Hey Everyone, Let's Dial Back the Creepiness

[happy atheist]

The Duggar Aviation thread is making a lot of people uncomfortable. I mean seriously, burner phones?

We can't control our users' offsite behavior, and we don't want to, but this level of stalking is over the top and doesn't make anyone look good. If you simply must continue, discuss it someplace that is not FJ.

If flight information is public, it may be discussed here. If the information is private, it may not.

Do not try to hide the thread in AYTFJ. That forum is for personal topics, not obfuscating your creepy stalking.

[iweartanktops]

Burner phones? What 

[gustava]

12 minutes ago, iweartanktops6 said:

Burner phones? What 

[Eternalbluepearl]

Yikes! I don't even know what a burner phone is. 

[clueliss]

I enjoyed the Aviation thread until burner phones and people going to the airport started in, then it was, well, creepy.  

[LadyCrow1313]

Creepiness is not a virtue. Please be cool & non-stalkerish, kids.

[iweartanktops]

4 minutes ago, Eternalbluepearl said:

Yikes! I don't even know what a burner phone is. 

I believe they're the phones you can buy at a convenience store without a contract, and they aren't easily traced, as far as I know.  

[notfundy]

You know, I don't really think it WAS all that creepy when the plane's flight routes were public and folks here (including me) were tracking them on FlightAware.  

I look at it this way:  the Duggars have put their entire lives - and the lives of their minor children, even (and grandchildren) out in the public domain for public consumption.  Being in the public eye is their LIVELIHOOD.  They are reality stars.  This is what they do.

So perhaps this is an unpopular opinion but I sincerely believe there was nothing wrong with tracking the flight plans or even going to the airport - lots of people watch planes, and if you are a reality "star" you have waived much of your right to privacy.  I truly believe that if you value your privacy you should not take money from a sleezy cable network (yes, you TLC) and you should have little to no expectation of privacy when you are out in public.  

My opinion, and I thank those free jingerites who made the aviation thread fun and interesting.   

 

[formergothardite]

Is the burner phones a joke or did people really get that creepy? 

4 minutes ago, Eternalbluepearl said:

Yikes! I don't even know what a burner phone is. 

I"m not exactly sure what it is either, I just know they have them in movies. 

[Maggie Mae]

I am suddenly sad that I stopped reading that thread because I don't care about the duggars. I do care about weird internet things though. 

 

Burner phones are the prepay phones you can buy at a gas station with cash 

[notfundy]

Wanted to add that I feel very differently about the lives of, say Sasha and Malia Obama:  THEY are not the President of the USA, their father is... and they have every right to move about in public without prying eyes and paparazzi stalking them.  Their family is not putting themselves out there for the express purpose of MAKING MONEY.  Same goes actually for famous musicians, actors, etc.:  they are working at a craft that may have made them famous; they have a right to eat a meal or see a movie or be in rehab in peace.

But the Duggars?  The Kardashians?  NOPE:  their lives are funded largely by reality TV and social media.  All bets are off. 

Minor children, no.  But Josh is not a minor.  

[iweartanktops]

@notfundy

I agree. I don't think HA is implying that the thread itself is creepy. I think she's saying that it started to get that way. However, I have only just now skimmed the recent pages, I am not really caught up on Duggar threads. 

I think the phones and being secretive maybe went too far. 

[djmd]

30 minutes ago, happy atheist said:

 

If flight information is public, it may be discussed here. If the information is private, it may not.

 

 

Make no mistake, the flight information is still public. Flightaware is a private corporation, not the FAA. People can request that their information not be made available through FA. But there are other ways to get it. Just not quite as easy and convenient.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 minutes ago, iweartanktops6 said:

Burner phones? What 

There was discussion in that thread of using burner phones to contact the people who were going to the airport to see the plane land, and using codes in text so they'd know it was a real alert from someone here so they could get out there.  There was someone who posted live while sitting there watching the plane.  There were people who talked about absolutely going to the airport if the plane landed in their area because these people are public figures.

I'm sure it won't win me many friends but I'll be totally honest here and admit when I read that I found it really disturbing.  And tbh made me ashamed to be a member here.  

I'm not disputing the argument that it was legal and public.  But using public information to stalk these people in real life crosses a line of decency imo.  It's legal for my neighbor to keep a spreadsheet of all of my comings and goings because I need to leave my garage and drive on a public street.  He can even set a camera up to record the street and watch my car legally and happen to be outside everyday to watch me pull into the garage live...but just because he's not violating the law doesn't make it any less creepy.

I understand this behavior from fans of celebrities...I don't like it, but I understand it.  I don't understand at all why people would seek out and stalk people they dislike.  If I read post after post about how people disagree with my lifestyle, think I'm a shitty parent, what have you and then see them planning to be there when my plane lands I'm going to be completely freaked out because if they clearly aren't fans why would they want to be in the same physical location.

