CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Madonna IS Lucifer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Madonna IS Lucifer

post #1 of 37
10/29/09 at 6:57pm
Thread Starter 
Madonna promises light for Malawian village

Quote:
MPHANDULA, Malawi – Madonna has promised electricity to a village in Malawi, the impoverished southern African country where she runs a charity organization and from which she has adopted two children.

Speaking in Mphandula, some 50 kilometers (30 miles) from Malawi's capital, Lilongwe, the singer said Thursday: "I know you work in darkness. I will bring you electricity."
Alrighty....when she eventually gets one of the Nobels that they seem to just hand out with a tank of gas nowadays, I think it'll be time start pursuing cryohibernation. Might as well skip the Tribulation and go right to the Idiocracy.
Reply
post #2 of 37
10/29/09 at 7:04pm
Well at least she's trying to do something good. You can't begrudge her for that.

Besides there are worse fates in this world than being adoped by a wealthy celebrity.
Reply
post #3 of 37
10/29/09 at 7:05pm
How dare that woman spend money on upgrading infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa. Stupid rich cunt!
Reply
post #4 of 37
10/29/09 at 7:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
How dare that woman spend money on upgrading infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa. Stupid rich cunt!
Indeed. Why is this a bad thing?
Reply
post #5 of 37
10/29/09 at 7:08pm
Thread Starter 
You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Charity starts at home. It's a pr stunt. (Plus her fucking school is there!)
Reply
post #6 of 37
10/29/09 at 7:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Charity starts at home. It's a pr stunt. (Plus her fucking school is there!)
And...?

Unless I missed something (which is entirely possible as I just don't keep up with all the gossip and such) then I don't see any sort of insidious ulterior motive. There are certainly worse ways to drum up some PR.
Reply
post #7 of 37
10/29/09 at 7:13pm
I hope someone hits her so that I can have an orgasm.
Reply
post #8 of 37
10/29/09 at 7:25pm
This actually sounds pretty decent and useful of her.
Reply
post #9 of 37
10/29/09 at 7:26pm
Maybe he's saying Madonna is 'the morning star'...?

Maybe...
Reply
post #10 of 37
10/29/09 at 7:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Charity starts at home. It's a pr stunt. (Plus her fucking school is there!)
And she built a school in an impoverished 3rd World village? HOW DOES THIS MONSTER WALK FREE?????
Reply
post #11 of 37
10/29/09 at 7:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
Charity starts at home.
What do you mean by this? Is she not allowed to help people who live in extreme poverty?
Reply
post #12 of 37
10/29/09 at 7:40pm
Thread Starter 
Here's the thing, JG, her highnes(along with crackpots like the JoliePitts) want to be seen in a humanitarian light. Hey selfless humanitarian acts! That's fine. The world needs more of 'em. Problem is that they go about it in the way that allows for maximum impact for (let's call it) little pain.

These are the folks who step over the homeless and orphaned children right here in the United States on their way to the airport to jet off and buy brown kids from the Third Worldiest shithole they can google up.

No one here seriously believes that simply because folks like Jolie-Pitts have loads of money and offer a childhood you think you might love to have, that they instantly make great parents, right? Being raised by some Hollywood nanny might be your idea of a charmed life, but realistically you'd have to philosophically bend a steel girder of reason to argue it's in the best interest of the child.

I think the disconnect here is that I have a hyperstrict understanding of charity. You write off your donations...it ain't charity. You need your name above the hospital wing or carved on a brick outside NJPAC...it ain't charity. Charity isn't quid pro quo. My feeling on these Hollywood Humanists are a development of that admittedly puritanical perspective.

Hey look, I'm normally an easy going bloke. A liberal leaning romantic who likes shit like AIRPORT movies, dirty limericks and the music of Ray Lynch. But when it comes to this kind of thing, I just go Malkin! (Yeah, I hate myself for that too. Speaking of self-loathing )

To me, this is a joke. The town that most needs a hand from the superindustrial west just happens to be the town in which the Madonna Ciccione School For Material Girls happens to be?
Reply
post #13 of 37
10/29/09 at 7:46pm
Wow that's all it takes to be labeled "Lucifer" these days?
Boy, am I in trouble.
Reply
post #14 of 37
10/29/09 at 7:56pm
*falls asleep with his weakly pulsating boner in his cramped claw of a hand*
Reply
post #15 of 37
10/29/09 at 8:07pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
What do you mean by this? Is she not allowed to help people who live in extreme poverty?
You do know that there are plenty of extremely impoverished right here, right? Problem is, that's not news and it makes people , and . Too close to home.

