Britney EXPOSES Jamie Lynn again; Says she deserved to be whipped

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Regina George said:

Manic because she is protecting herself again her sister who is basically doing the same thing publicly? Was Gaga manic when she called out Perez Hilton on twitter after he rented an apartment to stalk her? 

It’s manic. You can’t get too angry not if you’re Britney Spears the special blonde doll people wanna see her as. You can’t say **** you too much it’s manic apparently. If she was maybe a Tony Montana type figure with balls maybe it wouldn’t look manic maybe people would say it’s hot it’s badass but not manic no… just someone who’s angry at what happened to them.  

[LG666 1,570]

This is so stupid and just sad. Whether or not it's actually Britney writing this... it's absurd. 

Obviously I'm on team Britney but why do celebs have to make everything so damn dramatic.

This also makes me think it's not even Britney behind the posts.... I wouldn't be surprised if it's some PR team. Most celebs have ghost writers since they have SUCH a high number of followers. IDK. Rant over.

[Nathaniel Arven 1,289]

Anger is like a fart, everybody farts, if you don't fart you die. Express your anger. You have the right. 

People are gonna smell the sulfur, and then what ? Nobody dies from the fart smell. They die the day they stop farting and pretend their life is purrrfect.

Also if you think she is being too much then why have you ever wrote free Britney ? You want it, you got it. 

 

 

[Nathaniel Arven 1,289]

6 hours ago, PartySick said:

I supported the Free Britney movement because....

#FreeBritney was more diverting than covid.

[DpHitch1992 1,063]

This isn't really a smart move after issuing a cease and desist. You can't warn someone to stop talking about you and then continue to talk about THEM on social media.

[OMonster 14,213]

9 hours ago, Gimme More said:

Common sense tells you family relationship are always complicated, ofcourse she’s always going to love her family despite the hell. You can hate someone for what they’ve done or not done but still have love for them.

Funny how you interpret that as ‘crazy’ but you’re fine with your fave hatching from an egg, humping a microphone, dying on stage, weird bone structure prosthetics in their face and much more. You pick and choose what is crazy.

Pretty disgusting from a gaga fan when she’s all about mental health, yet here you are armchair diagnosing like you actually know **** when you don’t.

YOU are the one finding issues with her, which is quite frankly disgusting. Gaga has done plenty of ‘crazy’ things but I guess she’s not to you because you’re a hypocrite.

You're in deep denial over Britney's obvious state of mind. The way you've attacked me in this post is quite strange, considering all I am doing is expressing concern for Britney and not being blinded by fan bias. I am a huge Britney fan and I am relieved her conservatorship is over but that doesn't mean she's well. She's not and it's blindingly obvious. There's nothing 'disgusting' about what I've said. 

To your points about Gaga...

1) There's a difference between 'crazy' artistic performances and how Britney is behaving. You know that. 

2) Some of Gaga's behaviour in the past has been caused by bad mental health. She's been very open about this. 

To say I am a disgusting person and hypocrite for my view on this is what is most shocking to me. You point out the 'hypocrisy' in a Gaga fan speaking out when they see bad mental health. I would call it hypocritical for a Gaga fan to not speak out and to be sucked into the social media narrative of Britney being a 'free queen' - something Gaga never did/has.

There's a reason why Gaga was silent for so long about Britney and there's a reason she never subscribed to the Free Britney movement. It's because she's close to Britney (via Bobby and Sam) and knows the full story. The full story clearly being that Britney is mentally vulnerable and unwell and that leaving the conservatorship wouldn't just be a bed of roses. It rightfully gave her her independence back but it has removed the need for obligated mental health monitoring, which I believe is the reason why the chaos in Britney's life is actually escalating.

[Regina George 59,387]

6 minutes ago, OMonster said:

You're in deep denial over Britney's obvious state of mind. The way you've attacked me in this post is quite strange, considering all I am doing is expressing concern for Britney and not being blinded by fan bias. I am a huge Britney fan and I am relieved her conservatorship is over but that doesn't mean she's well. She's not and it's blindingly obvious. There's nothing 'disgusting' about what I've said. 

To your points about Gaga...

1) There's a difference between 'crazy' artistic performances and how Britney is behaving. You know that. 

2) Some of Gaga's behaviour in the past has been caused by bad mental health. She's been very open about this. 

To say I am a disgusting person and hypocrite for my view on this is what is most shocking to me. You point out the 'hypocrisy' in a Gaga fan speaking out when they see bad mental health. I would call it hypocritical for a Gaga fan to not speak out and to be sucked into the social media narrative of Britney being a 'free queen' - something Gaga never did/has.

There's a reason why Gaga was silent for so long about Britney and there's a reason she never subscribed to the Free Britney movement. It's because she's close to Britney (via Bobby and Sam) and knows the full story. The full story clearly being that Britney is mentally vulnerable and unwell and that leaving the conservatorship wouldn't just be a bed of roses. It rightfully gave her her independence back but it has removed the need for obligated mental health monitoring, which I believe is the reason why the chaos in Britney's life is actually escalating.

