Congratulations Will and Jada Smith...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can comment on their work. It's unnecessary to comment on who they are as people.

Wrong. They don't just put out 'work'. They also did this interview, and showed their personalities. We get to comment.

I get what you're saying. Still I think it's one thing to criticize their words and another thing to label them "insufferable". That just seems mean-spirited. And a quick google search could result in them seeing some of the things posted here. What would they gain?

I'm saying this because my instinct might initially be to mock them too, but I've realized it's just not right or fair or productive.

Oh it's certainly not productive, but who cares about right of fair? They're loudmouth celebrities, and we're anonymous commenters on the internet. This is how it goes these days.

Also, haven't seen anyone in this thread be racist or vile or wish violence against them. People are just saying that they're obnoxious and pathetic, and you can't argue against that!

You wouldn't say it to any kid you know (at least I hope not), so why do you feel this is okay? Kids say silly things. This is nothing new. These kids happen to be in the spotlight, but I don't think that gives anyone license to be cruel. I don't think we should do it to adult celebrities either, but at least they're adults. These are children.

I'm not the person you're quoting, but I don't think that we, as an audience, have an obligation to read the NY Times article (or any other piece of media for that matter) without comment because the persons quoted are minors. The Smiths and/or whoever is working for them have chosen to put their ideas out there for public consumption. And we, as members of the public, may choose to consume or vomit on it, as we see fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can comment on their work. It's unnecessary to comment on who they are as people.

Wrong. They don't just put out 'work'. They also did this interview, and showed their personalities. We get to comment.

I get what you're saying. Still I think it's one thing to criticize their words and another thing to label them "insufferable". That just seems mean-spirited. And a quick google search could result in them seeing some of the things posted here. What would they gain?

I'm saying this because my instinct might initially be to mock them too, but I've realized it's just not right or fair or productive.

Oh it's certainly not productive, but who cares about right of fair? They're loudmouth celebrities, and we're anonymous commenters on the internet. This is how it goes these days.

Also, haven't seen anyone in this thread be racist or vile or wish violence against them. People are just saying that they're obnoxious and pathetic, and you can't argue against that!

You wouldn't say it to any kid you know (at least I hope not), so why do you feel this is okay? Kids say silly things. This is nothing new. These kids happen to be in the spotlight, but I don't think that gives anyone license to be cruel. I don't think we should do it to adult celebrities either, but at least they're adults. These are children.

I'm not the person you're quoting, but I don't think that we, as an audience, have an obligation to read the NY Times article (or any other piece of media for that matter) without comment because the persons quoted are minors. The Smiths and/or whoever is working for them have chosen to put their ideas out there for public consumption. And we, as members of the public, may choose to consume or vomit on it, as we see fit.

I'm the original person who was quoted. I do think we are free to comment. About their words, their work, and that's fine, etc. It's just mean to comment about "them." Of course we have the "right" to do it. That doesn't mean we should.

[Anonymous]

10:40 again. I don't entirely disagree with you (i.e. I would find comments about their looks or body off limits), however, I have a hard time distinguishing between "them" and their "work". It seems like commenting on their ideas/thoughts is fair game, since their ideas and thoughts are entwined with their work. However, are their ideas also "them"? Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:10:40 again. I don't entirely disagree with you (i.e. I would find comments about their looks or body off limits), however, I have a hard time distinguishing between "them" and their "work". It seems like commenting on their ideas/thoughts is fair game, since their ideas and thoughts are entwined with their work. However, are their ideas also "them"? Where do you draw the line?

Maybe it's just semantics. But it feels different to me to say "they're insufferable" and "they're ideas are nonsensical" etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was pretty heartbreaking when she said that after going to a regular school for a year, she knew why most kids were depressed.

Um, yeeeaaaahhhhh. You have no idea why she said that. I'm pretty sure it was because they weren't treated like prince and princess like at home or they actually had to learn how to adhere to a schedule and somebody else's agenda. Not everyone can roam the world with unlimited funds. I'm sure it'd be a depressing change for them, but not because there's anything wrong with school.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can comment on their work. It's unnecessary to comment on who they are as people.

Wrong. They don't just put out 'work'. They also did this interview, and showed their personalities. We get to comment.