I don't believe anyone here had malicious intent, that was never implied...but the behavior itself sends up tons of red flags for anyone reading.  

 

 

 

 

[halcionne]

9 minutes ago, djmd said:

Make no mistake, the flight information is still public. Flightaware is a private corporation, not the FAA. People can request that their information not be made available through FA. But there are other ways to get it. Just not quite as easy and convenient.

Thank you for saying this. I've been wondering about it since I started reading the Forbes article (haven't finished it yet, I'm getting clobbered by real life this week).

@HerNameIsBuffy, I like the analogy you made about your neighbor watching you come and go. I need to think about this some more.

[SassyPants]

19 minutes ago, notfundy said:

You know, I don't really think it WAS all that creepy when the plane's flight routes were public and folks here (including me) were tracking them on FlightAware.  

I look at it this way:  the Duggars have put their entire lives - and the lives of their minor children, even (and grandchildren) out in the public domain for public consumption.  Being in the public eye is their LIVELIHOOD.  They are reality stars.  This is what they do.

So perhaps this is an unpopular opinion but I sincerely believe there was nothing wrong with tracking the flight plans or even going to the airport - lots of people watch planes, and if you are a reality "star" you have waived much of your right to privacy.  I truly believe that if you value your privacy you should not take money from a sleezy cable network (yes, you TLC) and you should have little to no expectation of privacy when you are out in public.  

My opinion, and I thank those free jingerites who made the aviation thread fun and interesting.   

 

I totally agree.

They WANT that attention and interest-it's how JB has supported and continued to grow his mega family without having to bust hump 24/7/365 for decades on end. It's also how all of his children and GC live higher end lives, without having a paying job among them.

There is no expectation of privacy when you've sold your talentless and skillless selves to the highest bidder. 

Would I personally stalk them?  Nope, but there should be no expectation of protected privacy. They brought this all on themselves. 

20 minutes ago, notfundy said:

Wanted to add that I feel very differently about the lives of, say Sasha and Malia Obama:  THEY are not the President of the USA, their father is... and they have every right to move about in public without prying eyes and paparazzi stalking them.  Their family is not putting themselves out there for the express purpose of MAKING MONEY.  Same goes actually for famous musicians, actors, etc.:  they are working at a craft that may have made them famous; they have a right to eat a meal or see a movie or be in rehab in peace.

But the Duggars?  The Kardashians?  NOPE:  their lives are funded largely by reality TV and social media.  All bets are off. 

Minor children, no.  But Josh is not a minor.  

Exactly!

[HerNameIsBuffy]

12 minutes ago, notfundy said:

<snip>

So perhaps this is an unpopular opinion but I sincerely believe there was nothing wrong with tracking the flight plans or even going to the airport - lots of people watch planes, and if you are a reality "star" you have waived much of your right to privacy.  I truly believe that if you value your privacy you should not take money from a sleezy cable network (yes, you TLC) and you should have little to no expectation of privacy when you are out in public.  

 

 

To the first bolded - Yes, many people watch planes and if someone were doing that and happened to see the Duggars there is nothing wrong with that.  They've put themselves out there in the public so yes, they should expect that some people will recognize and notice them while out and about.

But it is completely disingenuous to equate someone watching planes as a general thing and going out of your way to get there to see specific people who you know through media get off a specific plane.  If you think that's okay fine, but own it and don't conflate it with people who happen to watch planes as a hobby because they are completely different scenarios.

And to the second bolded - no expectation of privacy to me means they shouldn't be a dick if someone recognizes them in public and says hello.  I have no expectation of privacy as I travel through my day either,  but I do have an exception that no one is going out of their way to know where I'd be at a given time and show up there to see me in person.  I don't see how signing on for a reality show should mean they should have to tolerate that.

 

[roxy7]

They are public figures.  They are in the entertainment business.  Their jobs are feeding the public (us included) a load of horseshit.  They have aired their private business on tv.  It is entertaining to me to watch their hypocritical asses squirm and try to cover up for their perverted family member.  We did not knock on their door and invite ourselves into their lives.  The under 18 kids deserve respect and privacy.   I will even go as far to say the adult kids at home deserve  some level of privacy.  But when you say all the shit they have said, covered up for a pervert, and still put out this holier than though crap you deserve to be exposed.  I read that thread a lot but none of the things about burner phones.   I never read anything about people stalking them.  It's not like people were following their cars once they landed.  No one  was tipping off tmz  that they were in the area.  In my opinion it could of been bad a long time ago but people allowed them privacy  and put up boundaries.   My two cents that means nothing 

[NotAnIncubator]

How is this any different from paparazzi doing their jobs? They follow 'famous' people and wait in anticipation of them showing up for pictures or whatever. Is it really that different?

I remember when some people stalked out the Stonybrook house or knocking on the Duggars front door but that's totally different. Those are private dwellings. This is not their home. I understand if someone is trespassing on private property but if they're on public property it should be totally allowed.

