LittleAmy said:

I'm not saying black americans are I'm just saying Janet has a privilage few blacks even other famous black people get. She was up there with Michael Jordon and Tiger Woods.

LittleAmy said:

Maybe because Madonna really hasn't done anything that is on the same level of offensiveness as being sued for and charged with sexually abusing children? Many people who are parents are going to be deeply offended by someone who's accused of abusing children. And there is a lot of evidence to show that was in fact true.

As far as Prince, I really don't think he got that much ridicule for his fight with his label. I think most intelligent people understand that record labels are very disrespectful to artists and only care about making money and that Prince had some valid points there. Prince doesn't just play his older songs, he does a lot of newer stuff too and releases a lot of new material. So to say he just an oldies but goodies act isn/t the case at all.

Glindathegood said:

In Janet's defense America has abusive view when it comes to nudity and sex. Does seeing someone else nake scare a child? If so how does Latin America and Europe seem to be doing ok. I personally this just enforces the long standing unhealthy relaionship to sex this country has.

ehuffnsd said:

We've also seen many times where so-called elite "black people" were reminded of their race (or what is perceived to be their race) throughout their public lives (the Jackson family's public issues, Tiger Woods after winning the '97 Masters and Fuzzy Zoeller's comments on what he will serve as the winner's meal, the O.J. Simpson trial, Barack Obama today).

I'm still not getting your logic about these people or other certain black Americans being "above race" because race is usually one of the first things that come up in regards to a test of their character or strength.
[Edited 6/9/08 8:36am]

LittleAmy said:

different experiences and different precptions of events. we'll never be able to understand the totality of each others experiences but we can find common ground.

These days The Beatles and Elvis are looked upon as gods by the media.

DiamondGlove said:

and elvis was a drug addict. anybody sitting here trying to dispute the obvious double standard in the industry is bullshitting yourselves. you think if amy whinehouse was a black crackhead she would have been rewarded with grammys? the bottom line is madonna has always been the media's darling, people bring up janet's nipple but there are other things that proves the blatant double standards...such as the notion that janet is too old to be making the kind of music she does, but an even older madonna can attemp to rap, make songs with timberlake, put on catsuits and jump around in videos.nobody gets the kid glove treatment in music that madonna enjoys. some of you are trying to compare her getting criticized every now and then with the preferencial treatment she has always received.

MARIAH CAREY! I mean really--how is it that almost all of her songs manage to become #1 hits when they all pretty much sound the same?

NaughtyKitty said:

Yeah. Everything from 2000-now does sound the same.

Actually, she's been a bad girl and controversial since day one so even when she does something that a lot of people consider "wrong", there is no pass given for not being shunned because people expect that from her anyway and are disappointed when she isn't "doing wrong".

It's the little goodie two shoes like Shitney Houston that come out of the opening gate with a goodie two shoes image, that get shunned when they do wrong. Shitney was America's little darling when she came out and people just couldn't believe that she would do drugs. Same with Mariah Scarey. She came out the opening gate looking like a preacher's daughter and then turned into a slut and people just couldn't believe it. Nothing that someone like Madonna could do would surprise anyone because they expect it from her anyway. It's one of the things that made her a star to begin with and, actually, "settling down and becoming normal" would be the only wrong that she could do. I know that's when I lost a lot of interest in her.

With Janet, it's kind of like the little goodie two shoes thing I mentioned earlier, although she couldn't help it because she was a child. So many people remember her from being cute little Penny on "Good Times" and sweet little Charlene on "Diff'rent Strokes". When she released her first few albums, she was still a teenager and people were still familiar with her either being cute little sweet Penny or Charlene, or "Michael Jackson's little sister". Anything she does that shows she is all grown up was going to piss a lot of people off. Not just suggestive clothing or album covers, if she made an album cover smoking a cigarette, a lot of people would give her hell for it.

I always liked her since the TV days and her first few albums. Her growing up didn't bother me at all. It's when she sold out to shit hop, that's when I dropped her ass cold. I'd forgive her for being on trail for murder before I forgive her selling out to shit hop.
.
.
.
[Edited 6/9/08 11:58am]

vainandy said:

I'm not buying it, though. The problem with that is that Janet Jackson left that image YEARS ago. I mean, like more than 15 years ago. The "Damita Jo" album cover and lyrics are in common with her "janet" and "All for You" album covers and she's been making lyrics like that since "Someday Is Tonight" on the "Rhythm Nation 1814" album nearly 20 years ago. In order for what you said to make sense, someone would not have kept up with Jackson since Bill Clinton was elected president.
[Edited 6/9/08 14:59pm]

LittleAmy said:

true, rolling stone had the full cover shot for Janet on its own cover, with the hands holding her breasts. I don't remember anyone having a problem with that.

NDRU said:

it's the most popular cover in Rolling Stone history.