Heartwarming stories of benevolent celebrities dropping from the skies like Von Daniken Gods and touching the lives of random, obscure and (most importantly) foreign and other-skinned moves folks more. It plays to the persona America still likes to believe it embodies.

I should apologize, though, as I was a tad bit pissy when I posted this article. It struck me as ludicrous. While her quote should be making you cringe (I really can't imagine how it doesn't), it's really the idea of it as a news story that irks me.

Ok, well, Madonna irks me too.
Reply
post #16 of 37
10/29/09 at 8:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
Here's the thing, JG, her highnes(along with crackpots like the JoliePitts) want to be seen in a humanitarian light. Hey selfless humanitarian acts! That's fine. The world needs more of 'em. Problem is that they go about it in the way that allows for maximum impact for (let's call it) little pain.

These are the folks who step over the homeless and orphaned children right here in the United States on their way to the airport to jet off and buy brown kids from the Third Worldiest shithole they can google up.

No one here seriously believes that simply because folks like Jolie-Pitts have loads of money and offer a childhood you think you might love to have, that they instantly make great parents, right? Being raised by some Hollywood nanny might be your idea of a charmed life, but realistically you'd have to philosophically bend a steel girder of reason to argue it's in the best interest of the child.

I think the disconnect here is that I have a hyperstrict understanding of charity. You write off your donations...it ain't charity. You need your name above the hospital wing or carved on a brick outside NJPAC...it ain't charity. Charity isn't quid pro quo. My feeling on these Hollywood Humanists are a development of that admittedly puritanical perspective.

Hey look, I'm normally an easy going bloke. A liberal leaning romantic who likes shit like AIRPORT movies, dirty limericks and the music of Ray Lynch. But when it comes to this kind of thing, I just go Malkin! (Yeah, I hate myself for that too. Speaking of self-loathing )

To me, this is a joke. The town that most needs a hand from the superindustrial west just happens to be the town in which the Madonna Ciccione School For Material Girls happens to be?
Give me a fucking break. So better that famous people don't use they're wealth and status to help the less fortunate at all than to do so in a way that doesn't meet your personal standards of "true" charity?
Reply
post #17 of 37
10/29/09 at 8:15pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
Give me a fucking break. So better that famous people don't use they're wealth and status to help the less fortunate at all than to do so in a way that doesn't meet your personal standards of "true" charity?
Tough shit?
Reply
post #18 of 37
10/29/09 at 8:22pm
Soylent, this is idiotic. I think its better to give to charity AND publicise it, if only for the reason that more people might be aware of a particular plight and feel encouraged to do something similar. Regardless of personal publicity.

And there's no fucking way you're telling me that America - self-titled greatest country in the world, economic crisis or not - is in as bad a way as a continent that is starving, disease-ridden, lacks basic healthcare in many places and is suffering for any kind of education for a massive portion of its population.
Reply
post #19 of 37
10/29/09 at 8:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
You do know that there are plenty of extremely impoverished right here, right?
So?

Hey I'm not saying that she is truly altruistic or even honestly sincere about this, but it's not totally my place or even business to judge that. What you are arguing about is a nice topic for me to care at a spiritual/religious level, but she's not doing it out of that so why should anybody get into that?

Your "charity begins at home" thing also gets into weird nationalistic sentiments. Like, would you prefer if the US stop sending foreign aid and just redirect that all locally?
Reply
post #20 of 37
10/29/09 at 8:46pm
All I'm saying is, there are any number of things that I judge or look down on my fellow man for. Appearance, hygiene, vocabulary, preference in erotica, political affiliation, hairstyle, tolerance for the works of Michael Bay, what books they display on their shelves, what magazines they keep next to the toilet, profession, singing voice, the "Most Played" list on their iTunes, and liquor of choice among many, many others.

