• Ilandar@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    This TMZ article supposedly mourning her also contains their last obtained video of a paparazzo harassing her. Everyone pretends to mourn celebrities when they pass, but no one really cares about them on a human level while they’re alive. They just exist as entertainment for us, the real humans.

    • Malyca@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      2 days ago

      I don’t understand how paparazzi are still legal after what happened to princess Diana.

      • MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Magazine sales were higher for those with a photo of Diana on the cover, before and after her death. The supply didn’t create the demand.

      • rozodru@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        because at the time people continued to buy the magazines, read the tabloids, etc. Today people continue to visit the sites, the social media posts, watch the youtube vids, etc. If people stopped consuming celebrity gossip it would have stopped. But that didn’t happen nor will it ever happen.

    • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      I don’t really understand.

      How would one appropriately “care about a celebrity on a human level” ?

      If I think about the ways I think and behave towards people I care about, those things probably aren’t appropriate or possible to express towards a celebrity.

      Yes there are cases in which fans behavior has been more like harassment, like Britney Spears.

      Yes there are examples where fandom itself is toxic like the way the UK treats it’s royal family generally.

      However, for a celebrity like this how would one care about her in that way and would she actually want that.

      If a tv or movie star wants to be adored and desired (for film roles), then they can’t simultaneously want to be left alone.

      • Ilandar@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        If a tv or movie star wants to be adored and desired (for film roles), then they can’t simultaneously want to be left alone.

        This is exactly the type of logic I’m talking about, though. You are automatically assuming an actor chose their career path because they were motivated by fame, when there is no evidence of that and you don’t know anything about them as a person. Then you argue that because they are now famous, they no longer have any right to privacy even when they are not at work.

        • calliope@retrolemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’m with you. People always choose the wrong celebrities to take this stand about, too!

          Panettiere first appeared on-screen in a commercial in 1990, at eleven months old.

          “SHE CHOSE THIS! THIS IS HER FAULT!”

          So children can consent, but just to start a career in entertainment. …Right?

          Her full-time acting career began in 1994 when she played Sarah Roberts in the ABC soap opera series One Life to Live until 1997. She played Lizzie Spaulding in the CBS soap opera series Guiding Light from 1996 to 2000

          Her full-time acting career began before she was five years old. She was in A Bug’s Life when she was nine.

          She had already been in sixteen movies by the time she was 18.

          It’s possible to have empathy for people you don’t know as human beings. Even celebrities.

        • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s kind of the opposite of what I’ve said.

          I said there’s an interface with the public. A public persona and a private life.

          Of course they’re entitled to privacy, because as I said anything else is harassment.

          I also did not say that actors are motivated by fame.

          What I am saying, is that if you want to be a well paid actor or actress you need fans. Fans need something more than seeing you on the big screen.

          • Ilandar@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            What does any of that have to do with paparazzi harassing her in an airport when she is not at work…?

        • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          You’re talking about not wanting to be harassed, and that’s fair enough.

          I’m talking about not wanting to be adored or desirable.