As a famous celebrity who has to deal with this a lot, here is an easy guide to tell real celebrities accounts from fake celebrities accounts on the Internet: Ask yourself, would it make sense for the real celebrity to promote these product on social media?
Does it make sense for Academy Award winning character actor Tom Hanks to promote a random dental service? No, therefore, that is a fake account.
Does it make sense for pop superstar Taylor Swift to promote her latest re-recorded albums on her social media? Yes, therefore, that’s a real account.
Does it make sense for Academy Award nominated actress Margot Robbie to promote her latest movie on her first personal social media account in years? Yes, therefore, that’s a real account.
Does it make sense for Matt Damon, Tom Brady, or Kim Kardashian to promote cryptocurrency on their social media despite never showing any interest in technology before? No, therefore, these are fake accounts.
Does it make sense for Elon Musk, the richest man in the world in his 50s, to act like an immature middle schooler and post bad memes on the Internet to sell a cryptocurrency based on a dead meme? No, therefore, that’s a fake account.
Does it make sense for an internationally recognized actress to come into the Fediverse to explain too notch level critical thinking…hmm. Agree with the points - yep. Think it’s actually Margot Robbie - doubtful.
That’s the beautiful thing. It doesn’t really matter if she’s actually Margot Robbie.
If she isn’t, she’s a person (probably - AI/ML systems are really good at tricking us these days) that posts generally amusing, positive, and pro-labor things.
If she is Margot Robbie, then, she’s a person that posts generally amusing, positive, and pro-labor things, while also having been publicly recognized as being skilled and talented at her day job.
Either way, it’s someone that I’m glad is active on Lemmy.
Does it make sense for Margot Robbie to point out what kind of accounts may be real or fake, including her own account in the example? Yes. Therefore it is a real account.
You’re welcome, soloner. Now, would you guys help support our strike and the livelihood of the majority of actors by buying a shirt or a mug? Here’s your chance to look like a real celebrity.
Does it make sense for Academy Award nominated actress Margot Robbie to promote her latest movie on her first personal social media account in years?
does it make sense for academy award nominated actress Margot Robbie to cross the picket line to promote the barbie movie on lemmy during the sag-aftra strike? yep, she’s well-known for her anti-union politics and general disdain for labour. therefore, this must be a real account.
The attitude toward celebrities on Lemmy versus on Mastodon is really weird. Same thing with reddit, a lot of the time. Like, okay, I have no idea if that’s really Margot Robbie or not, but famous people do use the internet. Attention doesn’t make them a different species that forgets how to use keyboards or something.
i thought we were just joking around here, but if you’re being serious: there’s zero chance that’s actually Margot Robbie.
or maybe like a 1% chance it’s actually Margot Robbie, but for the last three months she’s been playing a character on lemmy that’s a goofy impersonation of Margot Robbie that breaks character all the time.
I mean, I have no idea if she’s Margot Robbie, but I figure I might as well treat her as if she is. Doesn’t cost me anything. It’s basically the solution to the solipsism problem with lower stakes.
Personally, I think doing a goofy impression of yourself and occasionally breaking character would be a good way to fly under the radar.
If you have been following me here at all, you would know that I have been extremely vocal about my support of the strike here, and I have been keeping with the strike rules and only mentioned the name of the movie ONCE here after the strike started.
Your smug accusation only shows your own ignorance, while I do try to be nice here, I will not stand for you making light of our fight for survival as some kind of gotcha.
Dune 2 was postponed because of the strike, and I was really looking forward to it.
I mean I’m REALLY looking forward to that movie, but if my minor inconvenience means a better standard of living/opportunity for a large amount of people I’ll wait for however long.
The Margot Robbie is Australian so this comment would have been written as ‘now kindly fuck off, cunt.’ Therefore, I am now questioning the legitimacy of this account.
People made fun of the ad and the lines he said but people also don’t understand that he didn’t write it. Crypto.com was already going to fail by the time their crazy expensive ad came out. Matt Damon on the other hand seems to be doing just fine.
He’s an actor, so I don’t think anyone actually thought he wrote anything he said on that ad, but it was an endorsement, which is more difficult to parse whether or not he actually invested in or supported it. And, probably like most people, I didn’t care enough to read in depth about it afterward.