I get what you're saying. Still I think it's one thing to criticize their words and another thing to label them "insufferable". That just seems mean-spirited. And a quick google search could result in them seeing some of the things posted here. What would they gain?

I'm saying this because my instinct might initially be to mock them too, but I've realized it's just not right or fair or productive.

Oh it's certainly not productive, but who cares about right of fair? They're loudmouth celebrities, and we're anonymous commenters on the internet. This is how it goes these days.

Also, haven't seen anyone in this thread be racist or vile or wish violence against them. People are just saying that they're obnoxious and pathetic, and you can't argue against that!

You wouldn't say it to any kid you know (at least I hope not), so why do you feel this is okay? Kids say silly things. This is nothing new. These kids happen to be in the spotlight, but I don't think that gives anyone license to be cruel. I don't think we should do it to adult celebrities either, but at least they're adults. These are children.

I actually would, sort of, and I think their parents should have. If my kids are saying/doing things that are going to reflect badly on them I do take them aside and tell them how they are coming across. How blunt I am depends on the kid and the situation. I honestly have said "When you say things like that it makes you seem terribly arrogant. I know you want to come across as smart and capable, and you are both of those things, but when you say stuff like that, instead of making you look good the impression people are going to get is that you are acting as an insufferable know it all. Try saying something like _____ instead".

I've told my kids that anything they do in public is fair game for public comment -- whether that be praise or ridicule -- and that I cannot control if a quote of something they said or a video/picture of something they did gets around school or ends up all over their friends' facebook pages. My kids aren't famous, so the odds of their potential stupidity going viral online are pretty low but we have had the "CNN test" in place in my extended family since before I was born and I see no reason not to caution them about the ease with which impressions can be skewed and stupidity can be memorialized. Surely these kids have had similar lessons, especially given their actual exposure to real media which, no matter what a child may think, is NEVER on the interviewee's side and is ALWAYS looking to make people look worse rather than better because drama sells.

It's a very public interview to a major publication. Giving such a thing, assuming parental permission was granted for minors to do so, automatically makes the contents of the interview fair game for comments both positive and negative about the way the kids CHOSE to portray themselves. Even if the kids didn't realize how they were going to come across or didn't intend to give the impression they did, the parents should have retained enough control to not let this happen IF they are dissatisfied with the way their kids come across in interviews. Until the parents were confident the kids could give an interview where they would portray themselves in a positive light, they should have either declined the interview or been more involved in it.

My oldest once had to give an "interview" (really it was less than 2 minutes and they only used a quote or two) to a local paper about a service project she was involved with. We did several mock interviews coming up with questions and having her practice answers specifically emphasizing what she wanted to draw attention to and (thanks to one of DH's friends) pulled some examples of the specific reporter's previous work to see what sort of spin if any she usually put on her articles so that we could coach DD on how to work with it if necessary. Going into the interview DD knew approximately what to expect, and she had already packaged and vetted (and had vetted by us as her parents for final approval and by a trusted relative as a mentor) the message she wanted to send. All this for a small town newspaper in the Midwest before we moved here, and all for a tiny interview most people would probably never read with a high school student nobody outside of our small community had ever heard of. Surely celebrities are able and willing to go to similar lengths to prepare for media exposure. Image management is very important, especially in their position.

I don't think the critical commentary of anonymous strangers on the internet is likely to be helpful to the kids in the future, but it certainly is not inappropriate. If they do run across the negative feedback from their interview perhaps it will prompt them to reconsider how they are portraying themselves although I realize this is unlikely.

[Anonymous]

I had a boyfriend in college who talked exactly like this. He also smoked an ENORMOUS amount of weed and majored in philosophy. He's an attorney now, go figure.

Because living.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can comment on their work. It's unnecessary to comment on who they are as people.

Wrong. They don't just put out 'work'. They also did this interview, and showed their personalities. We get to comment.

I get what you're saying. Still I think it's one thing to criticize their words and another thing to label them "insufferable". That just seems mean-spirited. And a quick google search could result in them seeing some of the things posted here. What would they gain?

I'm saying this because my instinct might initially be to mock them too, but I've realized it's just not right or fair or productive.

Oh it's certainly not productive, but who cares about right of fair? They're loudmouth celebrities, and we're anonymous commenters on the internet. This is how it goes these days.

