I am claiming that her motives for stepping up and choosing to publicize her message are mixed.
So now we are back to the issue of the voice vs. the body scanner. Because she is a celebrity and, worse, a woman with an ambiguous and multivalent reputation, she should just be silent and let everyone else define her experience for her. (Shhh. Sweetheart, just stfu and let the tabloids do their job.) That somehow she is not capable of speaking the truth of her experience because anything she says will be purposefully colored (e.g. "mixed motives") to make her look good, which semantically affects the message (in other words, it affect the very nuts and bolts of her message). Hence the whole idea of "I'm just referring to her motives" is still an circumstantial ad hominem.
But I still remain cynical about those who exploit charitable causes
And the charitable cause here is what? And how is it being exploited? By whom?
Sometimes underlying motivations get lost in these threads
whoa apogee!--that post you're referring to was a sarcastic response to Dave Kos, based on where this thread has gone vs. the initial point of the thread. I think you initial post was excellent, and it's a shame that the thread got derailed by Dave and rSin with things that are completely irrelevant.
I'm actually not a huge fan of AJ, but I think she handled the situation really well. She made the decision that was right for her and she expressed her experiences beautifully.
I agree, this thread did get sort of hijacked by a couple of people, who have beef to grind, for whatever reason. What kind of beef, I don't know. (EDIT Fillet or striploin?)
I usually like Dave Kos's comments, then when I really noticed that his avatar was Patton (or is it Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson?), oops, George C Scott (a fine actor, great in Dr Strangelove), I began to wonder about Dave. ;-)
I hope you do not think that was an ad Ad hominem attempt.
Just joking Dave. I'm just trying to lighten things up.
But it was a tough choice, she made it and her publicizing the issue makes her a decent human being, and if she gets to "build her brand" in the process, so what?
Yet, you are using the same type of "she's a celebrity therefore cannot be trusted to speak absolutely about herself, it's all just self-serving publicity" type of message. Though, you are more articulate about it than rSin.
Would you be reading (and misquoting)
(haha, good one)
my words differently if my name was Susan Kos?
No, because not all women are feminists. Not all women believe that women are equal to men or that they have the same right to speak of their experiences without being placed on the good girl vs. bad girl scale. In other words, because Phyllis Schlafly's cronies are still alive and well.
if you want to have a discussion about breast cancer and treatments - it is a worthy goal and an important subject. If you want to have that discussion I suggest you start a thread that is focused on that topic and leave names out. (Perhaps that's what apogee was trying to do here, but I think it was a mistake to frame it in the context of a celebrity.)
It was the point of this thread, as apogee said in his/her OP, before you jumped in with your "it was probably little more than an elective boob job that some attention whore celebrity put a positive PR spin on."
I have a pet peeve with the exploitation of the sick and needy for marketing purposes, some of it based on legitimate life experience. Of course this situation is a little odd because I am claiming that someone is exploiting themselves (as well as others, indirectly) for marketing purposes.
So then riddle me this. The tabloids would have published it eventually, yes?. So the woman come out and says, "yes, this happened to me. It sucks, but I'm handling it." And that means that she's exploiting herself and others? I'm really not following the logic. Should every person who faces a serious illness keep silent about it because someone on the interwebs might think they're in it for the sympathy points? Unless there's some information that you have forthcoming, there's been no proof that this was done for "marketing purposes." I, for one, saw no call for money in the Op Ed, nor any mention of the incredibly misleading Susan G. Komen Foundation, AJ's next film doesn't come out until 2014 (by which time this will not be considered news), and Myriad Genetic's monopoly is, hopefully, about to come to an end since their argument for SCOTUS was was very poorly presented. It is only publicity in so far as any information that circulates about a public figure, whether released by them or by someone else, is "publicity."
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2013 - 09:03pm PT
Dave, most of the time I regard you as a fairly middle-of-the-road type, but the comments you made last night....
"It's a shame that a tragic disease has become a vehicle for corruption and profit."
"It's all about return on investment."
...with the ridiculous, cynical insinuation that someone would do this solely & primarily for 'profit & return on investment'...
To my eye, those are pathetic comments of an as#@&%e.
Maybe I've misread your persona all along. I'll try to be more observant. In the meantime, you've been around ST long enough to know that when one puts out strong positions like yours, you'd best have a good thick skin.