Slate Magazine Calls #FreeBritney Advocates a “Fringe Fan Group” who “revealed nothing”

[MX3]

Hi Lou 

[Dmnckcmps4]

Don't pay attention to this irrelevant article. It was clearly written with the intention to make people mad and try to boost traffic for the site which clearly didn't work. The facts are there and they can't be ignored. The freebritney movement is the the reason Britney was able to build up the courage to call out her abusers and shed light on the rampant conservatorship abuse across the country. And now laws are being made to prevent something like this doesn't happen again. So please don't waste your energy on this person and focus on something more meaningful and important. 

[boyinthemirror]

Not everyone now trying to act like they're experts of the situation after watching a couple documentaries 

You have to be very oblivious or unaware to say the Free Britney Movement changed nothing...

[Justin Woodpond]

9 hours ago, Slave4Brit88 said:

It reads like someone who is bitter they got outshine by a bunch of fan activists tbh. I’m still sure the media ignored all this abuse purposely for the past 13 yrs until they really couldn’t. Probably bitter a bunch of Britney fans showed them up.

The writer Jeffrey Bloomer is gay (according to his Insta).

Therefore, I’m assuming he was ceremoniously dumped or cheated on by a FreeBritney member, and thus has a bitter resentment towards the movement ever since.

That is the only logical explanation. Or else he’s a snob of the highest order who is unable to see past his own psychological projections and self hate.

[Justin Woodpond]

7 hours ago, oscar0 said:

well, the truth is that the one who has moved Britney's case has been Britney herself. The Free Britney movement has done nothing to improve her situation at court, and that's what the article says. Nobody saved Britney.

Did we both read the same article? The writer is clearly bitter about something and has a bone to pick with the “scrappy ragtag force” as he labels them.

Of course the FreeBritney movement has helped with her situation in court.

I’m not about to list all the way in which they have directly and/or indirectly done so. That’s for you and the author to do your homework.

Recently, Rosengart graciously thanked the FreeBritney movement and said “they have been instrumental” in the fight to dissolve the conservatorship to the extent that it allowed his firm to “carry the ball across the finish line”. 

Remember public perception is half the battle in winning a case! The judge must take that into account when making a decision.

Let’s not forget, it was a lowly FB Twitter user who discovered a very very important quirk of conservatorship law that was key to suspending Jamie. The attorneys work for (i.e are paid by) the conservator’s estate, not the conservator.

Saying the “FreeBritney fans have revealed nothing. They did not bring this alleged abuse to light” is frankly ridiculous and a massive oversight considering the BG voicemail and it’s general impact. And not connecting the dots regarding the whistleblower’s point of view was obviously that of Team Con’s (he worked for them after all) i.e his understanding of the situation is what “they” themselves understood happened, is just bad journalism.

#FB helped give Britney back her confidence, her strength and her voice, thus saving her from permanent imprisonment. Sam has acknowledged this, as has Britney according to Rosengart.

And if you really read the article you’d see that the author’s continuous styling of the movement as some crazy “fringe fan group that traffics in conspiracy”, which adds has only chosen to help “free Britney” in the few last years, while Britney - who has been deemed incompetent and crazy by the court and media, mirroring the authors own gaslighting tactics regarding the movement - has been fighting it for much longer.

Sorry not sorry…

The movement has been ongoing in various forms since the very inception of the conservatorship, ask @Jordan Miller and more importantly even though it has been described in such “erroneous” ways (again like Britney has), for most of its existence, it’s only real goal was to uncover the absolute truth and help get her justice. Which it has “helped inspire” rather brilliantly.

The author should remember that a fact is often a “conspiracy” before it’s ever proven a fact!

[kindlewindle]

It's easy to take the high ground and write a condescending article like this now Britney actually has the support of mainstream media, but I think Jeffrey Bloomer is completely ignorant as to how under the radar her situation was just a couple of years ago. It might seem crazy to him that fans were speculating about whether wearing yellow was Britney sending a message, however that's literally how silenced and controlled she was. The only people who were talking about it were the fans and even if much of the conversation around her situation looked like nonsense 'conspiracy', it was the constant loyalty and dedication to digging deeper that got people with actual influence (The NY Times basically) to actually take it mainstream. 

[frederiickx]

If I had a face like that, I too would be miserable inside.

[frederiickx]

This article screams Jamie and Lou doing "media matters" 

[Gordon]

3 hours ago, RulesRules said:

The only people calling Slate "Far Left" are extreme right-wingers.

Because there is no way that slate is in any way shape or form "left" except if speaking from a position of being in the far right.

 

So I'm far right for accusing them for their **** journalism?

