Sick of Celebs whinging how bad they have it!.

KKkitty

So celebrities are superhuman are they? They have normal lives before they become famous and then after that they're exempt from all eventualities. They don't even catch the common cold? Every night I sleep in my own bed. I see my kids every day. I eat in my home every day. Celebrities are not so lucky to have that. Depending on how they're famous they could be away from all that for weeks/months on end. Shooting a movie/recording or promoting a record. They may have cast mates or band mates. After a long day they just have a lonely hotel room to sleep in. They could have a mansion but how often are they there. How many milestones in their kids lives do they miss?

Tombo2001

JimmyMcGill wrote: »

It's the whole" I'm not responsible for my own actions" generation we've spawned in the last 10 to 20 years isn't it?

People in Ireland seem to have this notion that the country was wildly different in 1995.

It really wasnt. It hasnt changed much at all.

Foweva Awone

jippo nolan wrote: »

At least "Ant" can suffer in comfort!

There's actually nothing worse than people being nice to you and caring for you when you're feeling that awful.

valoren

There seems to be an expectation amongst 'celebs' that you need to have suffered or be currently suffering from something...whatever that may be...to have some credibility or acceptance. It's almost like you can only be deemed successful if you have overcome or are currently overcoming whatever that something is.

No longer can you simply be a talented person in any field, who through hard work and dedication became successful. Like contestants on the X Factor, there is an expectation, a need almost for there to be a sob story to go along with it. To become successful without one is deemed arrogant or cocky, which it clearly isn't. It becomes uninteresting.

Whether the sufferance is genuine or is a manipulation to that end is questionable.

Ant McPartlin seems like a decent bloke who is very good at what they both do. They have been renumerated exceptionally well for their schtick. That should in no way minimise what appears to be a severe case of addiction. If you were cynical, you'd say he is exploiting a bad habit or popping pills for a sore back for publicity, with an eye firmly on the sob story of recovery or alternatively it is a case of admitting to a problem, clearing his head and doing something about it while being completely transparent with the public about it.

ohnonotgmail

valoren wrote: »

There seems to be an expectation amongst 'celebs' that you need to have suffered or be currently suffering from something...whatever that may be...to have some credibility or acceptance. It's almost like you can only be deemed successful if you have overcome or are currently overcoming whatever that something is.

No longer can you simply be a talented person in any field, who through hard work and dedication became successful. Like contestants on the X Factor, there is an expectation, a need almost for there to be a sob story to go along with it. To become successful without one is deemed arrogant or cocky, which it clearly isn't. It becomes uninteresting.

Whether the sufferance is genuine or is a manipulation to that end is questionable.

Ant McPartlin seems like a decent bloke who is very good at what they both do. They have been renumerated exceptionally well for their schtick. That should in no way minimise what appears to be a severe case of addiction. If you were cynical, you'd say he is exploiting a bad habit or popping pills for a sore back for publicity, with an eye firmly on the sob story of recovery or alternatively it is a case of admitting to a problem, clearing his head and doing something about it while being completely transparent with the public about it.

except he had no intention of making it public until he found out a newspaper was going to publish the story anyway.

jmayo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

People in Ireland seem to have this notion that the country was wildly different in 1995.

It really wasnt. It hasnt changed much at all.

The world has changed drastically since 95.
And so has this country.

In 1995 you didn't have to suffer continous updates on what the fook your relatives, friends, neighbours, acquaintances had for lunch, did for dinner, saw on tv, did on holidays or what their fecking kids looked like dressed up.

It is like a continous slide show of someones effing holiday.

I don't use twatt-er, facefook, whatsapp, etc for those reasons.

Everyone now walks around with a camera and not just any camera, but a video camera.

The cult of celebrity just for being celebrity has grown exponentially since 95 and modern TV together with social media has fostered this lunacy.
When was it again Survivor, Big Brother, etc kicked off ?

B.A._Baracus

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Very true. Ah being rough time for me and I'm being cynical lately so think they are all playing the media game.

