Is there anyone in this thread at this point who has really said they have absolutely no idea about them? Most of us have been saying that they have seeped into our consciousness without us asking, so we do know a little about them, but it’s not like we tried. Some of us actively try to avoid news about them, so that helps, too.
But people keep bringing up this idea that we are all saying “NOPE NEVER HEARD OF THEM”. Instead we’re trying to explain why we know so little about them and care less about them.
Once I notice something is pop celebrity worship bullshit I quit reading and don’t commit it to memory.
I know the last name but only as a trigger to move on to less trite things in life when I see it. I have no idea what they look like nor do I care.
They are a product, not a “culture” why even bother. Hell the only reason I even know who they are is I keep hoping this thread is a real rant vs generic disbelief that some people may not have the same level of celebrity worship. It is always disappointing.
So, knowing who they are is equivalent to worshiping them? Maybe this is the root of the problem. If you acknowledge that you know that they are on a reality show, that would be admitting to yourself that you worship them?
Sorry, but you’re totally wrong. If I wasn’t reading this board, I’d have no clue who they are. And as I said, since I don’t visit an equivalent French board, I’d have no clue who their French euivalent would be.
What do you mean by “osmosis”? Think of where you’re hearing about such celebrities. I’m pretty sure mostly from watching TV show where they appear or TV shows about TV and TV shows which seem to be pretty common nowadays. As I said, I hardly watch any TV. Possibly your family and children, while I’m single and childless.
So where else would I hear about them? Where else do you hear about them? Lacking these, the only way would be actively reading people magazines, or reading random articles about celebrities. Maybe you do that, but plenty of people give them a pass. And I’m even more likely to give them a pass since I don’t have a clue who they are to begin with. Mainstrean radio news (or even TV news, for that matters)? They don’t mention these people in their headlines.
As I said, my only exposure to these celebrities are my coworkers. And they don’t discuss who they are or what they do (like in : “did you see X yesterday in Y show, she was so funny!”), unless they’re sport celebrities (soccer players, athletes, etc…). They only come up when something happen to them (they divorce, die, get arrested, etc…) and then I still don’t have a clue who they’re talking about, unless I ask, which I rarely do.
Let me give you an example : recently, my coworkers discussed some woman who had stabbed her boyfriend in Switzerland. Even though once again I had already heard her name, I had absolutely no idea who she was. It turned up that she’s very famous for having participated in some TV game show, being particularly trashy and having uttered some sentence that was so idiotic that it became a meme. Latter on, she became an anchor on some very obscure TV channel. How would you expect me to hear about her without either watching those shows or at least reading articles about celebrities? (and for the record despite having asked and even looking her up on the web, I since forgot her name, in what show she was involved in, what sentence exactly made her famous, or what she looks like. You need repeated exposure or some level interest to remember such things).
Again, I can see that you’re generalizing on the basis of your own experience/lifestyle/family/interests. Try to think again on how exactly you’re hearing about these people, besides your vague reference to “osmosis”. There’s no osmosis if you’re not exposed to specific pieces that feature or discuss them. If you don’t read articles about them when they appear on your favorite news website or whatever is your main source, you’re not going to know who they are or what they look like by magical “osmosis”.
Amusingly, I went to the doctor between my two posts, picked up a magazine, and there was a short article about Kim Khardasian. So, I saw what she looked like .
Was it on the cover of Vogue? Was it mentioned on the Daily Show or Colbert or SNL? Was it featured on Today? Was it or Reddit? Yahoo? Click bait linked by every mother lovin’ site aggregator and message board? Is it a punch line to pretty much every joke? Perhaps my boss and the muffins need better publicists?
Not in Spain, and I’m referring only to those establishments in your list that actually sell glossies (pharmacies don’t; supermarkets don’t but hypermarkets may; corner stores rarely do). In Sweden yes, but all I can tell is which mags seem to be about gossip and which ones about gardening.
The point is that for those of us who consider this type of thing trite and meaningless find it easy to ignore and forget. FYI, I can’t remember the last time I watched Today, was on Reddit or used Yahoo news.
