Lady Not Happy About People Of Walmart Website

[Mini-Me]

I hope no one here defends WalMart's "private property" even if the government had overtly taken possession of a former middle-class neighborhood (more likely a poor neighborhood actually) over the resident's objections and given it to WalMart.

Fuck WalMart. Fuck the "rights" of a corporation (non-human) which is directly and indirectly subsidized by government at every level.

As for this "news story", if this lady doesn't want people to see her mom's picture why the fuck would she contact a television station to run a story on it.

LOL, +rep for pointing out the irony (assuming I have some left for the day).

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I'm sure it would have just been easier to contact the webmaster and kindly ask him to remove the picture.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

I hope no one here defends WalMart's "private property" even if the government had overtly taken possession of a former middle-class neighborhood (more likely a poor neighborhood actually) over the resident's objections and given it to WalMart.

Fuck WalMart. Fuck the "rights" of a corporation (non-human) which is directly and indirectly subsidized by government at every level.

As for this "news story", if this lady doesn't want people to see her mom's picture why the fuck would she contact a television station to run a story on it.

+rep

Yeah, the irony is funny.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I hope no one here defends WalMart's "private property" even if the government had overtly taken possession of a former middle-class neighborhood (more likely a poor neighborhood actually) over the resident's objections and given it to WalMart.

Fuck WalMart. Fuck the "rights" of a corporation (non-human) which is directly and indirectly subsidized by government at every level.

As for this "news story", if this lady doesn't want people to see her mom's picture why the fuck would she contact a television station to run a story on it.

+rep

 

[Mini-Me]

Copycats.

 

[dannno]

As for this "news story", if this lady doesn't want people to see her mom's picture why the fuck would she contact a television station to run a story on it.

Reminds me of this scene from South Park:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154915/kennys-final-wishes

 

[mczerone]

That is a great Wal-mart for people watching!

While there is an argument to be made that the girl should complain to Wal-mart about allowing photography, the fact remains that people go out in public looking like total trash. You don't care what you look like to the hundreds of people you'll see in Wal-Mart? Then we'll presume you don't care about a few hundred more seeing you on a website.

You do not own your image, you only own how you present yourself.

 

[Kregisen]

Reminds me of this scene from South Park:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154915/kennys-final-wishes

lol I love that episode.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I doubt very much that Wal Marx gives a shit about this.

Nor do they give a shit about any form of propriety.

I've been in a WalMarx with food for sale, with people walking around in bare feet, with animals, saw one woman smoking a cigarette over produce with a three inch ash hanging off.

I have mixed feelings about this...I never would support a law or government having a say in things like this, at the same, maybe shame is a concept that should be re-introduced, to prevent things like this:

 

[dntrpltt]

So two thoughts on this one...you are out in public shopping and you should realize your photo might be taken. People take photos all the time, and it is there right to. Having said that, a website posting pictures of random people in public should have some process in which a picture of you can be taken down, after all, while the creator of the website has free speech, the person in the picture has the right to his property, which includes any visual representation of them.

 

[Anti Federalist]

So two thoughts on this one...you are out in public shopping and you should realize your photo might be taken. People take photos all the time, and it is there right to. Having said that, a website posting pictures of random people in public should have some process in which a picture of you can be taken down, after all, while the creator of the website has free speech, the person in the picture has the right to his property, which includes any visual representation of them.

Well, to expand on the the idea of "if your employer is demanding things you don't like, you don't have to work there", I suppose in the two pictures I posted, the response would be, if you don't want to find yourself publicly humiliated (not that with a lot of these people that is even possible) then keep your tit in your shirt and if you shit yourself with explosive diarrhea, do not hang around the game and electronics counter, carry your disgusting, cholera spreading ass home and clean yourself up.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

well, to expand on the the idea of "if your employer is demanding things you don't like, you don't have to work there", i suppose in the two pictures i posted, the response would be, if you don't want to find yourself publicly humiliated (not that with a lot of these people that is even possible) then keep your tit in your shirt and if you shit yourself with explosive diarrhea, do not hang around the game and electronics counter, carry your disgusting, cholera spreading ass home and clean yourself up.

 

[idirtify]

Well, to expand on the the idea of "if your employer is demanding things you don't like, you don't have to work there", I suppose in the two pictures I posted, the response would be, if you don't want to find yourself publicly humiliated (not that with a lot of these people that is even possible) then keep your tit in your shirt and if you shit yourself with explosive diarrhea, do not hang around the game and electronics counter, carry your disgusting, cholera spreading ass home and clean yourself up.

If there can possibly be a worse image than those two, it’s the thought of what/who it took for the lactating mother in the wheel chair to procreate. Look out Idiocracy, here we come!

 

[idirtify]

the person in the picture has the right to his property, which includes any visual representation of them.

Although there is some debate about that regarding the legal contract known as the “model release”, I don’t think we have the right to control all use of our image from someone else’s camera taken in a public place.

 

[Anti Federalist]

If there can possibly be a worse image than those two, it’s the thought of what/who it took for the lactating mother in the wheel chair to procreate. Look out Idiocracy, here we come!

From the Wal Marx parking lot in VA:

 

[euphemia]

Of course we want to see these people twice. Sheesh, if they don't have self respect, what do they expect us to do about it?

 

[idirtify]

But what’s a place like Walmart to do about this trend of publicizing the unpleasant appearance of their customer base? I’m sure they are in a dilemma. While publicizing the pictures does embarrass some of their customers (I’m sure only a teenie tiny percent, since along with not caring how you look goes not caring whether your image is publicized), I’m sure they also realize that it serves as free advertising to millions more who see it as an invitation to “come as you are”. When like minds see everyone else doing it, they feel safe in numbers to leave the house and spend money. In fact, Walmart should start to overtly capitalize on it with slogans such as “WE DON’T CARE THAT YOU DON’T CARE” or “WE CARE ABOUT YOUR MONEY, NOT YOUR APPEARANCE”.

 

[idirtify]

From the Wal Marx parking lot in VA:

That’s awesome! Was it on the “people of walmart” website? If not, it should be. What a jewel! I mean I’m guessing there are actually relatively few who can't spell “tomato”, but even fewer who consistently spell it so badly.

 

[Anti Federalist]

That’s awesome! Was it on the “people of walmart” website? If not, it should be. What a jewel! I mean I’m guessing there are actually relatively few who not only misspell “tomato”, but also consistently spell it so badly.

Yah, on the POWM site.

The comment was something to the effect of "I could excuse this, perhaps for being drunk. But even blind ass hammered, I know how to spell "castle".

It took me a minute to find it on the page, it's spelled so bad.

"kasul"

*facepalm*

 

[EndDaFed]

That’s awesome! Was it on the “people of walmart” website? If not, it should be. What a jewel! I mean I’m guessing there are actually relatively few who not only misspell “tomato”, but also consistently spell it so badly.

This is what happens when people ostracize the eugenics movement.