But one thing you get a pass on is the manner in which you choose to give away money to help poor people. You can do it in high-top fade with Creed blaring while you guzzle E&J's brandy for all I care. I simply don't have access to the depths of sanctimoniousness required to pretend to look down on someone for providing utilities to an African village.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
Your "charity begins at home" thing also gets into weird nationalistic sentiments. Like, would you prefer if the US stop sending foreign aid and just redirect that all locally?
Plus, it totally conflicts with the "ZOMG SHE'S DOING IT FOR THE VILLAGE WHERE HER SCHOOL IS" sentiment. She's directing aid to a place she already has a connection to. The pig.
Reply
post #21 of 37
10/29/09 at 8:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
But one thing you get a pass on is the manner in which you choose to give away money to help poor people. You can do it in high-top fade with Creed blaring while you guzzle E&J's brandy for all I care. I simply don't have access to the depths of sanctimoniousness required to pretend to look down on someone for providing utilities to an African village.
I think hypocrisy (and cynicism) in this area doesn't get a free pass, even if you appreciate the end result. Maybe this is part of what soylent is trying to see, although I don't think he demonstrated that at all.
Reply
post #22 of 37
10/29/09 at 8:57pm
I think it's about time someone stepped up and talked about how shitty it is for celebrities to spend their money helping people. Fucking cockbags! I join soylentgreen in his relentless pursuit to only admire celebrities who are selfish moneyhoarders.

I mean, come on, giving electricity to an impoverished village? You're goddamned right she's the devil herself! And way to go after the hard targets too, lord knows noone needs more scorn than a woman who builds a school.
Reply
post #23 of 37
10/29/09 at 9:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
I think hypocrisy (and cynicism) in this area doesn't get a free pass, even if you appreciate the end result. Maybe this is part of what soylent is trying to see, although I don't think he demonstrated that at all.
Whatever. This is one area where I give pretty much anyone the benefit of the doubt. Even if you are doing charity work for the worst, most self-aggrandizing reasons, I say fuck it. There are much worse ways people can go about puffing themselves up.
Reply
post #24 of 37
10/29/09 at 9:19pm
Whatever?

The military dictator in my country used to give "charity" to buy votes and put a good face to his little things like ordering people killed and stealing money from the country. So yeah, there are some cases where I think you can point out the blatant hypocrisy of the act.

That is not the case here.
Reply
post #25 of 37
10/29/09 at 9:19pm
The idea that every celebrity philanthropist is doing it for PR is just such a tired cliche at this point.

Regardless of what her intentions are, I see no proper evidence that can be used to justify accusing her of an ulterior motive, or that it's a PR stunt.
Reply
post #26 of 37
10/29/09 at 9:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
Whatever?

The military dictator in my country used to give "charity" to buy votes and put a good face to his little things like ordering people killed and stealing money from the country. So yeah, there are some cases where I think you can point out the blatant hypocrisy of the act.

That is not the case here.
No, it's not.
Reply
post #27 of 37
10/30/09 at 12:03am
I've gotta echo pretty much everyone here and say that I'm not opposed to Madonna using the ridiculous amounts of money she has for something useful. I don't really care who she helps or why she helps them as long as she does it.
Reply
post #28 of 37
10/30/09 at 7:09am
I'd love nothing more than to jump straight on the attack since I fucking despise her on a physical level. But this is not cause for that. Whether it's for publicity, for herself or from a honest desire to help others a good thing is being done for people in need. Good for her. Better for them.

