<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Gaga &quot;face of Tiffany&quot; that&#x27;s why she wasn&#x27;t so political]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Beyoncé</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>FvckTrvmp</strong> — <em>9 years ago(February 08, 2017 03:42 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">A lot of people have complained about Gaga not being political enough, many saying she's "the face of Tiffany" or has contracts that don't allow her to be. (and her "rap" in Born this Way is not political come on).<br />
That's fine and all, if she didn't sell herself as a "rebel" like Madonna or David Bowie.<br />
When Pepsi told Madonna to behave, she released a video with a black Jesus that attacked racism and sexuality, and they dropped her in a second. When Warner Bros. told her not to include things in her Sex Book, she did it anyway and did it LOUDLY.<br />
If Gaga didn't sell herself as this rebellious artist who is a badass, I wouldn't care. She could be like Taylor Swift or someone. But when she sells herself as this Avante-Garde badass who will not be controlled or silenced, well. She'2000s playing the game with big ass conservative companies like Tiffany.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/124213/gaga-face-of-tiffany-that-s-why-she-wasn-t-so-political</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 17:54:05 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/124213.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2026 02:48:37 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl></channel></rss>