[singsingsing]

10 minutes ago, NotAnIncubator said:

How is this any different from paparazzi doing their jobs? They follow 'famous' people and wait in anticipation of them showing up for pictures or whatever. Is it really that different?

I remember when some people stalked out the Stonybrook house or knocking on the Duggars front door but that's totally different. Those are private dwellings. This is not their home. I understand if someone is trespassing on private property but if they're on public property it should be totally allowed.

So we want to be like the paparazzi now?

[Walking Cat Bed]

I would argue that, if the now-adult children were under 18 when their lives started being filmed (and they are not, like Josh, overt dirtbags in their own right), they are entitled to a bit more privacy and consideration.

For example: Jana and John-David were 14 when the first special aired in '02. Even if JB and M had all of the kids vote yes or no to having a TV special made, they were children. They weren't old enough to drive. By normal standards, they weren't old enough to consent to most adult activities. They didn't choose this life for themselves.

I'm all for criticizing the belief system and holding Jim Bob, Michelle, and Josh responsible for their family being a bit fucked up, but the rest of them didn't have a choice. They were born into this and didn't have the freedom to protest. Most of them are gracious enough to be pleasant with fans in public, and that's nice of them...But I really wonder how many of them, as adults, would have chosen the life they were given.

If they started acting like the Palin family in public, starting or engaging in melees at bars, or were in the habit of being arrested, that would be worthy of critique. And the adult Duggar children don't get a free pass if they say objectionable shit. But for the various Duggar offspring, their greatest fault is being born into the Duggar family. They don't deserve to have every move tracked.

[iweartanktops]

I've been thinking about all of this, and I'm pretty sure that right after I joined, I said I'd steak out the airport if they ever came to my city. I thought it would be amusing to see Josh sneaking around! I'm in a huge city with a major, international airport, and nothing felt creepy within the exciting context of the conversation. However, after reading HNIB's post above, I feel differently. 

I do think JB and Michelle asked for a lot of this but I don't think that makes it all appropriate. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

13 minutes ago, NotAnIncubator said:

How is this any different from paparazzi doing their jobs? They follow 'famous' people and wait in anticipation of them showing up for pictures or whatever. Is it really that different?

I remember when some people stalked out the Stonybrook house or knocking on the Duggars front door but that's totally different. Those are private dwellings. This is not their home. I understand if someone is trespassing on private property but if they're on public property it should be totally allowed.

Yes - because there is a logical reason for doing it.  It's not a job I would want, but people do all kinds of jobs to pay their bills.

No one does anything of their own volition without expecting some return on investment.  A paparazzi staking out an airport expects to net some cash.  A fan expects the thrill of seeing the person they've idolized from afar in person.  What is the payoff for going out of one's way to see someone they purportedly dislike get off of a plane?  

I'm not being snarky - part of the reason this is so disturbing to me is that I can't understand the motivation.

 

[FakePigtails]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Yes - because there is a logical reason for doing it.  It's not a job I would want, but people do all kinds of jobs to pay their bills.

No one does anything of their own volition without expecting some return on investment.  A paparazzi staking out an airport expects to net some cash.  A fan expects the thrill of seeing the person they've idolized from afar in person.  What is the payoff for going out of one's way to see someone they purportedly dislike get off of a plane?  

I'm not being snarky - part of the reason this is so disturbing to me is that I can't understand the motivation.

 

If someone has some free time to kill and happens to be around where something might happening, I understand that, and that's how I read the situation where someone went to a small nearby airport at a time when there was reason to think the family may have been moving Josh. Curiosity + free time + easy access = why not go see? Going out of one's way to set up burner phones and create special systems to enable watching is creepy though, I agree.

[NotAnIncubator]

Just now, singsingsing said:

So we want to be like the paparazzi now?

No, I asked what the difference in the actions of those are (assuming RockfordScanner and alike) and the actions of the paparazzi. The family, ESPECIALLY Josh wanted to be famous and a public figurehead. The only reason he doesn't want the cameras is because he's not spouting anti LGBTQI bullshit, he's a disgrace. He chose to have cameras on him. Why does he get to say nay now that it's not all JESUS WILL MAKE YOU BURN (while I jack off and molest my sisters and rape prostitutes)? He chose fame and now fame chose him. This is the reality of the spotlight.

Again, if people decided to follow them in the car or go to their homes, that's obviously not right and I'd say do something, but as of right now... my statement stands.

@HernameisBuffy, Some people just like to collect pictures of famous people. I've got an aunt who is very much into local celebrities and has dozens of pictures with people as minor as our weekend news anchor and as major as Paula Deen and her husband in WalMart. Some people collect stamps, others collect pictures with people of interest.

On the other hand,  It may also be for monetary reasons considering there hasn't been a single picture of Joshly since he went on vacation To rehab. I know StarPulse pays for content as well as Radar.