Also, haven't seen anyone in this thread be racist or vile or wish violence against them. People are just saying that they're obnoxious and pathetic, and you can't argue against that!

You wouldn't say it to any kid you know (at least I hope not), so why do you feel this is okay? Kids say silly things. This is nothing new. These kids happen to be in the spotlight, but I don't think that gives anyone license to be cruel. I don't think we should do it to adult celebrities either, but at least they're adults. These are children.

I actually would, sort of, and I think their parents should have. If my kids are saying/doing things that are going to reflect badly on them I do take them aside and tell them how they are coming across. How blunt I am depends on the kid and the situation. I honestly have said "When you say things like that it makes you seem terribly arrogant. I know you want to come across as smart and capable, and you are both of those things, but when you say stuff like that, instead of making you look good the impression people are going to get is that you are acting as an insufferable know it all. Try saying something like _____ instead".

I've told my kids that anything they do in public is fair game for public comment -- whether that be praise or ridicule -- and that I cannot control if a quote of something they said or a video/picture of something they did gets around school or ends up all over their friends' facebook pages. My kids aren't famous, so the odds of their potential stupidity going viral online are pretty low but we have had the "CNN test" in place in my extended family since before I was born and I see no reason not to caution them about the ease with which impressions can be skewed and stupidity can be memorialized. Surely these kids have had similar lessons, especially given their actual exposure to real media which, no matter what a child may think, is NEVER on the interviewee's side and is ALWAYS looking to make people look worse rather than better because drama sells.

It's a very public interview to a major publication. Giving such a thing, assuming parental permission was granted for minors to do so, automatically makes the contents of the interview fair game for comments both positive and negative about the way the kids CHOSE to portray themselves. Even if the kids didn't realize how they were going to come across or didn't intend to give the impression they did, the parents should have retained enough control to not let this happen IF they are dissatisfied with the way their kids come across in interviews. Until the parents were confident the kids could give an interview where they would portray themselves in a positive light, they should have either declined the interview or been more involved in it.

My oldest once had to give an "interview" (really it was less than 2 minutes and they only used a quote or two) to a local paper about a service project she was involved with. We did several mock interviews coming up with questions and having her practice answers specifically emphasizing what she wanted to draw attention to and (thanks to one of DH's friends) pulled some examples of the specific reporter's previous work to see what sort of spin if any she usually put on her articles so that we could coach DD on how to work with it if necessary. Going into the interview DD knew approximately what to expect, and she had already packaged and vetted (and had vetted by us as her parents for final approval and by a trusted relative as a mentor) the message she wanted to send. All this for a small town newspaper in the Midwest before we moved here, and all for a tiny interview most people would probably never read with a high school student nobody outside of our small community had ever heard of. Surely celebrities are able and willing to go to similar lengths to prepare for media exposure. Image management is very important, especially in their position.

I don't think the critical commentary of anonymous strangers on the internet is likely to be helpful to the kids in the future, but it certainly is not inappropriate. If they do run across the negative feedback from their interview perhaps it will prompt them to reconsider how they are portraying themselves although I realize this is unlikely.

Oh my god, you sound exhausting. I feel so, so sorry for your child(ren).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They sound pretentious because they're figuring things out and putting on airs. Most teens sound this way.

My thoughts exactly. The only difference is that when kids are given fame, they are slow to the lesson that people really don't have time to care about your deep musings and that maybe you have a LOT more to learn than you already know as a teen. I think average people come to this quicker because they aren't always being told "yes" but famous people have that trap for sure.

[Anonymous]

Those tweets.

Amazing.

[Anonymous]

Wait, come on, those tweets aren't real right? GOod lord they are going to look back some day and cringe at those! Those quotes sound like dialogue from zoolander! Ah to be young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can comment on their work. It's unnecessary to comment on who they are as people.

Wrong. They don't just put out 'work'. They also did this interview, and showed their personalities. We get to comment.

I get what you're saying. Still I think it's one thing to criticize their words and another thing to label them "insufferable". That just seems mean-spirited. And a quick google search could result in them seeing some of the things posted here. What would they gain?

I'm saying this because my instinct might initially be to mock them too, but I've realized it's just not right or fair or productive.

