Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 1339370 times)

1 Member and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Garden Goblin

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 942
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4170 on: August 12, 2013, 05:14:43 PM »
Someone tricked her into sending him photos, then illegally posted said photos, violating her privacy and humiliating her while making it easy for others to do likewise, and she should lose her job and all future prospects as well?

Wow.  Never park your car in a bad section of town.  It will be all your fault when it gets stolen and you should lose your license on top of it.

Hillia

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4003
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4171 on: August 12, 2013, 05:18:28 PM »
This reminds me of a scam I learned about when I worked for a web hosting company.  It's probably still going on; I don't know.  Parents would be convinced that their pre-teen/young teen girls were destined for a modeling career, and scumbag photographer convince them to hire him to be their 'agent'.  He would set up a 'modeling site' that contained just barely legal pictures of the girls in shorts, bathing suits, etc.  Nothing that we could nail him for (although we spent a lot of time poring through directories of images looking for just one that showed just enough to report them), and the company insisted that distasteful <> illegal and they wouldn't pass up the revenue.  One more reason I didn't like that company.

            Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Weight Loss Tools

Hillia

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4003
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4172 on: August 12, 2013, 05:21:28 PM »
Someone tricked her into sending him photos, then illegally posted said photos, violating her privacy and humiliating her while making it easy for others to do likewise, and she should lose her job and all future prospects as well?

Wow.  Never park your car in a bad section of town.  It will be all your fault when it gets stolen and you should lose your license on top of it.

No, but I'm not going to be too sorry for you if you needlessly park your car in Car Theft Central.  You don't deserve punishment, but you don't deserve much sympathy either. It's all about bad decisions and consequences.

            Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Weight Loss Tools

Elfmama

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6159
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4173 on: August 12, 2013, 05:36:42 PM »
Someone tricked her into sending him photos, then illegally posted said photos, violating her privacy and humiliating her while making it easy for others to do likewise, and she should lose her job and all future prospects as well?

Wow.  Never park your car in a bad section of town.  It will be all your fault when it gets stolen and you should lose your license on top of it.

No, but I'm not going to be too sorry for you if you needlessly park your car in Car Theft Central.  You don't deserve punishment, but you don't deserve much sympathy either. It's all about bad decisions and consequences.
Especially if you leave it unlocked and the keys in the ignition.  Even if some guy on the internet has offered to give you a $500 detail job for free.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
It's true. Money can't buy happiness.  You have to turn it
into books first.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

bloo

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1297
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4174 on: August 12, 2013, 05:41:06 PM »
I dunno, it smacks of 'victim blaming' to imply that since her poor decision was a part of her being conned (and, essential, there's no argument that she was conned, right?  She, albeit foolishly, trusted someone with titillating pictures--this someone intentionally worked to deceive her in order to obtain and sell/distribute those pictures) she actually deserves the eternal professional darwinism of being perpetually unemployable.

I don't really think it's victim blaming - although 'perpetually unemployable' is pretty harsh. Companies are checking people's Facebook, Instagram, Google+, etc. for potential hires and if an applicant has pictures posted (willingly) that are racy or show them drinking (not even intoxicated) a company may pass on an otherwise good applicant because if the applicant is highly concerned about his/her own image or reputation, they won't be too concerned about the hiring company's rep either.

So to expose yourself as this young lady did on national tv as lacking common sense that a turnip might possess, she may find ESPN looking for every conceivable legal way to get rid of her ASAP and may find future employment prospects withering if research on the internet is done on her name.

I mean, honestly, isn't it difficult enough to get and keep a good job without making dumb decisions?

I've already had and continue to have conversations with my teens about not trusting friends/boyfriends/girlfriends with digital racy pictures. In youth, relationships can go south quick and in a moment of anger a friend, BF or GF might post something that can never, ever be truly unposted.

So handing over intimate pictures to a stranger? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Shalamar

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1207
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4175 on: August 12, 2013, 05:42:46 PM »
The "Doug" story reminds me of a former co-worker.  This guy, "Jerry", went to a nearby Gentlemen's Club almost every day for lunch.  This particular club raffled off lap dances, and Jerry was always talking at work about how he'd spent $50 or $100 during lunch trying to win one.  Classy, eh? 

