People of WalMart

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

The Fugly website mocks people on a daily basis and we "all" laugh. Why is the Walmart site any different?

Well, for one, those are generally people who are putting themselves out there to be judged on their physical looks and trying to be fashion leaders. They are willing participants in what is happening even if they aren't pleased by the "reviews." When they do the same thing to a candid photo of Celeb X caught at 6am in line at Starbucks getting a coffee while walking the dog then I no longer think it is appropriate to put it on public display and mock them for it. (Though I've also never found the Fugly site all that funny per se, just a spot to go to see some of the more interesting fashion attempts from our pop culture elite, I very rarely read the accompany commentary except to figure out who the person is.)

Look, I agree completely that how we dress says a lot, intentionally or not; accurately or not. I'm just not clear on how it is not the act of an asshole to take an anonymous photo of a person, put it on the internet completely out of context and say "hey, isn't this person hilarious?!" And then to not be secondary assholery to join in pointing and laughing.

That's different than a "conversation" about how people perceive different looks or how a group of people came to dress a certain way. That's an interesting conversation, but I agree that isn't particularly funny.

If you had a picture of me, would you contribute to a "Ha Ha Look at the Ugly Fat People" site? Regarldess if it is true that I am humorously obese? Or that it is largely a product of choices that I am? Even if, when I'm not around and my name comes up that is the topic of conversation?

I'm assuming not. And if not, why would do it to a stranger? And if you went to such a site and unexpectedly found a picture of me there would you still find it so funny as you had the previous picture? Again, I would assume not. So why is it funny with a stranger? And if I found the site and complained about it to you all would you express sympathy and (at least manufactured) outrage at my humiliation or tell me to stop be a humorless party pooper?

Originally Posted by Euro

so to the extent photos of people going to WalMart were portrayed as a class of subhumans that should be removed from society

They did refer to the people in the pictures as Walcreatures. At least when asking you to submit your pictures of Walcreatures. No calls for removing from society, just a hint that perhaps these people weren't worthy for inclusion.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Alex

Look, I agree completely that how we dress says a lot, intentionally or not; accurately or not. I'm just not clear on how it is not the act of an asshole to take an anonymous photo of a person, put it on the internet completely out of context and say "hey, isn't this person hilarious?!" And then to not be secondary assholery to join in pointing and laughing.

I think I mostly agree with you here, though confess I've at least done some of that in the context of Disneyland and Coachella. I believe according to miss Manners anything done to embarrass or humiliate someone would be rude. Then again it still might be funny and wandering through the public market place makes you fair game to be photographed. Of course, also fair game to call the photographer an asshole - just don't assault him/her.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Alex

If you had a picture of me, would you contribute to a "Ha Ha Look at the Ugly Fat People" site?

Just for your reference, Alex, I've seen you note here and elsewhere that you belong in the "ugly" category, but I think you're rather handsome.

[Strangler Lewis]

You have a very eclectic wardrobe.

I'm all for more dressing up. The one thing I do scratch my head over is how men used to wear a coat and tie to the ballpark. Maybe they were all taking long work breaks at afternoon games, but I find those old photos strange.

[Strangler Lewis]

I wouldn't mind dressing up for school recitals like the Cleavers did. I'm not sure I could get down with wearing a coat and tie to the ballpark, though.

As for where the ethical bar is set, "because we can" is about the lowest it can go. It's about the level of the constitutional bar where the unacceptable alternative is putting people in jail for their bad behavior. Further, as I think I've said before, the more we embrace the new openness and lack of privacy, the easier it is for courts to approve of all manner of government invasions into our privacy.

As to the new openness, I'm old fashioned. I don't particularly care what "the world" has to say, but I do want my contributions embraced by established institutions such as movie studios and publishing houses. I'm also old enough to remember when folks with cameras at nude beaches were considered, what's the word, assholes, not honored citizens of the global village.

[Prudence]

I draw the line at the impact it has on the individual being mocked. It's one thing to think that someone is ridiculous for whatever reason. It's another to make them aware of how ridiculous you think they are. For me, posting photos on the internet of people you judge to be sub-human for their physical appearance is too close to making them aware of your opinion. Or is the assumption that they're so sub-human they don't have internet access, so they won't be joining in the frivolity?

[€uroMeinke]

I never saw the website, but have appeared in something similar - or so I gather.

The way we dress is one of the most basic forms of communication we engage in, we use it to convey so much about ourselves - our affiliations to various tribal sub-cultures, sports team affiliations, our wealth, our availability, or unavailability. Sometimes they carry statements like "I don't buy into this consumerist culture," or "check out my legs."

So in that respect, commenting on appearances is just furthering the conversation - and everything being subjective, no matter how you look and dress, someone will mock you for it, because they look and dress differently themselves.

Now I didn't see the website so if it was more about mocking peoples hairlips and hunchbacks, then that's a bit mean-spirited to me.

[Alex]

Yes, I've seen those. And I don't like them either. But if the mockee is a willing participant then I don't care. It is in the same general area of reason as to why I don't care for Candid Camera or Borat style humor (even when I can't help but be amused I feel bad about it). Making fools of unwitting people for the enjoyment of others just always seems mean to me, not just if it is hairlips and hunchbacks.

In SF we have the bush man down at Fisherman's Wharf. Who hides behind a shrub then jumps out at tourists to scare them. For some reason this is considered high humor. One day, when he gets beat up I'll be tempted to applaud the person who did it.

[€uroMeinke]

People of the Red Carpet, People of Disneyland, People of the Art Walk, People of the Airport, People of the Metro, People of the Nursery, People of Coachella, etc.

All would make for potentially amusing photo-collections - some of which I've probably already contributed to - on both sides of the camera

[3894]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

People of the Red Carpet, People of Disneyland, People of the Art Walk, People of the Airport, People of the Metro, People of the Nursery, People of Coachella, etc.

All would make for potentially amusing photo-collections - some of which I've probably already contributed to - on both sides of the camera

I love you, EuroMeinke, sir.