3 ms·

I imagine the worst place to be is being half famous or a B-list celebrity. Enough prominence to be at the receiving end of all vile described in the article bu

I imagine the worst place to be is being half famous or a B-list celebrity. Enough prominence to be at the receiving end of all vile described in the article but not enough money, power and connections to adequately protect yourself.

medymed 3y ago
This is probably the fate of honest politicians.
- expertentipp 3y ago
  > honest politicians An oxymoron. The above is probably what kicks people out of politics into an oblivion.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jjeaff 3y ago
No, the worst place to be has to be mega famous. Johnny Depp or Michael Jackson level. Literally cannot just go out for a simple meal without throngs of people bothering you or paparazzi constantly trying to catch you in compromising positions. Crazy people who love you so much they want to wear your skin as a jacket. You can never and will never have a normal life. Moving to some far off destination is your only chance at a modicum of normalcy.
- mongol 3y ago
  Imagine being mega famous and poor at that. Are there any examples of this? People who got famous and did not make money from it? I guess some have wasted it though
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    Any big 'true crime' victim or family of. Ron Goldman's parents come to mind.
  - weinzierl 3y ago
    Being poor and famous is probably the worst case but money alone isn't necessarily enough to protect you if you do not have power and a support network of loyal people. Both Amy Winehouse and Britney Spears come to my mind as having become enormously popular (and rich on paper) very quickly but lacking the power and support to distance themselves from people that were bad for them. I remember the story where Amy Winehouse served tea and cake to the Paparazzi waiting outside in the cold for her. This could have been a brilliant joke if she was above all this, but we know she wasn't. She was feeding the predators that were after her and that despite having enough money to pay for protection.
- weinzierl 3y ago
  I respectfully disagree and since you mentioned Johnny Depp I think he is a perfect example to support my point of view. The trial gave us a unique view into the life of mega famous people like him. Johnny Depp is rich enough to surround himself with friends and loyal people. He is rich enough to own sufficient real estate to have his entourage always near him. He can afford to have a social life in his microcosmos without ever dealing with the outside world. Maybe this is not as good a life as all of us nobodies can have but I'm convinced it's a million times better than that of B-list celebrities who can neither have a social life in the real world nor afford to build their own world.
  - jjeaff 3y ago
    I guess that depends on your definition of b-list celebrities. For me, b-list would include people like Bill Maher or Andy Samberg. Both of which I have seen out in public and no one bothered them beyond the occasional "hi". Both certainly have more money than they could ever spend. But even if you consider them A listers, even definitely B list celebrities like real housewives have usually amassed millions in assets.

medymed 3y ago

This is probably the fate of honest politicians.

expertentipp 3y ago
> honest politicians An oxymoron. The above is probably what kicks people out of politics into an oblivion.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jjeaff 3y ago

No, the worst place to be has to be mega famous. Johnny Depp or Michael Jackson level. Literally cannot just go out for a simple meal without throngs of people bothering you or paparazzi constantly trying to catch you in compromising positions. Crazy people who love you so much they want to wear your skin as a jacket. You can never and will never have a normal life. Moving to some far off destination is your only chance at a modicum of normalcy.

mongol 3y ago
Imagine being mega famous and poor at that. Are there any examples of this? People who got famous and did not make money from it? I guess some have wasted it though
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  Any big 'true crime' victim or family of. Ron Goldman's parents come to mind.
- weinzierl 3y ago
  Being poor and famous is probably the worst case but money alone isn't necessarily enough to protect you if you do not have power and a support network of loyal people. Both Amy Winehouse and Britney Spears come to my mind as having become enormously popular (and rich on paper) very quickly but lacking the power and support to distance themselves from people that were bad for them. I remember the story where Amy Winehouse served tea and cake to the Paparazzi waiting outside in the cold for her. This could have been a brilliant joke if she was above all this, but we know she wasn't. She was feeding the predators that were after her and that despite having enough money to pay for protection.
weinzierl 3y ago
I respectfully disagree and since you mentioned Johnny Depp I think he is a perfect example to support my point of view. The trial gave us a unique view into the life of mega famous people like him. Johnny Depp is rich enough to surround himself with friends and loyal people. He is rich enough to own sufficient real estate to have his entourage always near him. He can afford to have a social life in his microcosmos without ever dealing with the outside world. Maybe this is not as good a life as all of us nobodies can have but I'm convinced it's a million times better than that of B-list celebrities who can neither have a social life in the real world nor afford to build their own world.
- jjeaff 3y ago
  I guess that depends on your definition of b-list celebrities. For me, b-list would include people like Bill Maher or Andy Samberg. Both of which I have seen out in public and no one bothered them beyond the occasional "hi". Both certainly have more money than they could ever spend. But even if you consider them A listers, even definitely B list celebrities like real housewives have usually amassed millions in assets.