Unidentified Plane-Bae Woman’s Statement Confirms the Worst

Re:Unidentified Plane-Bae Woman’s Statement Confirms the Worst by sorokod on Sunday July 15, 2018 @10:58AM (#17535494)

Not the op but I'll give it a try. When a " celebrity" advertises perfumes, watches, clothing, erectile disfunction therapies, etc... they intentionally blend the gap between their public persona and private life for profit.

In such circumstances it is hypocritical in my opinion to complain of invasion of privacy as they literally sold parts of it to the public. It is with a 100% certainty that the simple and the easily excitable will see this as an invitation to get closer.

Edited to clarify my point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unidentified Plane-Bae Woman’s Statement Confirms the Worst by blattimwind on Sunday July 15, 2018 @11:12AM (#17535557)

Going from "appears in an ad" to "want to dictate every detail" (GP) requires some serious mental gymnastics in non-euclidean spaces of higher dimensions... I don't know how that sort of conclusion works.

Actually I don't even get the deduction from "appears in an ad" to "hypocritical to complain about invasion of privacy".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unidentified Plane-Bae Woman’s Statement Confirms the Worst by Joeboy on Sunday July 15, 2018 @11:07AM (#17535537)

Do you think somebody who's appeared in an advert should ever be allowed to seek an injunction against a stalker? Or is that just a choice they've made and have to live with?

[ Parent | on HN ]