Ask yourself why you care what celebrities are promoting in the first place.
Even if they are being ‘real’, odds are they were just paid to say good things about a product they never actually use to take advantage of idiots who can’t think for themselves.
I just looked up, the median commute distance in the US is 10 miles and time is ~25 minutes. You can get a vehicle that will get you 10 miles away in about that time for ~$600. Ebikes are great. Regular bikes can be found for the cost of a fast food meal, if not free. As much as people say “cars are mandatory”, that might be an untrue assumption to start from. However, the car-focused layout of American cities has made it less safe to use bikes, which would be great to push back against.
Ah yes, the one theoretical counter-example that completely nullifies my argument. You’re right, all hail Cars. What percent of Americans experience -40 degree weather again?
She was drunk and got angry that the kicked her out of the park, so assaulted an old woman. Bitch deserves more than just 8.5 years. I prefer that her citizenship is revoked as well.
Well that’s gross. I’m not comfortable with giving the government the power to revoke a person’s citizenship; sounds ripe for abuse, but I get the outrage
Revoking citizenship is illegal under the Geneva convention and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Signatory countries aren’t allowed to intentionally make a person stateless. It is actually a big problem that has been abused several times throughout history. Nazi’s revoking Jewish citizenship is a prime example. More recently, we have the Uyghur Muslims in China.
The issue with revoking citizenship as a punishment is that it only pushes the burden of citizenship onto another country. It also removes any kinds of legal protections that a citizen may have had. Imagine if a country only allows citizens a right to an attorney. All that country would need to do to remove your legal council is strip your citizenship. Even if you later manage to get the citizenship back, you’ve still lost your original court case because you were forced to go through it without a lawyer.
I’m sure it was really something far more reasonable, like she was feeling scared or disrespected or thought the coach matched a profile or found that the coach had a suspicious amount of money on their being or…
According to prosecutors, Pazienza attacked Gustern after storming out of a nearby park, where she and her fiance had been eating meals from a food cart.
This is speculation, but sounds like maybe she got in an argument or was angry about something and was storming off somewhere. NYC is crowded and if you’re angry, trying to get somewhere, and not composed (getting into the mindset here, not what I really think) then “this old bitch in my way fuckin’ move arrrggg!” shove
Obviously, there’s nothing right about it and most of the time people behave themselves, even when they’re angry. Sometimes, though, they don’t. This isn’t a justification in any sense - more of a speculation in furtherance of an attempt at comprehension.
Her fiance perspective is that there was an argument and the suspect storms off and murders someone. Like, maybe now is a good time to see you’re engaged to a monster.
In such a dense environment, even the very small proportion of the general population that's deeply mentally ill and violent can be very visible and do a lot of damage, and we don't really have any good tools to deal with them except for waiting for them to attack someone.
I live in NJ, been to NYC quite a bit. I saw “event planner from Long Island” and was confused as that doesn’t sound like the kind of NYC crazy person I’ve come to expect (at least the physically violent kind) but once someone mentioned she was intoxicated it clicked for me.
She has history of bullying her classmate. Some comments in nyc subreddit suggesting her father is a mafia - being cesspool contractor has something to do about it? I don’t see the connection anyway but if that’s the case, that could explain a bit.
Lauren Pazienza spent the night of March 10 gallery-hopping with her fiancé in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood in celebration of 100 days until their wedding, her fiancé told authorities, according to a court document.
Pazienza had “several glasses of wine” during the evening before the pair stopped at a food cart for something to eat, according to the document filed by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
The pair went to Chelsea Park to eat their meal, but before they were done, an employee told them they would have to leave because the park was closing, the document said. Chelsea Park closes at 11 p.m.
“The defendant became angry, started shouting and cursing at the park employee, threw her food onto her fiancé, and stormed out of the park,” according to prosecutors.
Meanwhile, Pazienza “stormed” down the street and spotted Barbara Maier Gustern, prosecutors said.
Gustern, “in what turned out to be her dying words” before she lost consciousness, told a friend that a woman with dark hair “ran across the straight,” directly toward her, called her a b---- and pushed her as hard she “had ever been hit in her life” toward a metal fence, prosecutors said.