She's still nuts though.
Reply
post #29 of 37
10/30/09 at 11:29am
The whole Help the U.S.A. First! sentiment is utterly confounding and frankly a little disturbing.
Reply
post #30 of 37
10/30/09 at 11:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Bean View Post
The whole Help the U.S.A. First! sentiment is utterly confounding and frankly a little disturbing.
Even more so when the stupid twits who spout it seem to try and say ANY part of America is in more need than 3rd world Africa. Indeed, how dare that celebrity buy that 8 pound 13 year old a meal and some pants.
Reply
post #31 of 37
10/30/09 at 11:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCallaghan View Post
Wow that's all it takes to be labeled "Lucifer" these days?
Boy, am I in trouble.
Well, Lucifer means Lightbringer when translated from latin, so yeah, its accurate in this case.
Reply
post #32 of 37
10/30/09 at 11:37am
soylent, just out of curiosity, how many impoverished African villages have you helped to get electricity and education lately? I mean whether she does it for selfless reasons or purely for publicity or to appease some elder thing from beyond the veil of human time, she's still helping people that you aren't.
Reply
post #33 of 37
10/30/09 at 3:59pm
Unfortunately, Soylent is far from the only person who has the audacity to bitch about a wealthy celebrity using their money to help those less fortunate. I could point you to a few celebrity message boards where for some reason, some celebs - mostly very polarizing ones like Madonna and Brad & Angie - are being decried as monsters for giving millions to the poor, or adopting a kid away from their tasty diet of dirt and twigs and giving them an actual home.

Look, I could give a fuck whether she does it for publicity, or whether her intentions are genuine. When you're talking about someone spending their own personal money to build a school and bring electricity to the village where that school is, who cares if her ultimate intent is to land on Entertainment Tonight for the bazillionth time? The money landed in the right place.

And let's be honest here about one thing - the reason so many people (except the ones at *this* board, because Chewers is smart!) bitch about Madonna doing this stuff is because she's Madonna. Again, she's very polarizing, and she has a lot of haters. Because let's face it, if it were a more socially acceptable celeb doing this - if Sandra Bullock adopted a couple of Malawi orphans, or if Bono built a school and brought electricity - no one would say boo. So what are we suppsed to say? That people in an impoverished village can just go suck it if it's not the *acceptable* celebrity doing the charity work?

Quote:
Ok, well, Madonna irks me too.
Yup, there's the rub. I'm right, aren't I? You just don't like that this is being done because it's being done by her. So, who are some of your favorite celebs, Soylent? Would they be "Lucifer" if they helped some truly impoverished people?
Reply
post #34 of 37
10/30/09 at 4:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
soylent, just out of curiosity, how many impoverished African villages have you helped to get electricity and education lately?
He said charity begins at home, Brad! Duh!
He doesn't use his disposable income on DVD's and video games. He gives it to the local soup kitchen.
Reply
post #35 of 37
10/30/09 at 4:19pm
Soylent Green is tiny African people!
Reply
post #36 of 37
10/30/09 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
These are the folks who step over the homeless and orphaned children right here in the United States on their way to the airport to jet off and buy brown kids from the Third Worldiest shithole they can google up.
So a kid is only worthy of helping if he or she is American (or is local to the country that the celebrity resides in)? Doesn't any kid in a horrible living environment deserve a better life? Who gives a crap where they're from?

Quote:
No one here seriously believes that simply because folks like Jolie-Pitts have loads of money and offer a childhood you think you might love to have, that they instantly make great parents, right? Being raised by some Hollywood nanny might be your idea of a charmed life, but realistically you'd have to philosophically bend a steel girder of reason to argue it's in the best interest of the child.
So your argument - in other words - is that being left in an orphanage in a third-world country is somehow better than being adopted by a celebrity who may or may not shovel the kid off onto a nanny? Sure, okay. Because having no food, shelter, clothes, education, medical care, and maybe dying of malaria by age 10 must be infinitely better than having a warm home, three square meals a day, warm clothes on their backs, going to school, and having the best medical care money can buy if it means a nanny might do the share of the child-rearing. Yup, that makes sense (except, really, it doesn't).
Reply
post #37 of 37
10/30/09 at 6:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
I mean whether she does it for selfless reasons or purely for publicity or to appease some elder thing from beyond the veil of human time. . .
I hate to admit just how funny I think this is.

I'm not saying I think what these celebs do is necessarily bad, because they no doubt improve the lives of at least a few kids that would otherwise have been spent in abject misery. But there is something creepy about Brangelina adopting these kids. I can't quite put my finger on what. I think it's maybe that seeming disconnect from humanity I see when I look in their eyes. Seriously. Fame undoubtedly affects these people & makes them kind of weird. I don't know why, but I think thier adopting these kids is vaguely disquieting on some level. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. But by no means does any of the above make them the devil incarnate. More power to 'em, I guess. . . .
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Misc. Culture
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Madonna IS Lucifer