The discourse of teachers as heroes is a familiar one, applied to all sorts of exploited laborers, including mothers. You pat 'em on the back instead of addressing the real conditions of their existence, the work and challenges and the importance of these; the inflated rhetoric blurs the reality of their their terribly low pay and horrendous working conditions. Teachers shouldn't *have* to be heroes; working with children should not be regarded or metaphorized as crime fighting or warfare. All things considered, perhaps heroic teacher discourse is the one unwittingly bearing the seeds of the unconscionable. To tie this to the issue at hand? I think AI auditioners are heroes They have to face that sniggering, immature panel of judges who have no conscience about humiliating vulnerable people, far younger than themselves, on national television.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Gothmog 2886 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"
|
01-24-05, 12:29 PM (EST)
|
|
30. "RE: Prevailing?" |
LAST EDITED ON 01-24-05 AT 12:52 PM (EST)An interesting response, one which is going to require more reflecting than I have time for at the moment. The rhetoric here is much more reasonable than the initial broad categorization of teachers and parents as justifying a need to "humiliate" their charges; that was what I had found unconscionable. If you're looking for a good rhetoric in which to explore the subjects you find fascinating, your adjustments here seem to be a good place to start. I'm going to have to read Miller myself to be able to discuss/debate her theory in any more detail; I'm afraid at my current level of knowledge of arguing with a strawman (or woman) and/or reducing it to its basic iteration for the purpose of ridicule. The theory strikes me as narrow and ill applied, but I need to be better informed as to explain why, or to discover why I'm mistaken. I don't think the notion of a child's need for discipline goes unquestioned, but I would agree that discipline and control are sometimes (often?) erroneously grouped together, to an abusive extent. We might just disagree on the extent to which this is true or necessary. Even in the Quaker example you give, being well-mannered--adhering to the expectations of the society in which they are a part--does require the repression of some impulses, and I'm not sure how this can be achieved without some manner of behavior modification that might qualify as "humiliation" in its broadest sense. The point about "obviate" was its incongruence with this forum, in which it isn't infrequent to see posts like "CLAY ROOOLZ!" I've contributed to that incongruence myself in trying to respond to you in a like manner. But my pedantic nerdiness is usually confined to OT (even there, I keep it in check), since I rarely venture into this forum. You're right about there being nothing new in the methods of the poststructuralist; Socrates (or Plato, if you prefer) himself was one, and a deconstructivist too, I would argue, though it seems you would not--we might have differing views as to the nature/extent of the theory; As for Dworkin or Miller (or Foucault!) being Deconstructionists, I was being unclear in my previous post (oh, the irony!). I actually meant to imply that your approach in this thread (and Miller, through you) was deconstructivist; if I was mistaken, forgive me.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
dramamama 263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
01-24-05, 12:48 PM (EST)
|
|
32. "RE: Prevailing?" |
You are big sofa awesome, Gothmog (how's that for rhetorical adjustment Seriously, you are, but that's another forum. My own underdogginess likes being on this panel for reasons I shall not mention in fear of inciting another attack of the Furies. Now, the question of repression: that is very interesting. I *might* argue that there is something like happy repression (can I be saying this, really?) or maybe more like sublimation. If for example Freud is somewhat right and we are a tangle of aggressive impulses that we transform into such things as intellectual work (which is dreadfully boring for some others), well, could that not be the case with manners? That rather than always having death (fear) as our cultural chaffeur, sometimes we could ask love to drive? I think this is how Quaker schools work, and it's how I've worked as a parent (so far so good: but life is long and humility is the lifebuoy of parenthood). As for deconstruction: to me, that is a very specific methodology created by Derrida, with lovely borrowings from his teacher and brilliant philosopher, Levinas. And feminists have a long history of eschewing much poststructuralist theory (let alone poor Jacques) because it emerged, rather suspiciously, at the very time when women and other minority scholars were recurring to the real conditions of existence, reason, that sort of thing. Anyway, to me deconstruction is about signifiers and signifieds and binary oppositions and belly buttons, well, navels. or is that nodal points. Ah-ah-ah-ah-Choo! (pardon me for sneezing: stuffed nodal points I believe: all this frikkin snow). And may I in the most sublimated fashion say thanks for the thoughtful response. I'll be giving more thought to your repressive position >now, back to the cave: got popcorn?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
true 9689 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-25-05, 10:29 AM (EST)
|
|
47. "Holy Headache!" |
This thread is waaay over my head, so I just skimmed all the psychobabble. The way I see it is that the WHOLE point of the early AI rounds is to laugh at the bad singers. The bad singers all KNOW THIS, and are putting on an act. Yes, there may be a few marginally talented singers who get rejected, and feel they've been wronged, but it's an audition! Audition=rejection for the huge majority of those who try out. The overly dramatic exit interviews, and reactions are staged for GOOD TV! It's all a big fake job to get ratings. There is nothing else to it. Nothing. Of course, I blame my views on teachers, who should have taught me to be more compassionate, and well, should have made me smarter.  In conclusion, reality tv=humiliation tv. Always has, always will. The end. 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
true 9689 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-25-05, 10:46 AM (EST)
|
|
49. "RE: Holy Headache!" |
Well, I may be testy, but I'm sure it can be blamed on some teacher, somewhere, and it has nothing to do with age. At least that's what the voices tell me.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
DontGetMeStarted 880 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Fitness Correspondent"
|
01-26-05, 01:15 PM (EST)
|
|
59. "rack? whose" |
rack?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
consise10 399 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
01-26-05, 05:32 AM (EST)
|
|
56. "RE: Holy Headache!" |
I guess you don`t call yourself 'true' for nothing! I agree with what you`ve written especially the part about Audition=rejection.So true ,very very true and well said true.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
true 9689 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-26-05, 09:35 AM (EST)
|
|
58. "RE: Holy Headache!" |
Thank you.Now, if I could only be true and consise, I'd really have something. Back to my original point. I think it was proved last night. The kid, you know the one who kept saying "can you dig it", was CLEARLY there to be on TV. The really bad singers are just big DAW's, and they're putting on an ACT to get on TV. So, I say, let's mock them, they suck. Not only do they have no talent, but they're DAW's of the worst kind. The twins at the end were what I was refering to as marginal talent that gets rejected. Yes, they were ok singers, but I doubt many of us will mock their talent. We will mock their DAWness, because as DAWs that's what they've signed up for.