 

The article in question is basically what aboutism. They are using Britney's case to say "what about all these other conservatorships that no one cares about? It don't involve a celebrity, so no one cares about these abuses, but we do!" but they don't use any examples. That's poor journalism and the typical moral high grounding you get from these people.

Read up on What Aboutism is. It's a common straw man tactic, often used by left based media where they deflect criticisms of foreign countries, in favor of yelling "but what about (insert something the US or western countries did here that was also bad)". You'll see more times than not in defense of some authoritarian government.

[Anitta Elusive Chanteuse]

Must be hard living with having constant verbal diarrhea, pray for Bloomer, guys

[Anitta Elusive Chanteuse]

4 hours ago, Justin Woodpond said:

Did we both read the same article? The writer is clearly bitter about something and has a bone to pick with the “scrappy ragtag force” as he labels them.

Of course the FreeBritney movement has helped with her situation in court.

I’m not about to list all the way in which they have directly and/or indirectly done so. That’s for you and the author to do your homework.

Recently, Rosengart graciously thanked the FreeBritney movement and said “they have been instrumental” in the fight to dissolve the conservatorship to the extent that it allowed his firm to “carry the ball across the finish line”. 

Remember public perception is half the battle in winning a case! The judge must take that into account when making a decision.

Let’s not forget, it was a lowly FB Twitter user who discovered a very very important quirk of conservatorship law that was key to suspending Jamie. The attorneys work for (i.e are paid by) the conservator’s estate, not the conservator.

Saying the “FreeBritney fans have revealed nothing. They did not bring this alleged abuse to light” is frankly ridiculous and a massive oversight considering the BG voicemail and it’s general impact. And not connecting the dots regarding the whistleblower’s point of view was obviously that of Team Con’s (he worked for them after all) i.e his understanding of the situation is what “they” themselves understood happened, is just bad journalism.

#FB helped give Britney back her confidence, her strength and her voice, thus saving her from permanent imprisonment. Sam has acknowledged this, as has Britney according to Rosengart.

And if you really read the article you’d see that the author’s continuous styling of the movement as some crazy “fringe fan group that traffics in conspiracy”, which adds has only chosen to help “free Britney” in the few last years, while Britney - who has been deemed incompetent and crazy by the court and media, mirroring the authors own gaslighting tactics regarding the movement - has been fighting it for much longer.

Sorry not sorry…

The movement has been ongoing in various forms since the very inception of the conservatorship, ask @Jordan Miller and more importantly even though it has been described in such “erroneous” ways (again like Britney has), for most of its existence, it’s only real goal was to uncover the absolute truth and help get her justice. Which it has “helped inspire” rather brilliantly.

The author should remember that a fact is often a “conspiracy” before it’s ever proven a fact!

[Prince Ali]

Nice article, Lou

if it wasn’t for the media attention the movement gathered she would still be silenced! I still believe she wanted to open the hearing during her testimony because she finally felt the support is there, and people will treat her differently now! 

[kevin.]

This aged poorly for him.

[kevin.]

9 hours ago, RulesRules said:

The only people calling Slate "Far Left" are extreme right-wingers.

Because there is no way that slate is in any way shape or form "left" except if speaking from a position of being in the far right.

It's totally irrelevant too. It's a bad article, period.

[RulesRules]

7 hours ago, Gordon said:

 

So I'm far right for accusing them for their **** journalism?

 

The article in question is basically what aboutism. They are using Britney's case to say "what about all these other conservatorships that no one cares about? It don't involve a celebrity, so no one cares about these abuses, but we do!" but they don't use any examples. That's poor journalism and the typical moral high grounding you get from these people.

Read up on What Aboutism is. It's a common straw man tactic, often used by left based media where they deflect criticisms of foreign countries, in favor of yelling "but what about (insert something the US or western countries did here that was also bad)". You'll see more times than not in defense of some authoritarian government.

1. Slate magazine is trash, and so is this article on Free Britney.

2. What aboutism is a tactic that's not exclusive to the left.

3. Again, Slate is NOT LEFT.  And it is In No Way Far left.

4. You're far right for calling Slate "Far Left", despite the magazine not being left.

[crying]

Literally never heard of this magazine. 

Guess it's only sold in Christian Churches and Dollar Tree. 

[BrittonJeanSpears]

On 7/2/2021 at 11:54 AM, HardToForgetYa said:

 

[BrittonJeanSpears]

1 hour ago, crying said:

Literally never heard of this magazine. 

Guess it's only sold in Christian Churches and Dollar Tree. 

Don't disrespect Dollar God by associating it with this dreck.

[MikeSim]

He is kicking a hornets nest with those comments lol. The only thing more important than actually Freeing Britney to some of these people is getting credit for freeing Britney.

[Jadedkitten]

Fringe groups get **** done