3 ms·

> I think the most unsettling thing about this is not the expunging of someone's past achievements as punishment for some terrible act, but the fact that the me

> I think the most unsettling thing about this is not the expunging of someone's past achievements as punishment for some terrible act, but the fact that the mere accusation of such can destroy someone. When you live by your public image, you die by your public image. Your rise likely happened in the same way as your downfall. You can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't reap the benefits of being a public figure but complain about the drawbacks. You're, after all, Caesar's wife.

coldtea 8y ago
>When you live by your public image, you die by your public image. Your rise likely happened in the same way as your downfall. Not really, the rise usually happens after years, or even decades, of paying dues and hard work. You don't build a career in anything, journalism, comedy, whatever, by just one gesture. At least most don't. >You can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't reap the benefits of being a public figure but complain about the drawbacks. First of all, this doesn't happen just to "public figures". A person can be fired from their non public job for saying something wrong on social media, without having ripped anything Second, this doesn't make much sense anyway. One should be able to "reap the benefits of being a public figure" while still complaining about the drawbacks if the drawbacks are detrimental to society and kill public dialogue A actor, for example, can be a public figure without giving license to be stalked. Public figure means their job is to make movies for public consumption, not that they have to suffer any BS paparazzi. There's no inherent tie between one and the other. The suggestion to also "bend over and take the drawbacks" would only make sense if the "benefits of being a public figure" were obtained in a way that called for those drawbacks (e.g. celebrities being famous because they purposefully stir trouble and put on shows for the media).
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > Not really, the rise usually happens after years, or even decades, of paying dues and hard work. Sure, but it happens because of your public image, always with a "big break" or a "breakthrough". > At least most don't. Actually, most do. There is almost always the one big break, where you are launched into the public's view. It is a step function. Pick a number of artists, and look up their career, for most of them you'll easily find their "big break". > A person can be fired from their non public job for saying something wrong on social media, without having ripped anything Sure, but that's a different topic. I'm focusing on the public-figure part of it. > Public figure means their job is to make movies for public consumption, not that they have to suffer any BS paparazzi. There's no inherent tie between one and the other. Oh, there is, and plenty of it, the relationship between the "fame industry" (magazines, publications, etc.) and the public figures is a symbiotic one. And the more you rely on the fame industry to fuel your growth, the more you're exposed to its risks. It is a deal with the devil. There are, however, public figures who simply avoid the fame industry. They are harder to find, and have a harder time succeeding, but they are there (Daniel Day-Lewis, for example).
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Actually, most do. There is almost always the one big break, where you are launched into the public's view. It is a step function. (...) Pick a number of artists, and look up their career, for most of them you'll easily find their "big break" You seem to have the stars in mind, which are a tiny minority of working musicians (and even less so of working actors, even less so for journalists etc). The majority of working actors have slowly building careers and never have any great breakthrough. Stars are not the only ones targeted in such e.g. "tweet-hit-mobs" though.

coldtea 8y ago

>When you live by your public image, you die by your public image. Your rise likely happened in the same way as your downfall. Not really, the rise usually happens after years, or even decades, of paying dues and hard work. You don't build a career in anything, journalism, comedy, whatever, by just one gesture. At least most don't. >You can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't reap the benefits of being a public figure but complain about the drawbacks. First of all, this doesn't happen just to "public figures". A person can be fired from their non public job for saying something wrong on social media, without having ripped anything Second, this doesn't make much sense anyway. One should be able to "reap the benefits of being a public figure" while still complaining about the drawbacks if the drawbacks are detrimental to society and kill public dialogue A actor, for example, can be a public figure without giving license to be stalked. Public figure means their job is to make movies for public consumption, not that they have to suffer any BS paparazzi. There's no inherent tie between one and the other. The suggestion to also "bend over and take the drawbacks" would only make sense if the "benefits of being a public figure" were obtained in a way that called for those drawbacks (e.g. celebrities being famous because they purposefully stir trouble and put on shows for the media).

ucaetano 8y ago
> Not really, the rise usually happens after years, or even decades, of paying dues and hard work. Sure, but it happens because of your public image, always with a "big break" or a "breakthrough". > At least most don't. Actually, most do. There is almost always the one big break, where you are launched into the public's view. It is a step function. Pick a number of artists, and look up their career, for most of them you'll easily find their "big break". > A person can be fired from their non public job for saying something wrong on social media, without having ripped anything Sure, but that's a different topic. I'm focusing on the public-figure part of it. > Public figure means their job is to make movies for public consumption, not that they have to suffer any BS paparazzi. There's no inherent tie between one and the other. Oh, there is, and plenty of it, the relationship between the "fame industry" (magazines, publications, etc.) and the public figures is a symbiotic one. And the more you rely on the fame industry to fuel your growth, the more you're exposed to its risks. It is a deal with the devil. There are, however, public figures who simply avoid the fame industry. They are harder to find, and have a harder time succeeding, but they are there (Daniel Day-Lewis, for example).
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Actually, most do. There is almost always the one big break, where you are launched into the public's view. It is a step function. (...) Pick a number of artists, and look up their career, for most of them you'll easily find their "big break" You seem to have the stars in mind, which are a tiny minority of working musicians (and even less so of working actors, even less so for journalists etc). The majority of working actors have slowly building careers and never have any great breakthrough. Stars are not the only ones targeted in such e.g. "tweet-hit-mobs" though.