Notice how I didn't even mention teachers.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
consise10 399 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
01-27-05, 03:08 AM (EST)
|
|
61. "RE: Holy Headache!" |
Hello true.I actually am not from the United States and therefore can`t say that I have viewed any of this current seasons episodes of AI.Infact the only series which was aired here downunder was last seasons when Fantasia Barinno won.I absolutely loved it as did most of my friends.We can`t wait until it comes down here again! Even if they are repeats and the winner has already been announced-it will still be a hit with us.A question for you true.What does DAW mean or stand for? I kind of understand your meaning as there were clearly untalented individuals trying out for our Australian Idol2 inparticular who must have known how hopeless they were,but just do it for fun and to get their faces on TV. Such a process where an open invitation goes on air at prime time inviting 'anyone' between certain ages to audition for a show in search of the country's 'best' singer-inevitably would atrract undesirable 'comedians' amongst other marginally talented and extraordinary talents who really have a knack for singing and performing. That`s a round about similar to your thinking,isn`t it true?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
true 9689 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-27-05, 10:33 AM (EST)
|
|
62. "RE: Holy Headache!" |
What does DAW mean or stand for?DAW is short for desparate attention whore. It's used, mostly fondly, to describe people on reality tv shows. We also use it to poke fun at ourselves. If you look next to your username at the top of your posts, you will see how many desparate attention whore postings you have. Under that, you are awarded a DAW level. As your post count increases, your DAW level will change. Each level represents different reality tv contestant accomplishment. You can find an official answer this question, and many others on the HELP forum. Of course it is only my opinion, but I believe that the majority of those who try out for AI, are just trying to achieve a couple minutes of fame. I don't think they're truly "hurt" by the harsh critiques, as they know they're awful, and are so on purpose, since that is how they plan to make it on the show. Sure, there may be a few who are truly delusional, but by now, they surely know what these auditions are all about. Humiliation and mocking. Welcome.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
consise10 399 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
01-28-05, 01:44 AM (EST)
|
|
63. "RE: Holy Headache!" |
Thanks true.I see you have reached the height of 'DAWism'.It can`t get any worse for you hey?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Tahj 4136 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"
|
01-28-05, 03:09 PM (EST)
|
|
65. "RE: Holy Headache!" |
Of course it is only my opinion, but I believe that the majority of those who try out for AI, are just trying to achieve a couple minutes of fame. I don't think they're truly "hurt" by the harsh critiques, as they know they're awful, and are so on purpose, since that is how they plan to make it on the show. Sure, there may be a few who are truly delusional, but by now, they surely know what these auditions are all about. Humiliation and mocking.When you see the get-ups and antics of some of these people, it seems that all they want to do is get on television. I thought the guy who tried to pass himself off as age 28 was funny. So was Simon. 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
callalilly3000 693 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
01-28-05, 08:37 PM (EST)
|
|
72. "RE: Holy Headache!" |
LAST EDITED ON 01-28-05 AT 08:56 PM (EST)
Of course it is only my opinion, but I believe that the majority of those who try out for AI, are just trying to achieve a couple minutes of fame. I don't think they're truly "hurt" by the harsh critiques, as they know they're awful, and are so on purpose, since that is how they plan to make it on the show. Sure, there may be a few who are truly delusional, but by now, they surely know what these auditions are all about. Humiliation and mocking I have to totally agree with you on this. I believe 80% of the people who audition, want to achieve the "William Hung Factor".
Then 10% think that they have talent, when they really don't, and the other 10% have a true gift. Watching this years auditions, it seems the need to achieve 15 minutes of fame, has out weighed the point of the real contest. Hopefully the many contestants that we DIDN'T see will be fantastic and make for an interesting 4th season.
Slice and Dice Shop 2004eta: spelling
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
Slice & Dice Chop Shop 2004
I make this look good. 