NDRU said:

That's why I found SoulAlive's argument to be such a strawman, re: the "Damita Jo" cover. Two of her previous three albums had similar such imagery.
[Edited 6/9/08 15:05pm]

Elton John and Stevie Wonder.

LittleAmy said:

Hear that crashing sound? That's the sound of your credibility just plummeting through the basement floor. WTF?! They're..... ACTING! Janet has always been an actress onstage. Didn't you see her pretending to cry every night on the janet. tour? lol, Timberlake has been asked about this incident several times and has still not really backed up the story 'cos he knows only a fool would believe it. What the fuck would be the point of ripping off a tiny bit of fabric just to reveal another tiny bit of fabric? Some climax that would be.

And even if by some mad miracle, it was an accident, then it would be the easiest thing in the world to prove. Just release the rehearsal footage. A simple, easy thing to do. With a tightly choreographed performance like that there's no way they wouldn't film rehearsals unless there was something funny going on. And if rehearsal footage confirmed that Janet's breast was not meant to be exposed then that footage would have been released. Point blank.

midnightmover said:

Son, this isn't high school, where people actually are waiting for some sort of approval from someone they will never meet. You can go back to the student union center with that childish approach.

Your trollish ass is missing the point here: Janet Jackson basically underwent some national witchhunt after the Super Bowl incident and still was being hounded about it years later and essentially has overshadowed her career. Madonna, on the other hand, has done many more things (and comparatively worse things) throughout her career and after a short period it's later painted as something of a positive trait.

midnightmover said:

Outside of music videos, Janet Jackson's acting career from the end of "Fame" in 1984 was basically the movies "Poetic Justice" and "The Nutty Professor" at the time of the incident (a near 20-year span), so for such an accomplished actress she sure didn't get a whole lot of work. And as for her acting chops, Jackson has never been a strong actress -- she's far more Whitney Houston level than Angela Bassett. Based on what I have seen over the years, Jackson is nearly not a strong enough actress to pull off a sincere level of shock (and for that matter, so did Justin Timberlake).

As for the janet. tour, no, I have never heard that -- and quite frankly I really don't care (again, another strawman argument since so many musical artists feign crying onstage). And after all these years, I have yet to hear one valid reason why those who feel Jackson did this intentionally would gain for intentionally showing her breast for such a stage, knowing it would generate the said result. Unless you want to paint the picture of Jackson is so stupid to think she could flash a bare breast intentionally and actually see it as a positive.

Since you still like to act like you're high school, find someone else to do your stalking routine. Not interested, son -- move on.
[Edited 6/10/08 5:11am]

LittleAmy said:

LOL, read the quote you're responding to. It says "Janet has always been an actress ONSTAGE". In response to this you start talking about how infrequent her TV and film work is, and then have the nerve to accuse ME of using straw man arguments, lol. Pot... kettle... black.

And by the way, it doesn't take great acting chops to pull a surprised facial expression, so that my friend is another straw man argument on your part. You just admitted you haven't even seen the crying act she did on the janet. tour. That may explain why you don't realize what an actress she is onstage (key word there, "onstage", just in case you start deliberately dodging the point again). Even on the VR tour there was a moment when she would pretend to be overcome with emotion as she stood in silence soaking up the love of her audience. Funnily enough, she seemed to feel the exact same emotion at the exact same point of the show every night, lol.

midnightmover said:

Son, by your logic, EVERY recording artist on stage is an actor or actress. I'm sorry, but a person who in a 20-year span at that point appearing in two movies (both receiving poor reviews, I might add) doesn't make for an accomplished actress. A lot of accomplished and trained actors and actresses who are better than Janet Jackson can't feign shock, and apparently Justin Timberlake is a better actor than we thought.

And yes, son, plenty of recording artists have done things such as feign some emotion onstage. Again, a strawman argument. Maybe you can stick to something relevant -- such as, if Jackson intentionally wanted her breast to be exposed during Super Bowl XXXVIII what did she hope to gain outside of being tarred and feathered for the next four years (and come up with one that doesn't make her come across as stupid).
[Edited 6/10/08 5:35am]

LittleAmy said:

Wow! Unbelievable! When did I ever say she was an accomplished actress??? Lord have mercy, if you're going to invent a straw man at least try and be a bit clever about it. Read my post. What I said was she's always incorporated acting into her performances and videos. That doesn't mean she's Meryl Streep. And since you haven't even seen the instances of fakery I've described then you really can't comment. Her little stunt on the janet. tour was grotesque. To this day I've never seen anything so contrived and fake in a concert. Ever. I was a fan at the time, but even I with my young fan ass could see how tasteless that was. It went way beyond feigned emotion. It was a shameless little stunt she was obviously pulling every night. It was inspired by Michael's "She's Out of My Life" routine, but whereas his was just a corny piece of performance art, Janet was actually trying to palm her tears off as genuine, but you haven't even seen it, so you don't even know what I'm talking about.


