♪Rationalize, rationalize, rationalize away your moral culpability!♫
THough with Weiner it was not just the pics that were the scandal, it was also the aftermath. His insistence that his computer had been hacked, that the pictures were not of him, and that certain journalists were making the story up. If ever a scandal was badly handled it was that one. From one original embarrassing moment came at least three downright lies.
A bit, yeah (why wouldn’t you be complicit? The act of viewing somebody in a private moment isn’t passive just because you weren’t directly involved in obtaining the photos), though it’s different levels of invasion of privacy - if you’re nude in public, there’s a much greater chance that someone with a telephoto lens will be around to snap photos. If you’re taking pictures on your own cellphone for your own (and/or your SO’s) use and it gets hacked, that’s a far greater breach of privacy (and, I’m assuming, a greater crime). If you think there’s nothing wrong with checking out illegally obtained private photos because hey, it’s already out there, I don’t really know what to tell you, though I imagine you probably would have a huge problem with it if it was pictures of you or your partner or family member.
The pictures don’t even look like her, I can’t imagine it’ll be THAT hard for them to claim “fake”
So how is her career so irreparable from this? Private pictures that were 100% legally taken of an adult were STOLEN and distributed obviously without consent. The pictures were of her naked body just sitting there (or maybe doing stuff since I don’t know who you’re referencing) that everyone does.
She wasn’t kicking a puppy, or killing somoene, or doing anything.
I’m no professional PR person (yet…) but honestly each of these celebs needs to quit screaming “it’s fake it’s fake!!!” and just do what one of the ladies did and just say “yup that’s me, these pictures were stolen…waddya gonna do amirite?”
I guarantee in a year we will all remember the ladies who screamed it was fake, and forget who said this
What thing did Weiner do that he shouldn’t have? As far as I can tell, his only action was to take pictures of himself and send them to women.
Yes, there are differences. For one, we put more trust in politicians than we do in actors, and when they’re seen to violate a trust that’s reflected in whether we want them to represent us. But I think there are similarities in the cases that are also interesting.
As to how the pictures came to light, it may be different in different cases. I think the underlying violation of privacy is comparable.
Same here, I don’t give a crap about “celebrities”, and have no interest in any of this garbage, I also don’t understand why people care about stupid, mindless celebrity crap anyway
…and get off my lawn!
I kind of view “being nude in public” as roughly equivalent to “storing nude pictures on a public server.”
Taking pictures of himself and sending them to women.
Yeah, people are real good at rationalizing things when there’s a chance they can see some nudity, it seems. Also, using “public server” makes it sound like there’s no security assumed, and anything on anybody’s cellphone is therefore fair game. So I guess it’s cool for a hacker to give out your bank account info if you’ve got the app on your phone, right?
Were the women he sent them to unwilling, or shocked to receive them?
Are any of the actresses in this hacking case married; has anyone asked, or does it not matter?
As I said, not all of these leaked files were of a similar nature. Some were of a more hardcore “kinky” type. In fact replace the work “kinky” with the word “weird”. It was that female in particular who I suspect will find it hard to recover from. Actresses by and large are in the younger age range. That is when they make a name for themselves. For one young actress “making it” has just become a whole lot more difficult.
This is from someone who is not overly concerned with the well being of celebrities. Many of these celeb victims are multi-millionaires(I know this shouldnt make a difference in my attitude to them but it does). Many of them are already well established. However, not all of them are. Some are still trying to establish a career.
I suspect many of his thousands of Twitter followers were shocked to recieve them.
I think I saw “Fapocalypse” on Reddit as well, although that may be the law enforcement response.
For heavens’ sake, someone who has seen the pictures just say in clear English what they were already.
Almost as good as they are at feeling superior to others. As I said, I view this as roughly equivalent to paparazzi pictures. I’m happy for you that this incident has allowed you to feel so high and mighty. For me, it amounts to “meh.”
The “security assumed” is roughly equivalent to the example I gave upthread, where you’re out on the water on a yacht seemingly safely away from prying eyes but a paparazzi snaps photos of you via an extreme telephoto lens.
