1070
Mitch McConnell 1931-2026
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2026
1070 points (99.6% liked)
Political Memes
12160 readers
1979 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Also celebrities, to a lesser extent. They are also public figures that chose to be public figures. I will agree the paparazzi should be stalking politicians the way they do celebrities, and vice versa.
The difference to me is celebrities are making art that you are free to ignore at will with virtually zero real impact on your life. Politicians CANNOT be ignored because the things they do most certainly WILL impact our lives regardless of whether you ignore them. Therefore it is imperative that we keep tabs on them.
No. Celebrities don't always ask to become famous. And people should be able to make art without being public figures.
Politicians are public figures by definition. They constantly campaign to remain in public consciousness. And they're supposed to represent us. They have up their right to privacy as soon as they ran for office.
Paparazzi are scum, though. There's a reason we don't call them journalists.
Rick Moranis, Bo Burnham, and multiple other short lived celebrities put lie to your first point. They may not have intended to blow up to celebrity status, but once they are there they decide if they want to keep it or not. Most of them decide that the intrusion into their lives is worth the money. Artists are pretty much always allowed to give up their fame, at the cost of ridiculous sums of money that many celebrities don't need.
Paparazzi are the inevitable consequence of monetizing fame. The individuals are just trying to make a buck, legally inside the system that refuses to pay anyone except for the celebrities and public figures, the system is scum.
You're missing the point. Actors and musicians don't want to represent the public. But that's literally the only thing politicians are supposed to do. Their personal lives have a huge influence on society.
People who want to delve into the lives of celebrities are parasocial weirdos. People who delve into the lives of politicians are journalists.
Even Ryan Reynolds came out at one point and said something along the lines of "well if you don't want to be a target for the tabloids...stop going to the places you know they are at, works pretty good for me"
I don't understand what you've written for the first line - how does, for instance, Bo Burnham put "lie" to the idea that celebrities don't ask for it?
Given the mercurial nature of the public, I'd almost argue that "celebrities" (or possibly influencers) have no actual control over their popularity, and unlike politicians aren't necessarily looking to control what you do in your life... So are probably a bit different.
Where's Bo Burnham? He's not in any spotlight. Him, Rick Moranis and probably a whole list of people I can't remember right now show that they can walk out of the spotlight and be normal people whenever they want to. Most of them like the money more than the inconvenience.
I’d argue that it’s more than just fame or celebrity that drives the paparazzi and other celebrity gossip media. I think fame modified by age plus the possibility of a scandalous situation is what drives it.
The paparazzi targets actors because the range of “scandals” they can become entangled in. There’s not much scandal to document and sell about an older comedic actor who chose to retire from acting to raise a family or a standup comic who chooses a private life for personal reasons.
Is bo not famous anymore?? I don't follow him, genuine question
Bo voluntarily left the spotlight and hasn't put out anything in years. He's pretty much done the same thing Moranis did. He seems to have decided money and fame weren't worth it.
I mean, other than doing Inside (which was fantastic), acting in films like promising young woman, and producing a bunch of stuff - tours were something he stopped doing for mental health reasons, iirc...
That said, I don't know when you're comparing this to.
I'm comparing what he did before and including Inside, to what he's done after. I had no clue he's gone behind the scenes and into production, but that makes sense since he was apparently having panic attacks on stage.
After Inside, he just kinda went "poof," as far as I could tell.
I mean, he had dropped out of shows etc well before inside, is my point, I guess. So again, a confusing example.
Politicians should be stalking paparazzi?
That would be funny as fuck, especially if the politicians have to go it alone the way the paparazzi do, but no, the inverse of that specific proposal, and paparazzi should stalk celebrities the way they currently stalk politicians, aka, barely.