Jerry was let go during a mass layoff a few years later, but considering that I was part of that same layoff (and I never bragged about spending megabucks trying to win lap dances), I can't swear that his lunchtime habits were to blame.  :)

*inviteseller

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1821
  • I am Queen Mommy
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4176 on: August 12, 2013, 05:44:23 PM »
I dunno, it smacks of 'victim blaming' to imply that since her poor decision was a part of her being conned (and, essential, there's no argument that she was conned, right?  She, albeit foolishly, trusted someone with titillating pictures--this someone intentionally worked to deceive her in order to obtain and sell/distribute those pictures) she actually deserves the eternal professional darwinism of being perpetually unemployable.
Someone tricked her into sending him photos, then illegally posted said photos, violating her privacy and humiliating her while making it easy for others to do likewise, and she should lose her job and all future prospects as well?

Wow.  Never park your car in a bad section of town.  It will be all your fault when it gets stolen and you should lose your license on top of it.

This was a woman being wooed by a man online  but one would thing that a college educated woman out in the real world with a fantastic internship would have a little more brains than to take racy photos and send them to a man online that she has never met saying he was going to get her a modeling contract!  Most women know you do not send pictures like that online because once it is out there..it is out there.  If he had placed hidden cameras in her house and then posted the photos, that is a victim..she willingly took these and sent them so I feel she now has to take the consequences of her actions.  She was asked to send the pictures and chose not to ask questions about where he worked, why he needed those kind of pictures (real modeling agents have you do head shots and make a portfolio for face to face meetings).  This was a mistake she made the choice to make IMO. 

LazyDaisy

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1006
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4177 on: August 12, 2013, 05:52:23 PM »
I know it's not a popular concept these days, but sometimes victims do contribute to their victimhood and it would do the next potential victim some good to understand that actions have foreseeable consequences -- sometimes permanent ones -- and can be avoided with simple choices. That's not a moral judgement about "deserves it",  it's just recognizing cause and effect.

If she had been photographed without her knowledge, say at the gym locker room, then I can see her being blameless in this, but she took her own nude photos and distributed them, and then is upset that nude photos of her are being distributed? Humiliating? Violating her privacy? No, I don't think she's all that embarrassed to be honest. I think she's upset that ESPN let her go from her internship, which is usually a temporary position anyway. I wonder how long before we see poor miss "Never find a job again" starting up that modeling career for Playboy. Hey, since Dr. Phil's son married a former Playboy model, and posing nude for the public to see was obviously not humiliating and career ending for her, perhaps Erica Dahm can refer her.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Amara

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2590
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4178 on: August 12, 2013, 06:43:19 PM »
Quote
Someone tricked her into sending him photos, then illegally posted said photos, violating her privacy and humiliating her while making it easy for others to do likewise, and she should lose her job and all future prospects as well?

The scumbag who did that is beyond contempt. It's a shame he can't be legally prosecuted for it. But ... the young woman didn't use the brains she was born with. She doesn't deserve to be blamed, but she does deserve to pay the price of losing her internship because it won't be long before she is an embarrassment to the company. She may have gotten it back now, but once the spotlight is off them I am sure ESPN will dump her. At the very least they will show her the door once her internship ends. And I think she will pay a very heavy price for a long time to come. It's both sad and infuriating. Sometimes you just want to shake these young people and shout "What is the matter with you?" at them for not realizing how much one dumb act posted online can affect you for years.

Garden Goblin

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 942
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4179 on: August 12, 2013, 06:46:31 PM »
If she had been photographed without her knowledge, say at the gym locker room, then I can see her being blameless in this, but she took her own nude photos and distributed them, and then is upset that nude photos of her are being distributed?

My choosing to walk around naked in front of my husband in no way mitigates the actions of the peeping Tom, even if I did leave the windows open a crack.

She consented for him to see the racy pictures.  She did not consent for him or anyone else to distribute them.

Quote
No, I don't think she's all that embarrassed to be honest. I think she's upset that ESPN let her go from her internship, which is usually a temporary position anyway

Why should she be embarrassed?  She was neither the one who took the illegal action, nor the one getting their jollies looking at non-consensual pornography.