Janet was borrowing a trick from Madonna and her brother. Both of them used controversy to generate free publicity whenever they had new albums coming out. Madonna fucked a black Jesus figure in the Like A Prayer video. Some religious nuts kicked up a fuss about it, and in the process gave Madonna a ton of free publicity. It was the perfect launch for her album which went on to be a huge success. Madonna knew the controversy would help her, not hurt her. MJ did the same thing by smashing up a car in the "Black or White" video. Parenting groups were appalled and kicked up another big fuss. Micheal said "Whoops, I'm sorry" and laughed all the way to the bank as the free publicity made Dangerous the fastest selling album of his career. Janet was continuing the habit of a lifetime and following in big bro's footsteps, though being a woman, she used sex as the tool, just like Madonna. The twist Janet added was to do the stunt, but deny doing it, and claim it was an accident instead. The mistake she made was to underestimate people's intelligence. Although, looking at it now, maybe that was understandable since, as you've proved, there are indeed some very gullible people out there.

LittleAmy said:

I don't blame you for backing out.

midnightmover said:

There is nothing from which to back down. You simply are stating your opinion, like I am stating mine.

The only difference is you feel a case of diarrhea of the mouth somehow makes your unfounded speculation some truth (not to mention throwing out enough strawmen to cover an acre of land). So unless you suddenly developed telepathy and knew exactly Janet Jackson was thinking as this incident developed, YOU'RE MERELY SPECULATING AND GIVING AN OPINION.

Again, that's something childish people do (namely run their mouths and think the more they run their mouths the more they have "won," when in reality the other person is liked tired of the conversation and that person) -- even when in reality their opinion is not relevant to the discussion.

Don't you have ... I don't know, a life? My goodness, I literally helped my civic organization distribute food to the poor in between the times you have ranting about Jackson today.
[Edited 6/10/08 8:53am]

LittleAmy said:

I think you must be addicted to the word "strawman". You've accused everyone who's disagreed with you of throwing up "strawmen", even as you BLATANTLY throw them up yourself. Hell, this whole talk of strawmen is itself another strawman, since I've confronted all your points head on. By contrast you have either ignored mine or just argued with your strawman, by saying I said Janet was "an accomplished actress". That my friend is a "strawman" because I never said any such thing..... and you know it.

midnightmover said:

Still looking for the part where I accused you of calling Janet Jackson an "accomplished actress." I do recall where I said I hardly call her an accomplished actress based on activity and quality of work the few times she's had acting jobs over the past 20-odd years.

The only person I have called making a strawman argument is you. With ehuffnsd, I respected his opinion and never tried to change his opinion, nor said it was wrong. With soulalive, the strawman was his comment about the "Damita Jo" album cover and how (s)he seemed to be misrepresenting it as something risque and damaging to Jackson. In reality, Jackson has made covers like that before ("janet," "All for You").

The funny part is the only thing you have done is the epitome of someone trying to ram their opinion and specious "facts" down someone's throat. The only fact is the Super Bowl incident itself -- whether you feel it was intentional or not is an OPINION.

Moreover, the central person involved in the act said it was an accident (which we will take as a FACTUAL statement). Even more, your opinion on the incident ISN'T EVEN GERMANE to the thread at hand.

Really, you're the one bringing up concert performances in the early '90s as "proof." Seriously, get a life ... as I said in my previous thread, I delivered food to the poor in between your long-winded ramblings and now I'm going to work. What are you doing that's important today?
[Edited 6/10/08 9:27am]

LittleAmy said:

lol, now you're gonna start making wild guesses about my life, lol. Don't even go there, child. And I backed up my argument with a lot more than just her '90s concerts too, it's just that you ignored those points, so I'll gladly copy and paste some of them again, since you didn't read them the first time.

Here's one....



And another one.....



And here's the nail in the "waldrobe malunction" coffin.



I made all these points a long time ago, but you decided to ignore what I was saying and argue with a strawman instead, and then had the nerve to accuse me of what you yourself were doing. If not for that hypocrisy I might be going easier on you by now.

midnightmover said:

Speculation. Justin Timberlake has apologized for his role in the Super Bowl incident shortly (a matter of days) after it happened, but you're speculating beyond that because for some reason you don't find it fully believable.

midnightmover said:

Speculation. Unless you have direct word from Janet Jackson the intent was to show an exposed breast (and who has said more than once publicly it was an accident) or you have telepathy, you're giving a speculative opinion.

midnightmover said:

Speculation. First, you're assuming there is footage. Second, it is still not revelant to the context of people still going on about it several years after the fact (the one thing Jackson cannot control). Third, it's simply time to move on. The fact is most people didn't see Jackson's exposed breast on TV, but people exaggerated on seeing it then and keep bringing it up now as if possibly seeing a black woman's exposed breast on TV was the worst thing in history (but *IN SPECULATION* maybe I answered my own question why some people were upset about it.).
[Edited 6/10/08 9:41am]

Harlepolis said:

ok, im a late bird and i dont keep up with Jay-Z.. what is this about?