Chrissy Teigen is attempting a comeback - and I’m not ok with it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth do you watch the today show? It’s garbage. Go listen to npr or turn on BBC news.

All of the above is garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrug I like her fine. I don’t believe in canceling or deplatforming. If someone creates content I want to consume, let it stand on its merits.

At all? What about content others want to consume but you find inappropriate or wrongheaded?

How about you unfollow/block her on social media and you don't buy her third cookbook? Doesn't seem hard.

But if I don’t obsess over her how can I complain incessantly about her?!??!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrug I like her fine. I don’t believe in canceling or deplatforming. If someone creates content I want to consume, let it stand on its merits.

At all? What about content others want to consume but you find inappropriate or wrongheaded?

I think all speech should be allowed (unless it requires a victim of a crime to be made like CP or snuff films).

That used to be the view of the ACLU but those days are gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrug I like her fine. I don’t believe in canceling or deplatforming. If someone creates content I want to consume, let it stand on its merits.

At all? What about content others want to consume but you find inappropriate or wrongheaded?

I think all speech should be allowed (unless it requires a victim of a crime to be made like CP or snuff films).

That used to be the view of the ACLU but those days are gone.

"Free speech" does not mean anyone is required to give you a platform for distributing that speech or an audience who will listen to it. Anyone is welcome to host their own blog or self publish a book or hand out flyers or stand on a street corner telling people what they think. That's not the same as saying anyone is entitled to a particular stage for their speech, and it definitely doesn't mean that I have to sit and listen to it, or that I can't criticize the hell out of it if I do.

People don't know what free speech is, that's the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrug I like her fine. I don’t believe in canceling or deplatforming. If someone creates content I want to consume, let it stand on its merits.

So you would buy a cookbook from Brett Kavanaugh? If an avowed Nazi ran a fun, irreverent Twitter account where they shared juicy celebrity gossip and useful hair and makeup tips, you'd follow?

Or you just don't really care what you did? These are different things.

Your comparing rude comments to assault and Nazis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrug I like her fine. I don’t believe in canceling or deplatforming. If someone creates content I want to consume, let it stand on its merits.

So you would buy a cookbook from Brett Kavanaugh? If an avowed Nazi ran a fun, irreverent Twitter account where they shared juicy celebrity gossip and useful hair and makeup tips, you'd follow?

Or you just don't really care what you did? These are different things.

Your comparing rude comments to assault and Nazis.

The PP said "I don't believe in canceling or deplatforming. If someone creates content I want to consume, let it stand on its merits." This is an insanely broad statement and what I wrote proves that it cannot possibly be true.

What the PP actually thinks is that what Teigen did is not that big of a deal so she doesn't care to reduce your consumption of what she deems to be good content because of it. That's different that not believing in deplatforming or thinking content should only be evaluated on it's own merits. Everyone has a line. It's just Tiegen has not crossed PP's line.

[Anonymous]

Out of sight, out of mind, OP. Just direct your attention elsewhere, and you'll feel a lot better. Hate-scrolling (or TV-watching) is never good.

As for CT's future, I'm guessing there are A LOT of people who feel the same as you do, and they'll naturally deprive her of "influencer" oxygen just by moving on and focusing elsewhere.

Finally, if I had to bet, CT will repeat her past mean-girl behavior (or similar) and there will be another (deserved) backlash. Though I absolutely believe in people's ability to learn from their mistakes and grow, my sense is she's putting herself back in the public arena too soon for that to have happened.

[Anonymous]

The 1 person in Hollywood who should be canceled for good? Oh, ok sure... then just let all the pedophile, rapists get away with it! Stop being dramatic, OP. Nobody is forcing your to keep up with Chrissy Teigan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrug I like her fine. I don’t believe in canceling or deplatforming. If someone creates content I want to consume, let it stand on its merits.

So you would buy a cookbook from Brett Kavanaugh? If an avowed Nazi ran a fun, irreverent Twitter account where they shared juicy celebrity gossip and useful hair and makeup tips, you'd follow?

Or you just don't really care what you did? These are different things.

Your comparing rude comments to assault and Nazis.

The PP said "I don't believe in canceling or deplatforming. If someone creates content I want to consume, let it stand on its merits." This is an insanely broad statement and what I wrote proves that it cannot possibly be true.

What the PP actually thinks is that what Teigen did is not that big of a deal so she doesn't care to reduce your consumption of what she deems to be good content because of it. That's different that not believing in deplatforming or thinking content should only be evaluated on it's own merits. Everyone has a line. It's just Tiegen has not crossed PP's line.

