‘Pink’ Forbids Pro-Lifers to Listen to Her Stupid Music

How to grow potatoes in water - YouTube

She doesn’t have the sense God gave a potato.

“Pink” is one of those celebrities whose very existence is forgotten most of the time, but who periodically opens wide her mouth to let some crap drop out.

“Pink” is enraged that the U.S. Supreme Court took down Roe v. Wade and kicked the abortion question back to the states. She blames this on wicked stupid people who don’t like abortion, to whom she says, “Never f______ listen to my music again!” (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/pink-overturning-roe-wade-never-listen-1235172030/)

Hello! Like, who was listening to your music? You don’t think we can face life without it?

This gwonk was last in the nooze in 2017, when she bragged about raising her children in a “gender neutral” household and how proud she was that her little daughter said she wanted to marry an African woman when she grew up.

That total lack of guidance is bound to pay dividends later on in life, don’t you think?

So when did the freak show escape from the tent?

 

8 comments on “‘Pink’ Forbids Pro-Lifers to Listen to Her Stupid Music

  1. The self importance of these “artists” is astounding to behold. She is a singer, an entertainer. Over the years, for whatever the reason, entertainers see to have assumed the mantle of some sort of spiritual and cultural leadership. Frankly, I don’t care what Pink thinks about anything. She claims to be for “choice”, but apparently “choice” is only important to her, if one chooses to agree with her views. I don’t find her music to be of interest, but even if I did, my purchase of a recording doesn’t equate to some sort of interchange of moral opinions.

    When I had my truck painted, I didn’t ask the body shop to provide a statement of faith from everyone that laid a hand on my vehicle. Frankly, so long as they did their job properly, that was all I cared about. Why should buying a song on iTunes or attending a concert be any different?

    I’m sure that there are plenty of people that believe Pink to be important, just as there are people whom believe any number of other entertainers are important. But entertainers only have as much importance as we assign to them. I have come to the conclusion that I will assign no importance to entertainers. I may well admire their artistry and skill, but as a matter of principle, their significance in my life is limited to their role as entertainers. They are vendors, that supply a service, but even if I admire their artistry, that doesn’t automatically mean that I admire their morality, or the principles by which they choose to live.

    They may be famous, or are perhaps greatly admired by many people, but they are mere humans, just like myself, or the person that delivers my mail, or the person whom prepares the food at a local fast food restaurant. We all have different roles, but in the eyes of God, the life of any human is valuable, and we shouldn’t elevate someone, just because they can be seen on television, or have sold many copies of their recordings.

    But one question comes to mind. What would happen if an entertainer forbade people who were in favor of abortion from listening to their music? That would be front page news and quite likely there would be legal consequences.

    1. I never heard of her until she shot off her mouth about abortion. I am quite sure she would be among the very least intelligent people I could ever know.

    2. The problem, as I see it, is hero worship. No one admires skilled musicians or composers more than I do, but that does not make them role models in every area of my life. I don’t possess the talent and imagination of Paul McCartney, but I don’t allow his opinions on marijuana use to inform my own.

      I’m certain that Pink is a capable singer. If she were not, the money to produce and promote her music would never have been invested. I don’t particularly care for most contemporary music, so I don’t know that I’ve ever heard her, but I have no use for entertainers using their fame to attempt to promote their political views.

      There was a fine Jazz musician who I followed for many years. During the George W. Bush administration, this man saw fit to spout off against Bush at every opportunity, making a conspicuous point of refusing to even pronounce his name. This did nothing to change my opinions, and only served to reinforce the policy I have of separating my appreciation of someone’s art from my admiration (or lack thereof) for their personality. In my opinion, this is a valuable skill.

    3. When it comes to musicians, movie stars, athletes, etc…. there’s always another one just as good who doesn’t bore you to tears with stupid lefty politics.

    4. Johnny Carson was a master at keeping his political opinions out of his work. He seemed to lean somewhat conservative, but I think that people could easily see what they wanted to see, when they watched him.

      In the ‘60s, opposition to the war in Vietnam was a huge unifying force, among youth. A band member could denounce that war, and almost certainly be cheered. It seems like that started the practice of musicians going out of their way to include politically popular speech as part of the banter in their shows. In some cases, I question whether there are actually any deep convictions, on the part of these artists.

      A statement like this one, by Pink, is great publicity. Conspicuous support for a political position will get a lot of coverage, and costs a lot less than conventional advertising. A few years ago, she came about about how she was raising her child with no expectations, regarding gender. Once again, she stated something all but guaranteed to generate coverage, and everyone got to see her name in print. It probably boosted her on Spotify and maybe moved some CDs. Whether this reflects her actual values is irrelevant.

Leave a Reply to unknowable2 Cancel reply