I am all for people of power/money/etc. using their resources to give to those less fortunate and such, but whoever came up with this campaign is a
fucking assclown.
"The world's top celebrities are sacrificing their digital lives to give real life to millions of people affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa and India,"
the campaign states. "That means no more Twitter or Facebook updates from any of them. No more knowing where they are, what they had for dinner, or
what interesting things are happening in their lives. From here on out, they're dead. Kaput. Finished."
Are you serious?
I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF YOU DON'T TWEET. Nobody should! Do you honestly think someone will be inclined to shell out money in fear of not knowing what
you ate for dinner?!
How about instead, you ask people to just plain donate? Shouldn't that be good enough?
I find this to be totally asinine. The fact that we live in a world where people think it's a good idea to bargain celebrity narcissism for AIDS
funding is ridiculous.
I mean, really. Glamour shots in caskets.
End rant. Am I the only one?barc0debaby - 12-3-2010 at 03:12 AM
One day soon accomplishment will be removed the the dictionary.Johnny_Whistle - 12-3-2010 at 09:36 AM
I just love the unstated implication that, if people give to their charity of choice, they promise to be slightly less annoying.Colin - 12-4-2010 at 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny_Whistle
I just love the unstated implication that, if people give to their charity of choice, they promise to be slightly less annoying.
BDx13 - 12-4-2010 at 10:19 PM
oh yeah, this whole thing is a fucking train wreck. barc0debaby - 12-7-2010 at 12:41 AM
I just love the unstated implication that if a celebrity joins twitter someone will get AIDS.
