Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Pink Sucks

SO, I was looking at my google news and came across an ecorazzi post bashing Kanye West [[because who doesn't love a good Kanye bashing, am I right?]]. Anyway, it basically said Kanya loves fur, Pink [[the singer with the Pink hair? Remember her from like 4 years ago?]] got offended and now there's a post up about how much Kanye sucks for loving fur.

Me, being the inquisitive person that I am, suspected that Pink isn't even vegetarian. Although I couldn't find many credible sources that said she wasn't veg [[but some tabloids!]], I couldn't find any article confirming she is in fact vegetarian [[unless you count wikipedia, which I don't]].

So what's my point? I made a comment about what a phony Pink is because she's anti-fur but still eats meat, and how people who are anti-fur but still eat meat are hypocritical idiots [[read the comments here]]. And I get a comment from someone who not only made no sense, but tried to attack the quality of my food. Apparently I should appreciate Pink's illogical tendencies because she cares about the animals-- kind of. Not only that, but some one else found out Pink sold leather pants at an auction. Big surprise there.

My question to you is: Is being anti-fur "good enough" for you? Or does it anger you that someone says you can eat one animal but not skin another?

15 comments:

Andrew Warner said...

No.

And a Bill Maher style new rule should be that you can't bash fur or Michael Vick if you have steak grease dripping down your chin. [insert picture of cow being tortured] and then receive the predictable LA liberal groans - because they of course bash mike vick but love their meat and cheese.

Anonymous said...

Look her , you stupid bitch. Pink doesnt eat meat ok??. Under which worm infected rock have u been living?. Go die in hell! or fuck yourself!. You're just a jealous no talent ho . She dont give a shit what u think

Ashley said...

Gotta love 13 year old trolls with nothing better to do than giz-oogle "pink sucks."

love the rule about Michael Vick, too.

And, CV, to answer your question... I'm here, alive... but this quarter is consuming me! I'll post again soon; finals are over next week!

Anonymous said...

I think its a little shortsighted and ignorant to call someone stupid for sticking up for animal rights regardless of whether they eat meat or not. Having a celebrity speak out for a cause can be very powerful. People have the right to pick and choose their battles. In the battle for our earth we can use all of the help we can get.

Andrew Warner said...

anon,

Maybe... But having hypocrites as your spokespeople make it extremely easy for the other side to tear you down.

We're seeing a trend in which celebrities are almost becoming a detriment to their cause, especially hypocrite celebrities. Remember Obama forced celebrities off his campaign?

Look at Al Gore. The guy gives a great and obvious message about global warming, but he has been discredited by half of the political population because he has enormous energy bills at his giant mansions. That's just one flimsy example, but if you're not familiar with it, it means you don't listen to conservatives.

Pink in this example is similar to someone who is anti-gay marriage but hires gay prostitutes. Or better yet, a beauty queen who preaches morality but poses naked (we remember how that turned out, right?)

"Limousine liberals," and charlatans do little for our causes other than make us look like naive hypocrites.

If you're going to attempt to tell people a code to live by, you better live by the code yourself. Pink doesn't.

We need role models in the movement, not talking heads.

Tracy Warner said...

Anonymous [[the coherent one]] --

I did not call her stupid for sticking up for animal rights. I called her stupid for not sticking up for ALL animal's rights. I just want people to make sense.

And like Andrew said, her fake support does little to nothing for the vegan agenda.

We can use all the help we can get, you're right -- but she's not helpful.

Thanks for your input.

Anonymous said...

I completely understand where you are coming from in you response, and love your blog by the way, but feel that vegans are best served as realists versus idealists. I would prefer to look at the vegan "agenda" as more of a movement-having less dictated rules and allowing people to gradually learn together, as well as educate each other at their own pace. Being seen in the short term as a hypocrite seems more efficient than being perceived as self important and condescending over the long term-which is unfortunately how much of the country sees vegans.

Morgan said...

Oh my gosh!! Lets not stoop to name-calling, anonymous.

I completely agree with Andrew on his point about "limousine liberals".

I think the reason it's socially accepted and allowed to persist (without a mass backlash against Pink and similar spokespeople) is the stigma behind vegetarianism. It's still socially acceptable to say, "But I just love meat and cheese so much!"

Along with the 2nd anonymous post, I think people have to choose their battles. Not wearing fur but eating meat is better than doing nothing for animal welfare. No one's perfect - yesterday I ate a few cookies my friend baked that contained eggs. I do the best I can and sometimes I slip up.

Tracy, I love that you post about things that bother you!! Keep it up!

Tracy Warner said...

Anonymous --

Thanks, I appreciate that.

I do hope that Pink and other celebrities that are halfhearted in their support of PETA make a full transition eventually.

I'm surrounded by meat-eating morons that think we are entitled to destroy the earth and kill living beings. It's starting to make me overly critical. A lot of vegans start out as vegetarians, and I think some of forget that. :)

Andrew Warner said...

Anon,

Your post makes some good points, but you miss the biggest point.

The "other side" views a person like Pink as not only naive and hypocritical, but ALSO self-important... That's not to mention detached from the real world as a celebrity type.

I would argue you she seems even more self important than your typical militant vegan, but that's another conversation all together.

I agree that people need to transition and blah blah blah, but our spokespeople should not be half-hearted, possibly transitioning, self-important, attention grabbing celebrities.

If you look at the comments Pink made and that we are discussing, there is no sense of a movement where we are all "learning together." She was basically saying that she is the smartest and Kanye West, and the rest of the fur wearing world are idiots.

So I don't disagree with your point about nurturing the world into veganism, but that's not exactly what we are talking about with Pink.

Anonymous said...

Andrew- Obviously, I was turning the conversation away from the Pink comment. We all know that the celebrities of the world do their thing, and are generally trying to selfishly improve their tainted images. My initial point was simply that celebrities' words resonate with people across a much broader spectrum than your average blogger. If Pink, or anyone with global appeal for that matter, can get one person to stop wearing fur or eating steak- than more power to them. Just because we don't want them as a national spokesperson doesn't mean they can't make a difference.

Andrew Warner said...

Anon,

I get what you're saying but your view is overly black and white.

I could just as easily say that someone in middle america who watches fox news and hates celebrities preaching morality would never give up meat because some Hollywood know it all told them too.

Then where do we stand? Divisive figures, like hypocritical celebrities, have negative effects the same way they have positive effects.

The fact of the matter is veganism and all things important in the world need to be a synthesis of ideas - not a popularity contest or the latest trend.

Sure, some teenage girls may be swayed by having Pink or Eva Mendes tell them to do something -- odds are they will grow up and find new, different ideas anyway.

But that's selling fashion and trends, not social change.

Is your approach as practical as you say it is? Maybe, maybe not? PETA would have you think so. I don't really see it that way. Great social changes are rarely brought about by pop singers or sex symbols taking their clothes off (see Eva Mendes' ad). I can't think of any?

Ultimately the change will come from people being smarter and more loving. We don't foster such a world with divisive figures...

Anonymous said...

Sit yo ass down cunt! u dont have the talent or guts to face P!nk so just fucking stuff ur face with that cheese burger and shut the fuck up

Anonymous said...

Omg I love this post about P!nk!!! Another reason not to like her. Despite the fact that I am a carnivore I have found extreme joy that you have written about her being phony! She totally is! She exists by using other famous people or trendy topics to make her relevant. I live in Columbus too girl! I'd love to meet you at union cafe for a drink sometime! Keep up the good work and more power to you for expressing yourself!

Tracy Warner said...

Anonymous aug 24:

Thanks so much! Send me an email or add me on myspace/facebook and we can get a drink sometime.