Oh it's certainly not productive, but who cares about right of fair? They're loudmouth celebrities, and we're anonymous commenters on the internet. This is how it goes these days.

Also, haven't seen anyone in this thread be racist or vile or wish violence against them. People are just saying that they're obnoxious and pathetic, and you can't argue against that!

You wouldn't say it to any kid you know (at least I hope not), so why do you feel this is okay? Kids say silly things. This is nothing new. These kids happen to be in the spotlight, but I don't think that gives anyone license to be cruel. I don't think we should do it to adult celebrities either, but at least they're adults. These are children.

I actually would, sort of, and I think their parents should have. If my kids are saying/doing things that are going to reflect badly on them I do take them aside and tell them how they are coming across. How blunt I am depends on the kid and the situation. I honestly have said "When you say things like that it makes you seem terribly arrogant. I know you want to come across as smart and capable, and you are both of those things, but when you say stuff like that, instead of making you look good the impression people are going to get is that you are acting as an insufferable know it all. Try saying something like _____ instead".

I've told my kids that anything they do in public is fair game for public comment -- whether that be praise or ridicule -- and that I cannot control if a quote of something they said or a video/picture of something they did gets around school or ends up all over their friends' facebook pages. My kids aren't famous, so the odds of their potential stupidity going viral online are pretty low but we have had the "CNN test" in place in my extended family since before I was born and I see no reason not to caution them about the ease with which impressions can be skewed and stupidity can be memorialized. Surely these kids have had similar lessons, especially given their actual exposure to real media which, no matter what a child may think, is NEVER on the interviewee's side and is ALWAYS looking to make people look worse rather than better because drama sells.

It's a very public interview to a major publication. Giving such a thing, assuming parental permission was granted for minors to do so, automatically makes the contents of the interview fair game for comments both positive and negative about the way the kids CHOSE to portray themselves. Even if the kids didn't realize how they were going to come across or didn't intend to give the impression they did, the parents should have retained enough control to not let this happen IF they are dissatisfied with the way their kids come across in interviews. Until the parents were confident the kids could give an interview where they would portray themselves in a positive light, they should have either declined the interview or been more involved in it.

My oldest once had to give an "interview" (really it was less than 2 minutes and they only used a quote or two) to a local paper about a service project she was involved with. We did several mock interviews coming up with questions and having her practice answers specifically emphasizing what she wanted to draw attention to and (thanks to one of DH's friends) pulled some examples of the specific reporter's previous work to see what sort of spin if any she usually put on her articles so that we could coach DD on how to work with it if necessary. Going into the interview DD knew approximately what to expect, and she had already packaged and vetted (and had vetted by us as her parents for final approval and by a trusted relative as a mentor) the message she wanted to send. All this for a small town newspaper in the Midwest before we moved here, and all for a tiny interview most people would probably never read with a high school student nobody outside of our small community had ever heard of. Surely celebrities are able and willing to go to similar lengths to prepare for media exposure. Image management is very important, especially in their position.

I don't think the critical commentary of anonymous strangers on the internet is likely to be helpful to the kids in the future, but it certainly is not inappropriate. If they do run across the negative feedback from their interview perhaps it will prompt them to reconsider how they are portraying themselves although I realize this is unlikely.

Oh my god, you sound exhausting. I feel so, so sorry for your child(ren).

I'm sure she found it to be an exhausting 2.5 hours, but she concedes that it was worth it because the interview went brilliantly, she and her organization looked great, and years later she still uses a similar preparation strategy for interviews of various types. This was her first and she was nervous (she didn't know how long it was actually going to turn out to be or what it would be like until afterwards), so we believed the best way to combat nerves was for her to be confident that she would be successful, and the best way to do that was to be prepared. We took a similar tactic, although a longer period of preparation, when this same DD was interviewing for a full ride scholarship to university. Total value around 100k so we told her to treat the application and interview process like a full-time job. In this day and age your public image is enduring and important -- if you're publicly putting your name to something or if you have to make an important first impression you'd better be prepared to do what's necessary to make sure it turns out right.

[Anonymous]

This is far beyond normal teenage nonsense. If my teen "philosophized" that way, he would hear a lot from me about how ridiculous it all sounds. Then again, my teen goes to school and reads books.

Their parents should be mortified, but I doubt they are.