Ascetic 0 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Not even true. Read this:http://www.vocativ.com/culture/celebrity/lady-gaga-actually-charitable-everyone/ Post that then But I'm reading through the form anyways Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jjang 2,262 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 *Who told them, Jesus? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJHolland 12,723 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 um do they not realize the BTWF is a charity itself or.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Drew Bieber 25,321 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 So many gullible people on the comments Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgusPop 4,064 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Not even true. Read this:http://www.vocativ.com/culture/celebrity/lady-gaga-actually-charitable-everyone/ Well, is time to close this sh.it and ban the OP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemo 4,000 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 um do they not realize the BTWF is a charity itself or..Exactly. The article is profoundly dishonest, without telling a simple lie -- by taking the amount donated from the BTWF to other charities, which is not its primary function, and conflating that with the "efficiency rating" we commonly see for charities, which compares "administration" costs with the amount spent on delivering services. The Born Brave Bus program is not an administrative cost; that is the function of the BTWF. (And, please, don't anyone pretend that the Born Brave Bus is of no value. Even Jemuel Da****ingSilva admitted he was impressed by it.)What's sad is that seemingly all the commenters on Gawker -- and not a small fraction of the ones here -- are buying into this frame, although it's absurd on its face, and falls apart under a moment's scrutiny. "This needs to be cleared up"? No, it doesn't. All the facts are right there, even in this crummy article. You just need to pay attention to what's actually being said, instead of what's being spun out of it. And... think!Well, is time to close this sh.it and ban the OPNah, the OP is just reporting. I'd be tempted to ban some of the commenters, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emvee 7,166 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I knew this bull**** would gain traction. But even if at the end of the day, the haters are proven false, Gaga's and the foundation's reputation once again took a nose dive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle 2,056 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Well, is time to close this sh.it and ban the OP No need for that, come on now. Lets go take a howl at that moon🌙 -Crowley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefani 25 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 ok Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaprincess 23 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 why am i not surprised. bloggers misleading Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyaKara 2,272 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 This isn't News so I'm putting it in Gaga Thoughts, but I wish Gawker would have looked up more sources such as this so they could back up their information. Continue discussing everyone! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punky 10 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Ouch, this is bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemo 4,000 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 But even if at the end of the day, the haters are proven false, Gaga's and the foundation's reputation once again took a nose diveThere isn't even anything to prove false. There is no accusation of wrongdoing in the article. Rather, it takes a few carefully chosen facts, and puts them together in an illogical manner, in a way that's meant to imply something bad. It relies on the reader to make the intended inference, and this in turn depends on the reader being a) stupid, and/or b) a hater using motivated [non-]reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgusPop 4,064 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 This isn't News so I'm putting it in Gaga Thoughts, but I wish Gawker would have looked up more sources such as this so they could back up their information. Continue discussing everyone! Why do you keep this topic open? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emvee 7,166 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 There isn't even anything to prove false. There is no accusation of wrongdoing in the article. Rather, it takes a few carefully chosen facts, and puts them together in an illogical manner, in a way that's meant to imply something bad. It relies on the reader to make the intended inference, and this in turn depends on the reader being a) stupid, and/or b) a hater using motivated [non-]reason. Well that's true, but you know what the author is getting at, right? And a lot of media outlets ran with this story, so are they all dumb? The media thrives on gists. The public doesn't care about details, all they care about is that they heard Lady Gaga's little charity (which it is not) is a farce. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trending Now
New Threads
Trending Now
New Threads
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.