I looked up “strawman” on wikipedia and found this quote.
I don’t know what he’s talking about. It’s nothing particularly bad. In the videos, her face shares the frame with a mostly erect penis, but they’re just joking around, laughing and giggling. No penetration, no bodily fluids, not even any overtly sexual context to the interaction. Just two lovers having some harmless fun. Sort of like puppetry of the penis, but instead of making penis animals she gets bonked in the noggin with his penis.
He might be referring to what she was joking about in the video. You know how you can press your mouth to your arm and blow to make a farting noise? He did that on her butthole, which cracked them both up. Then later she says she wants to smell his because it would be funny, because they both laughed before when he did it. But he has to move, because in his current position all she can smell is balls. hehheh.
I was cracking up watching it, which I hadn’t bothered to do (since I have no idea who she is) until you asked.
The pictures are mostly solo nudes of her, plus a couple where she’s again getting bonked in the noggin with his penis. I’m not seeing anything particular scandalous about either her pictures or videos. Mostly they strike me as endearing.
Really? What’s the difference, in your mind? Both your private photos and your account info are assumed to be secure, but somehow it’s OK to hack into one and not the other? Maybe you don’t know what “strawman” means. Or maybe, you know, bitches were asking for it because what kind of shameful person takes nude selfies anyway?
All I’m getting from your argument is that if you’re naked in the privacy of your own home (or private property) it’s OK for the public to ogle pictures people (basically peeping toms) take of you, because we have the right to see tits, by God. But hacking into any other kind of personal info is a disgusting and criminal invasion of privacy. Am I getting this wrong? I’ll listen to your explanation, but please, do try to keep making me look like the asshole for defending people’s right to privacy. Being merely a consumer of paparazzi culture apparently involves no responsibility for the shitty things done to actual people.
Private selfies <> bank account info. Perhaps it’s not me who doesn’t understand what “strawman” means.
Okay, first off, peeping toms didn’t take these photos. The celebrities took these photos of themselves.
Being a consumer of paparazzi culture involves the same responsibility as viewing these photos. In other words, I judge people who view these photos with the same feeling as I judge people who read Star magazine or TMZ. Neither is more contemptible than the other, though it goes without saying that neither are worthy of praise, either.
I’d put phone/cloud hacks on the same level as wardrobe malfunctions. Both are embarrassing, both can be mitigated somewhat through personal responsibility, and it’s just the culture we live in that people will want to see both. Was everyone who wanted to see Janet Jackson’s “nipple gate” for themselves a disgusting, criminal peeping tom? Hardly.
What I’m getting from you is that everyone who looks at these pictures is a disgusting, criminal peeping tom. Which is a patently absurd position, IMO. I’ll agree that the people who actually stole the photos are disgusting criminals, for sure. But the people who just want to see them? Nope. No more than the person who reads TMZ.
Are we sure that **Fuzzy **is worried about the Downton Abbey actress (whose content is as you describe and very vanilla)? Because that doesn’t strike me as problematic.
OTOH, Olivia Munn’s content may tend to stick in people’s heads for a bit. It shouldn’t, of course, but if I was one actress who was really worried and embarrassed, I’d be her. And that’s fucking awful, and I hope I’m wrong. But her stuff was pretty porn-y, and people still look down there noses in that case.
And I should point out that downloading and discussing these pics is, indeed, a little skeevy (hacking them in the first place was monstrous). You know how people say you shouldn’t buy veal or foie gras because doing so creates the market that drives cruelty towards animals? Same idea. (I’m including myself in this judgment, by the way.)
Yeah, thats the one in particular im talking about. I havent watched them all. It was the video where the girl is wanting to sniff the guys ass that to me is a career destroying one. I didnt think it particularly endearing, amusing or loving(I guess to find them endearing you have to watch them all in order :)). The next time this lady is up for the role of Ophelia at the RSC she has just found it will be all the more difficult to get the part. I dont think this is an actress at the very top of the profession.
Being a slut can be a career enhancing move, as can being a druggie or a bitch. I have no absolute proof that ass sniffing on video ruins a career, but I think it may.