- Messages
- 13,025
- Location
- Germany
If the left one is a sleepsuit, why it got a hoodie? More like a bathrobe?
Yes, because it is a bathrobe. With a hood. In fact, both of the women in that photo are wearing bathrobes over their pajamas.If the left one is a sleepsuit, why it got a hoodie? More like a bathrobe?
Right, the "Walmartians" section of the Sad and Useless website. Before you click on the link, remember some things cannot be unseen.There's a website for people to post photos, of what they saw at Wal*Mart.
What gives anyone the right to do that?
Why post a photo of anyone who isn't you, or who isn't a public or historic figure, on the internet for any reason? What gives anyone the right to do that?
Rhetorical question, right?
It’s a mean thing to do, and voyeuristic, and tasteless. But to the best of my knowledge it’s legal all across this fair land.
Once your photo is out there, it's fair game for every creeper, jackass, and pervert on the web, to say nothing of the Internet Snarker crowd. There are many Loungers whose photos, posted here, have ended up fodder for public ridicule on other forums. Word to the wise.
Supermarket shopping, where you can witness a real life episode of: "What not to wear." Woe betide you though if you complain.
View attachment 376304
The two traveller women discovered they had been covertly photographed by another customer in the shop as they went to buy milk for a five-month-old baby at 7pm.
Chris Cooke wrote on Facebook, ‘Dear Tesco, please can you put a rule in place that people like this will not be served in your stores. It’s disgusting.’
One of the women a member of the travelling community, who asked not to be named said, ‘I’m disgusted that a man has taken our picture and put it online asking for Tesco to ban people wearing their pyjamas.
^^^^^
What am I not getting here? Are these not actually pajamas (or pyjamas, if you’d prefer), and therein lies the joke? Or is there something else in the photo that my tired old eyes aren’t picking up?
I clearly remember when women wore their hair in curlers while doing their grocery shopping. A scarf was often worn over those curlers, but not always. Not that it made much of a difference.
There’s a more-than-a-little cruel online community devoted to clandestinely taken photos of unattractive people dressed in their Tuesday worst, at supermarkets, mostly, and Walmart particularly. Yeah, it’s not a good look, but it’s not deserving of ridicule.
Right, the "Walmartians" section of the Sad and Useless website. Before you click on the link, remember some things cannot be unseen.
So if we see someone in public who is not conventionally attractive, then post a photo of them on the internet for all to see, is that cyberbullying? Should people be ridiculed for appearing attractive?
^^^^^
i can’t say I concur. But I think we can agree that media law has a lot of catching up to do with media itself.
I always thought, the US must have a "Art Copyright Act" similar to the german. What's your Copyright Act?
For far too many people, “freedom” means freedom to be an a**hole.
Isn’t there some online forum catering to fops that has members who get some creepy pleasure out of ridiculing the vintage-wearing fellows who post images of themselves here? I haven’t bothered looking it up myself (why subject myself to that?), but I have heard tell of it.