ESPN had no business firing her over someone else illegally distributing an image of her.  Their prudish reaction to something she did not consent to have occur was the problem and she had every right to be upset.

Quote
I know it's not a popular concept these days, but sometimes victims do contribute to their victimhood and it would do the next potential victim some good to understand that actions have foreseeable consequences -- sometimes permanent ones -- and can be avoided with simple choices. That's not a moral judgement about "deserves it",  it's just recognizing cause and effect.

The only reason a nude picture of her is on the internet is because someone else placed it there without her consent.

There is a difference between you letting someone peek into your dressing room, and someone choosing to throw open the curtains so everyone gets a good look.  Even if those two 'someones' were in fact, the same individual.

Garden Goblin

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 942
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4180 on: August 12, 2013, 06:48:59 PM »
This was a mistake she made the choice to make IMO.

One would think folks would know better than to let meddling in-laws have their phone numbers or addresses, let alone anything else.  And yet...check out the Family & Children section.

People do stupid things sometimes.  That doesn't give anyone else the right to trample on their boundaries, nor does it give anyone the right to punish that person because someone else trampled on their boundaries.

Joeschmo

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 657
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4181 on: August 12, 2013, 06:51:31 PM »
These were supposed to be photos so she could become a model right?  Wouldn't it make sense that if it was legit she would then pose for similar photos to be distributed?  I don't see it as a huge privacy violation, as I would if they were sent to an SO,  but her taking a chance that the deal was legit and then not profiting as she had hoped to from a modeling career.

Deetee

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5609
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4182 on: August 12, 2013, 06:53:42 PM »
Someone tricked her into sending him photos, then illegally posted said photos, violating her privacy and humiliating her while making it easy for others to do likewise, and she should lose her job and all future prospects as well?

Wow.  Never park your car in a bad section of town.  It will be all your fault when it gets stolen and you should lose your license on top of it.

I have to agree. But then, I don't get why pictures of her naked should affect her employment at a position that has noting to do with her nakedness. Actually, I don't see why the pictures have anything to do with anything.

I should mention that the community that I grew up in had very laid back attitudes towards nakedness so I just never saw it as a big deal. It's a bit like the movie "The Full Monty" Supposedly that was not funny at all in Germany because they are (culturally, as a whole, not every person) much, much more casual about being naked.

*inviteseller

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1821
  • I am Queen Mommy
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4183 on: August 12, 2013, 07:13:18 PM »
Yes Garden Goblin..she did consent for him to see these pictures but she sent them over the internet.  Once she consensually sent him those pictures, with the absence of any written agreement, she loses her right to them, especially because she admitted that she sent them for him to show for modeling jobs.  And I see why this would affect her position.  First off, she is interning in a media based company that would feel public fallout if it came out (although she outed herself) and it is also a predominantly male based place of employment and she could be seen as a distraction.  This was an internship which is basically a long job interview and having nude photos that you took and disseminated yourself to a stranger plastered on the internet does not make you look like a good candidate.  I don't think it is prudishness on the behalf of ESPN, but more of deciding that they don't want to be involved in any potential scandals.  The fact that she went on Dr Phil to talk about it and allowed him to show the pictures (again they blurred them but they were extremely revealing of upper and lower bits) while she cries about how embarrassed she is doesn't seem like a great career move either because the pictures she took would only be considered for one kind of modeling..and it isn't the Sears catalog. 

NyaChan

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4107
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4184 on: August 12, 2013, 07:16:18 PM »
I guess for me the sticking point is that when she took the pictures, she had no belief that they were meant to be private or an intent for them to be private.  She knew that they were to get her a modeling contract so yeah, people were going to be looking at them, in fact it would benefit her if people would look at them.  This wasn't a case of a boyfriend leaking private photos.  It sucks that she was duped, and I absolutely think that man deserves punishment.  But I don't think the duping somehow absolves her of the natural consequences of not being more careful.  So, absolutely shouldn't be punished, but if ESPN doesn't want to employ someone who is so gullible, well - I can't really blame em.