Not everyone in the world is obsessed with pop culture. I am an extrovert and have no problems having conversations with all sorts of people without resorting to conversations about TV. I also run an ad-blocker so I don’t see click bait ads.
Maybe I am just lucky enough to live in an area where talk shows and click bait are not the sole glue between individuals.
I am quite happy to be in this world, where I can talk to people about their lives and not be limited to what random entertainment we use to pass the time.
Except that if we hadn’t been discussing her here, I would just have turned the page without paying attention.
That’s how “names” seeps in, maybe. And why they ring a bell when I hear them again. But if I don’t read the article, I’m still not going to know who she is, what she does or what she’s famous for.
I’m a bit puzzled that people are insisting on these informations “seeping in” by “osmosis” even when you don’t watch the shows, read the articles, etc… Your knowledge can’t come from nowhere. If you’re flipping through the pages without reading the content, you’re not going to know anything about these people. If you’re good at remembering faces and names (and on top of the rest, I’m also very bad at remembering those), maybe you’ll be able to recognize them next time you’ll see them, but that’s all.
Once again, I think you’re assuming that people are exposed to these informations as much as you are, belief presumably reinforced by the fact that most people are similarly exposed and know at least a bit about them. I don’t, regardless of whether you believe it or not. I’m not exposed to it, and I don’t delibaratly search for such information, so there’s no way I’m going to magically know about these people.
Spain and Sweden? Is that what this discussion has extended to? Has someone expressed disbelief that anyone in the entire world is lying when disclaiming knowledge of a minor American celebrity?
I tell you what, I don’t know any minor celebrities in Spain or Sweden, because I don’t live there. I would expect the reverse to be true of people living in Spain or Sweden. The number of Swedes total I could identify by name is probably countable on my fingers and toes—and not many more Spaniards.
You and Clairobscur seem to be having an entirely different discussion than the one everyone else in this thread is having.
No, I don’t expect someone living in France, Spain, or Sweden to know the subjects of celebrity rags in the United States. I think the OP could probably stipulate to that.
Sorry for insisting about this, but I suspect that watching TV or not is what makes most of the difference. I suspect that people watching TV very regularly (most of the population) don’t realize that non watchers have a very different “information base”.
I remember that it struck me during the preparation of the first gulf war. I didn’t have a TV at the time, and I was getting my news from papers. And I didn’t really understand people’s reactions wrt this incoming war.
Until I walked in a store, passed by the TV department exactly at the right time for noon news IIRC the day before the attack. Then I understood completely. The emphasis was huge. A large part of the news was dedicated to the incoming war. And there were non stop images of missiles leaving the ground, tanks advancing, special reporters talking in an alarming tone, etc… Even though it was a major new item in papers, it didn’t look “as big” there. Even two or three full pages, out of a whole paper it isn’t as striking as half the news, especially without images. Just reading creates a distance by comparison to watching. As a result, it wasn’t surprising that my perception was significantly different from that of TV watchers.
I think that though different, it’s the same overall issue with TV celebrities. People here are assuming a baseline of information probably coming in large part from TV. A baseline of informations that people who don’t watch TV don’t have. Even if you’re not interested in the topic, you’re going to be randomly and passively exposed to talks, mentions, references, to these people. If you’re getting your information from papers, magazines, the internet, you need to actively seek them. You need to actually click on the link and read the content rather than ignoring it and getting right to whatever interests you. You need to actually read the article in the paper rather than turning the page.
No, I’m not sure it’s the only reason, or even the main reason, but I strongly suspect this watching TV/ not watching TV divide is what is causing people to believe that you can’t avoid being exposed to such informations and leading them to refuse to believe you don’t know who is [insert random celebrity name].
I give up. Everyone here has no idea who the Kardashians are. Except that they read about it here. And saw them in a magazine at the doctor’s office. And, maybe saw one of them on the cover a magazine with her husband. And once saw a commercial about some reality show that they are on. I guess maybe they’re famous for being famous.
But, they have no idea who they are.
(you guys totally know who they are! You’re just like the rest of us! One of us! One of us!)
.