Honestly, vast majority of the time... Heck even 9 times out of 10 it's just a celebrity playing the game.

kylith

Pwindedd wrote: »

Depression or any other mental condition cares not for the bank balance.

I'm glad that celebs are being open about their mental health issues. It helps to destigmatise it.

Galwayguy35

KKkitty wrote: »

So celebrities are superhuman are they? They have normal lives before they become famous and then after that they're exempt from all eventualities. They don't even catch the common cold? Every night I sleep in my own bed. I see my kids every day. I eat in my home every day. Celebrities are not so lucky to have that. Depending on how they're famous they could be away from all that for weeks/months on end. Shooting a movie/recording or promoting a record. They may have cast mates or band mates. After a long day they just have a lonely hotel room to sleep in. They could have a mansion but how often are they there. How many milestones in their kids lives do they miss?

The millions they get paid probably softens the blow a bit.

And their spoilt kids will never have to work a day in their lives.

Optimalprimerib

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Certainly dont see them as superhuman realized years ago all addictions are based on self seeking self centred self pleasure thinking. Me me me me me me and my pleasure, f everything and everyone else. Most active addicts have huge egos and little to no self esteem. How can I see someone whom I believe has no real self esteem whatsoever as superhuman?!?.

How can one see an addict as superhuman?. Your post is stupid.

I think these public stories by Ant Sinead O Connor etc are terrible for their sobriety and sanity as they reinforce their ego centric based behaviour.

They do have every right to battle their addiction whatever way they want but it's very obvious to me many are reinforcing their ego centric ways take the story I mentioned of the article the other day in the Independent by Irish model Alison Canavan. "drink problem" "drink issue" etc etc she mentions she has. Her addict mind wouldn't allow her to say in the interview that she is simply a garden variety joe soap alcoholic which would benefit her. All that palaver to "help" others and she can't even be honest with herself!.

All this "sympathy" for these celebs is absurd doesn't help them not one jot, I think it's false and
Sympathy does not keep one sober.

It may or may not help them, but like it or not some people look up to them. It then creates an awareness to what they are going through, and many others. If this helps people to speak out that they need help as well, it is a massive help to conquer these illnesses.

wakka12

Beyond having enough money to live comfortably, buy decent food, decent accommodation etc..I dont think being rich would dramatically increase the quality of life of the average person. Id say beyond having the money to live comfortably, things like friendships ,family and relationships and life experiences contribute a lot more toward happiness in life.

Richard Hillman

kylith wrote: »

I'm glad that celebs are being open about their mental health issues. It helps to destigmatise it.

There will always be a stigma. It is within our human instinct to avoid people who are erratic, not of sound mind or of good health.

One thing that is massively different between a Celebrity with mental health issues and Joe Soap, is that the celebrity can over-ride the stigma to an extent, especially with males. Lets be honest, a large issue within Joe Soaps mental health issues is that he isnt getting a ride or feels inadequate in society. If Joe Soap comes out and reveals he has deep lying mental health issues, thoughts of suicide, delusions, paranoia etc, guess what? He aint going to be getting the ride again and society will look at that person differently. It isnt the case for well known celebrities. They can bat the public perception off after a few months.

Even for women, look at Britney Spears. She was bat-**** crazy a few years ago but nobody remembers that now that she's smoking hot again. It aint the same Jane Soap. She will always be perceived as bat-**** crazy.

The Celebrity endorsement of these issues dont help Joe & Jane Soap. Celebrities give them an unrealistic expectation of a return to normality.

Mammals are very judgemental with who we mate and associate with. We always will be.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

I'm glad that celebs are being open about their mental health issues. It helps to destigmatise it.

I'm not sure about what that really means in practical terms though. No more than a celeb talking about alcoholism, an STD, cancer or whatever. It's still a personal battle. To the average family dealing with depression, and most families have some member with it, whether the issue has a stigma or not is of little relevance in the practical sense - they still need treatment from medical experts. It sounds warm and cosy and touchy feely, but does it actually amount to much?