Gustern, according to a witness, “fell in an arc, falling directly on her head,” according to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
Pazienza “turned around and walked away, leaving Ms. Gustern prone on the sidewalk, bleeding from the head,” prosecutors said.
Pazienza called her fiancé after the assault, he told authorities. When they reconnected, she picked a physical fight with him, accusing him of ruining her night, prosecutors said. He insisted the two head home, but security video from the area showed that Pazienza stayed in the area long enough to watch the ambulance arrive for Gustern.
She later told her fiancé what she had done, he told authorities. When he asked her why she would do such a thing, she said the woman "might have said something” to her.
Lauren Pazienza spent the night of March 10 gallery-hopping with her fiancé in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood in celebration of 100 days until their wedding
honestly, this is just piece of shit person, living off someone else’s money, running around contributing nothing to society. fuck her
Defense lawyer here, though not in New York so take this all with a grain of salt, I just felt I should put my 2 cents in based on the vibes in this comment thread.
It is weird for a judge to go against a joint recommendation, which seems to have happened here. It takes something extraordinary. The article indicates that the judge felt she didn’t truly feel remorse for her actions, which could do it, but doesn’t always do it. But, to me, just the fact that the judge went against a joint recommendation will always raise an eyebrow. Usually, if the sentence isn’t harsh enough, the prosecutor won’t agree to it, and if it’s too harsh, the defense won’t agree to it. So joint recommendations are almost always followed.
Yes, it’s “only” 6 more months, but that’s really not insignificant.
Now, to all the people screaming about how it’s not enough (and especially to the one person saying she should have her citizenship revoked (???)), I wonder, how many of you are also against the prison industrial complex we have here in America? I challenge you to think beyond your initial emotions. Is this death tragic? Yes, absolutely it is. It was senseless violence for no good reason. So I agree, it deserves a harsh punishment.
But everyone keeps calling it murder. Not every killing is a murder. I also want to challenge people to watch their language. Murder carries with it an intent to kill. A shove does not intend death, regardless of who is being shoved. No, it shouldn’t have happened, yes, it’s tragic, but it was not a murder.
Now, all of you calling for 20+ years, really think about what you’re saying. Do you think this person has no chance of rehabilitation? Those are the people we put away for life. I don’t think that’s the case here. She fucked up. Obviously. She deserves to be punished harshly, and make no mistake, she is. 8.5 years is a LONG time. Think back to where you were 8.5 years ago. Were you the same person? I doubt it. Now, do you think she might better herself in those 8.5 years? I think it’s very likely, though again, the prison industrial complex makes that less guaranteed.
Sentences have many goals. Some of the primary goals are punishment, protection of the public, and rehabilitation of the defendant. Does this sentence punish her? Yes, a lot. Does this sentence give her a chance for rehabilitation? I’m not sure on that one, but that’s because it may, if anything, be too long, and cause her to get too used to life in prison, and increase her likelihood of recidivism. But that’s not her fault, that’s the fault of the prison industry. Does this sentence protect the public? I say yes. She lost her temper once and it’s now going to cost her 9 years of her life (if you include the duration of the case). That’s a hell of an incentive not to repeat.
Alright, I think that’s all I really want to say. But please, everyone, in the future, try to think about how our prison system really works, and how much you support it, when you’re discussing individual crimes, not just when you’re talking about the system as a whole. I think most people on this site lean left, and therefore should support reducing the prison populations, but this comment section has me worried with everyone here frothing at the mouth to give MORE prison time, when the sentenced amount should be enough to satisfy our sentencing goals.
It was first degree manslaughter- the article says she was facing “up to 25 years.” She threw a tantrum about being asked to leave a park that was closing, threw her dinner on her fiance, “stormed down the street” then saw a little (100lbs vs her 175) old lady across the street, crossed the street while calling her a bitch, then shoved her onto her head. I don’t think 9 years is too long for society to be protected from her.
The court ruled “not a murder” because it was just a shove, but anyone could have seen than a shove like that would likely kill a small 87 year old woman and it certainly wasn’t an accident. The woman wasn’t just in her way while she was angry walking down the street. She went out of her way to attack the woman.