Even if she was mentally unstable and unable to take care of herself conservatorship did her more harm than good so please keep that “Gaga was aware she needs it” argument to yourself because this woman was abused for 13 years. 

[Meta Mart 352]

You people suck. Let her be herself. Jamie puts out a tell all criticism of Brit, from within her own family, as someone influencing it all in that womb wether she denies it or not, and then says Brit's not allowed to criticise publicly her public criticism. Or to even have a personal perspective on how her own feelings and process from it are, as something she can share. Talk about the ugly brutalist conditioned psychology of those in the captor position relative to the whole conservatorship. She should be whipped says Britney... Britney coming directly from a humoured culture she performs, and actually even performed like a real slave in, about making a "slave" art expression pop, and from the conservatorship oppression, you people are tone deaf and dumb if you think you can characterise her psychology with your egotistical bullying prejudice. Just cause Brit made an artwork about it, never made it cool for them to treat her like a slave, and deride her through emotional blackmail and endless derogatory attitudes, evidence by their will in the conservatorship. If this had been the kind of expose by anyone who it weren't your bretheren sister you'd be suing for defamation. But it's gaslighting from Jamie, and we're all supposed to chime or criticise Brit giving it the "sarcastic" or impositionally "rejecting the offence" candour in her language, with someone like her sister doing an expression like this (gaslighters love to hide behind victim blaming, by extracting a condemning image of their victim through an action or phrase they've said, and stealing it's context or misrepresenting it), because that's funny for public gawkers, to see someone who will feel conditioned to appease their oppressive environmental people, by re-fawning of giving affection to their abusers as reparative embargo. Sick abusive and harassing sadistic culture were in. By those who enjoy privelige from bullying another's standing, such as to watch Britney be construed as in an "unravel". When what she's doing is standing up for herself. And I stand by her.

 

Is Brit's first steps out of the conservatorship supposed to be her sister shittalking and endangering her freedom again, before she's had more than one breath of her own outside of it? I would be enraged and be calling for the whip. I can scarcely think of anything more shallow, petty, cruel, mean-spirited, ego-driven, than for Jamie to do this to her in this way, and shape the narrative about herself as the arbiter of goodliness on the back of ruining Britney's personal determinism. It is beyond offensive. It beggars belief.

[OMonster 14,213]

2 hours ago, Regina George said:

Even if she was mentally unstable and unable to take care of herself conservatorship did her more harm than good so please keep that “Gaga was aware she needs it” argument to yourself because this woman was abused for 13 years. 

I'm not saying Gaga wanted the conservatorship to continue. That's a deliberately sensational and overdramatic interpretation of what I said. I'm saying that in, all likelihood, Gaga knew of the complexities involved in Britney's case. The conservatorship, in many ways, probably did stop Britney from spiralling out of control - it just did it in the complete wrong way. It was oppressive, exploitative and criminal and it - OF COURSE - needed to end. But the consequences of it ending were never going to be a walk in the park. And on reflection, there's no way Gaga didn't know that. 

[SEANGT 4,709]

y'all please just leave them alone to fight in public lol. it's really none of our business. 

[phantasmas 8,379]

9 hours ago, Nathaniel Arven said:

Anger is like a fart, everybody farts, if you don't fart you die. Express your anger. You have the right. 

People are gonna smell the sulfur, and then what ? Nobody dies from the fart smell. They die the day they stop farting and pretend their life is purrrfect.

Also if you think she is being too much then why have you ever wrote free Britney ? You want it, you got it. 

 

 

why are you using farts as an example 

[HIM820 1,594]

5 hours ago, OMonster said:

I'm not saying Gaga wanted the conservatorship to continue. That's a deliberately sensational and overdramatic interpretation of what I said. I'm saying that in, all likelihood, Gaga knew of the complexities involved in Britney's case. The conservatorship, in many ways, probably did stop Britney from spiralling out of control - it just did it in the complete wrong way. It was oppressive, exploitative and criminal and it - OF COURSE - needed to end. But the consequences of it ending were never going to be a walk in the park. And on reflection, there's no way Gaga didn't know that. 

This is just fan fiction at this point. “It’s because she’s close to Britney and knows the full story” lol you have NO way of knowing that and using the evidence that she said nothing about the movement is NOT evidence. I love her to death, but the past few years Gaga has been a PR machine artist. It really went full on during ASIB. All of the prepped answers for questions was evidence enough she had a full team of people helping her (as most artists do) and went similarly for Chromatica and now Gucci. I started seeing her doing her more free/ artistic approach to Chromatica promo- but then she went full PR mode once her album came out during the protests. I completely understood why. But since, ALL of her social media posts seem crafted. It’s rare we get a post that I seems personal or just silly. I’m willing to bet money her team advised against posting about Britney until the conservatorship ended, not necessarily because she had “inside knowledge”through Bobby. 
 

To the conservatorship statement- any good it could have done keeping her from spiraling is a moot point once they started funneling her money and heavily dosing her on lithium. More damage was done.