Allinall

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The millions they get paid probably softens the blow a bit.

And their spoilt kids will never have to work a day in their lives.

What a bitter and ignorant post.

Stonedpilot

Richard Hillman wrote: »

There will always be a stigma. It is within our human instinct to avoid people who are erratic, not of sound mind or of good health.

One thing that is massively different between a Celebrity with mental health issues and Joe Soap, is that the celebrity can over-ride the stigma to an extent, especially with males. Lets be honest, a large issue within Joe Soaps mental health issues is that he isnt getting a ride or feels inadequate in society. If Joe Soap comes out and reveals he has deep lying mental health issues, thoughts of suicide, delusions, paranoia etc, guess what? He aint going to be getting the ride again and society will look at that person differently. It isnt the case for well known celebrities. They can bat the public perception off after a few months.

Even for women, look at Britney Spears. She was bat-**** crazy a few years ago but nobody remembers that now that she's smoking hot again. It aint the same Jane Soap. She will always be perceived as bat-**** crazy.

The Celebrity endorsement of these issues dont help Joe & Jane Soap. Celebrities give them an unrealistic expectation of a return to normality.

Mammals are very judgemental with who we mate and associate with. We always will be.

Good post. Lets say a good looking person tells a girl or guy he/she has depressive episodes, lies in bed til 2pm some days and cries regularly taking drugs to relieve the stress. Doubt that kinda honesty would want a man or woman to jump into the sack with them.


We are fickle judgemental folk.
Mental illness taboos for Joe Soaps and celebs are different.

razorblunt

The issue with celebrities is the different grading of them, someone like Ant McPartlin checking into rehab and talking about the effects his issues have had gives a good insight into these kind of things. He's seen as the "cheeky chappie", effortlessly hosts shows, gets to Oz for a month before Xmas every year, happy days!

But then at the bottom of the ladder you have all those Z list celebs on the glossy mags who will jump on anything to try and stay relevant and that's where the line gets blurred.

Saying that though, a) Bressie's opinion on something offers just about as much to me as Jerry from Marketing at work and b) those z listers are, in the vast majority of cases probably worse off than a lot of us.

On a related note, I'm delighted to see those glossy mags have had a massive decline in readership (its mostly pictures says you, thankfully this is reflected in sales).

AndrewJRenko

Has the OP considered not watching TV shows that cover anything to do with 'celebs'?

Stonedpilot

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Has the OP considered not watching TV shows that cover anything to do with 'celebs'?

Was in the web, all newspapers, tv, facebook, and got a smoke signal advising me of Ant and other drugged up celebs. Hard to avoid homie!. :cool:

freshpopcorn

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Was in the web, all newspapers, tv, facebook, and got a smoke signal advising me of Ant and other drugged up celebs. Hard to avoid homie!. :cool:

Things are easy to avoid if you want to!

AndrewJRenko

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Was in the web, all newspapers, tv, facebook, and got a smoke signal advising me of Ant and other drugged up celebs. Hard to avoid homie!. :cool:

Depends what websites, newspapers, tv shows and FB pages you watch or subscribe to - I had heard one mention of Ant's woes, probably passing through the room when the missus was watching some sh1te, but really, if you choose your content, you'll avoid the dross.

pilly

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Depends what websites, newspapers, tv shows and FB pages you watch or subscribe to - I had heard one mention of Ant's woes, probably passing through the room when the missus was watching some sh1te, but really, if you choose your content, you'll avoid the dross.

So true, only reason I knew anything about Ant was because it was on the front of some trash newspaper that I didn't buy, simple.

If you're so sensitive as to get pissed off by this **** I would recommend not doing Facebook at all.

MilesMorales1

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Was in the web, all newspapers, tv, facebook, and got a smoke signal advising me of Ant and other drugged up celebs. Hard to avoid homie!. :cool:

I have only found out any of these celebrities have any problems at all from this thread. Easy to avoid really.