Then there’s the part where she evaded police for weeks, hiding her phone at a separate location, changing locations multiple times. I don’t think the longer end of her sentencing options would have been unreasonable at all.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I don’t think there’s really a number of years to put on it to make it appropriate. But I’m sure the lawyers discussed all the points you raised in negotiating this sentence. These numbers aren’t pulled out of our asses, there are guidelines (almost certainly, again, not barred in NY) which help ensure similarly situated defendants are sentenced similarly.
What I’d like to hear more about, is whether the judge also ordered some kind of anger management counseling. I think that’s what she needs more than a longer sentence.
If we truly want to balance the goals of protecting the public, adequately punishing the defendant, and also rehabilitating her, I don’t think a few more years either way is what makes the biggest difference. I think it more depends on what she does with that time. I’m not sure what the situation is like within New York prisons as far as counseling goes, but if they have good programs, it’s hard for me to imagine, if she takes it seriously, that 8.5 years of good counseling wouldn’t be helpful to her, and to society at large.
I also think she could make all those gains in counseling, again, if she truly takes it seriously, within a couple of years. But then, I could probably be convinced that 2-3 years isn’t long enough for causing someone’s death. I’ve seen people get that for having the wrong amount of weed on them.
But then we get into the larger discussion about the entire prison industrial complex. We need some kind of change with how our prisons operate. Exactly how that looks isn’t the point here. I’m just trying to point out that there’s a bigger picture in play, and hope that people will consider that in the future.
In the end, nothing we say here has any impact on her life or the issued sentence. But it might have a difference in how people perceive and talk about the system as a whole in the future, so I think it’s important to not lose sight of that.
I don’t give a fuck about rehabilitation. There’s 8 billion people on this planet, we can afford to dispose of the shitty ones. Spend those resources that would go towards rehabilitating her on someone who needs help and hasn’t killed any innocent old women.
We’re reaching a French revolution type point in American history. There are people who are the product of absurd privilege, and there is everyone else.
This is tipping the scales a little bit back out of the favor of privilege. In the grand scheme, it’s effectively misguided and miniscule. But it’s a sign of progress nonetheless.
Our legal system sucks ass. There’s no reason why so much of our population should be imprisoned for relatively minor reason… but we’re also used to money being more important than culpability. Affluenza, rapists getting off because it would be detrimental to their future to be held accountable, or generally rich people being able to pay for their crimes financially instead of punitively.
So when someone from a perceived place of privilege is actually held to the same standards as one of us serfs, it’s usually celebrated. It sucks, but it’s true.
This thread more of an indictment of our shitty legal system than of the defendant.
There's a big ass difference between international murder and an angry lash out killing someone. At 87 you're going to die from stuff that a random angry drunk won't consider.
No dumbass, murder has to be premeditated and/or intentional.
Shoving someone out of your way/down doesn’t imply that you intended for them to actually die. And it’s pretty hard to prove that you did in court.
Manslaughter - the unintentional act of killing someone through irresponsible or negligent actions - is a fucking slam dunk here. You want this sour bitch to walk free because the prosecution couldn’t get a conviction, because laws are written more specifically than the few words you learned in school?
Go away. Adults are having a conversation, sweetie
No dumbass, murder has to be premeditated and/or intentional.
IANAL but in American law, second degree murder can be intentional without being premeditated. For example, a bar fight that ends in someone dying. There is also voluntary and involuntary manslaughter (in the later, the person does not intend to kill the victim). Different states define the different degrees and types differently.
I mean, it’s kind of the risk you take being drunk in public, you have no idea what you are going to do other than be held accountable for it when you are sober afterwards. It’s kind of insane that it is seen as “normal” to take that kind of risk, for alot of people it’s a surprisingly common occurrence.
Bro when I get drunk I wanna cuddle things, not shove elderly people. If “am I gonna murder someone if I go out drinking” is something you have to consider, the problem is you, not the alcohol.
Legally speaking you’d have a hard time prosecuting that as murder. You’d have to prove that she was intending for the old lady to die when she shoved her. I’m guessing she was charged with some combination of second degree assault and manslaughter, maybe more. She was facing up to 25 years and took a plea deal for 8, which I assume included part of the charges being dropped.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.