Yea she was rude she’s a model. It’s not complex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrug I like her fine. I don’t believe in canceling or deplatforming. If someone creates content I want to consume, let it stand on its merits.

So you would buy a cookbook from Brett Kavanaugh? If an avowed Nazi ran a fun, irreverent Twitter account where they shared juicy celebrity gossip and useful hair and makeup tips, you'd follow?

Or you just don't really care what you did? These are different things.

Your comparing rude comments to assault and Nazis.

The PP said "I don't believe in canceling or deplatforming. If someone creates content I want to consume, let it stand on its merits." This is an insanely broad statement and what I wrote proves that it cannot possibly be true.

What the PP actually thinks is that what Teigen did is not that big of a deal so she doesn't care to reduce your consumption of what she deems to be good content because of it. That's different that not believing in deplatforming or thinking content should only be evaluated on it's own merits. Everyone has a line. It's just Tiegen has not crossed PP's line.

Yea she was rude she’s a model. It’s not complex.

Repeatedly going after a kid and telling her to kill herself isn’t rude. Teigen is trash. She’s whored out her miscarriage for pity and likes. F her.

[Anonymous]

Oh my god, OP, why are you SO obsessed with Chrissy Tie-in that you need to start a new thread on her every time there is something newsworthy about her? You have major problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrug I like her fine. I don’t believe in canceling or deplatforming. If someone creates content I want to consume, let it stand on its merits.

At all? What about content others want to consume but you find inappropriate or wrongheaded?

I think all speech should be allowed (unless it requires a victim of a crime to be made like CP or snuff films).

That used to be the view of the ACLU but those days are gone.

"Free speech" does not mean anyone is required to give you a platform for distributing that speech or an audience who will listen to it. Anyone is welcome to host their own blog or self publish a book or hand out flyers or stand on a street corner telling people what they think. That's not the same as saying anyone is entitled to a particular stage for their speech, and it definitely doesn't mean that I have to sit and listen to it, or that I can't criticize the hell out of it if I do.

People don't know what free speech is, that's the problem.

I am a new poster who is very well aware of what free speech is. While I don't disagree with anything that you have posted above, I agree with the PP that platforms and media outlets should not cancel people who have unpopular opinions. Yes, it is their right to do so, but I do not agree that it is the right thing to do. It only further contributes to polarization. The recent hijacking of the ACLU on this point is disappointing to say the least.

Anyway, back to Chrissy's comeback tour, I think it may be a bit early, but she is doing all of the right moves from the celebrity comeback tour playbook. I wonder if she hired the same team who engineered Reece Witherspoon's comeback tour after her police incident. Reece's strolls through Target parking lots clearly did the trick to reinstate her down-home southern lady image with middle america.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrug I like her fine. I don’t believe in canceling or deplatforming. If someone creates content I want to consume, let it stand on its merits.

At all? What about content others want to consume but you find inappropriate or wrongheaded?

I think all speech should be allowed (unless it requires a victim of a crime to be made like CP or snuff films).

That used to be the view of the ACLU but those days are gone.

"Free speech" does not mean anyone is required to give you a platform for distributing that speech or an audience who will listen to it. Anyone is welcome to host their own blog or self publish a book or hand out flyers or stand on a street corner telling people what they think. That's not the same as saying anyone is entitled to a particular stage for their speech, and it definitely doesn't mean that I have to sit and listen to it, or that I can't criticize the hell out of it if I do.

People don't know what free speech is, that's the problem.

I am a new poster who is very well aware of what free speech is. While I don't disagree with anything that you have posted above, I agree with the PP that platforms and media outlets should not cancel people who have unpopular opinions. Yes, it is their right to do so, but I do not agree that it is the right thing to do. It only further contributes to polarization. The recent hijacking of the ACLU on this point is disappointing to say the least.

Anyway, back to Chrissy's comeback tour, I think it may be a bit early, but she is doing all of the right moves from the celebrity comeback tour playbook. I wonder if she hired the same team who engineered Reece Witherspoon's comeback tour after her police incident. Reece's strolls through Target parking lots clearly did the trick to reinstate her down-home southern lady image with middle america.

You sound cynical and shallow.

[Anonymous]

A comeback as what? She's a butterface former model who posts stuff on social media. Just don't read the stuff she posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP you sound like a bully. That’s fine if you’re not ok with her but not everyone cares or agrees [/quote

Totally agree.