I went home to think about this new "People of Wal-Mart" blog overnight before I went off half-cocked. In the end: I'm not a fan, I think! And that's a hard and maybe slightly indefensible thing to say, coming from someone who, essentially, thinks Cintra Wilson is funny making fun of the fatness of J.C. Penney mannequins in the Times. So what this "People of Wal-Mart" is, is it is a website that pubishes stealth camera shots (allegedly?) of people in Wal-Marts (allegedly), taken by people apparently in Wal-Marts, who are horrified by the other people in Wal-Marts. Now I have been in many Wal-Marts myself and been horrified, except I stopped going there a while back because of the experience of a family member who (yes, gasp!) actually worked in a Wal-Mart and had an excruciatingly, even somewhat life-ruiningly bad experience there. So you know: fuck Wal-Mart and everyone in it, is sort of my position? Burn it to the ground! But this site does a couple of things I also don't like.
1. To start with the most technical? It's the worst business idea ever, since they can never publish the pictures in book form, because they are pictures of people's faces without any releases, and also they will never find a publisher willing to tackle the evil legal force that is The Brand Name of Wal-Mart. Also? That their site claims "any picture submitted must have the full consent of the person(s) in the picture" is one of those hilarious legal lies. It's patently, obviously true that they are not enforcing that policy. Also? "People of Walmart reserves the right to reproduce, distribute, reformat, resize or alter any submitted picture." Reproduce where? In the Great Book of Things That Get People Sued To Death, maybe.
2. I can't shake the feeling that this is viral marketing for something, or a little project to see what Can Be Done On The Internet, but I can't imagine what, or by who? Like, isn't it weird when a website that springs up a fun little thing to do has a long Disclaimer of Warranties? Perhaps one of the proprietors is a third-year law student.
3. So, obviously, but: there's the "Shooting Fish in a Barrel" claim. Seriously, have you been to a chain store anywhere in America recently? "This is purely for entertainment purposes and strictly limited to the outrageously bad / ugly / creepy / crazy shoppers," says their About page. Yeah, well: so is going outside anywhere in the great swath of space between Hell's Kitchen and Eagle Rock. But their photo captions are slightly off, and cruel, in the manner of people who have never written a blog about other people before, or at least have never done so by thinking about other people and how they'd read about themselves.
So I am on the one hand lightly amused by it because, hey, everyone likes a freakshow! Also there is a funny picture on there of a goat wandering a Wal-Mart. And also: DAMN some people wear bad clothes. On the other hand? Something's wrong, or fishy, or just plain queer.
Well, if they didn't have the fat asses of the world at whom to direct their anger and smirks, they would only have themselves, and then there would suicide and cutting and death and it would be really messy and health care reform would get even wackier. So they can make fun of Walmart all they want, because it solves a lot of other problems, but I will continue to buy my boxed Vendage wine there (only $3.47! and not too fruity), principally because Walmart has driven every other grocery store out of this mid-America hell-hole.
I was thinking I would hate it, based on the concept (elitism, snobbery and all that) but it actually is pretty funny (all 8 pictures of it!).
Plus, these are the folks who are keeping America down, right? Fair play.
there are more.
yeah, something is off there. Like the first picture is sort of just a regular dude... and the captions are all weirdly stiff and inconsistently capitalized (and some don't even make sense-- what Keys?).. and the frowny walmart face doesn't look enough like the smiley walmart face. C+
The keys are around his neck. But yeah, some of these pictures are not extraordinarly bad. And I'm uncomfortable with the lack of stealth in the photos. They really just walked up to a mother and baby and took their picture in order to mock them? And then didn't put the bar across their faces to obscure their identity? It's rather mean.
Ha, Wal-Mart, fat.
Somewhere there is a marble frieze buried in rubble that depicts Alaric and the Visigoths with a snarky, elitist inscription about their poor fashion choices. It is just waiting to be found.
I would like to know more about the family member and the life-ruiningly bad experience, please.
LONG-TERM EMBARGOED. Under the silly, old-man policy of "not putting parts of my personal life on the Internet."
I am compelled to agree with you on the basis of That's Totally Reasonable, but disappointed nonetheless. I'll probably spend the rest of the day making up my own version.
The Cat would complain about being exploited, but he rely's on you for healthcare and a nap partner.
rely's? WTF is that?
Never been comfortable with "point-and-laugh", whether it's fat Wal-Martians or fucking and/or hipsters. Too easy. (Also childhood filled with being target of pointing/laughing.)
The Great Book of Things That Get People Sued To Death is the only internet meme book I will buy. Mark it.
Gotta love the whiskey tango.
...Foxtrot?
The wonderful things is the creators are obviously trying to have a go at Red State America. But by holding up individuals on the lower rungs of the American socio-economic ladder for mockery, they are inadvertently tipping their hand and showing their own ugly values system.
I'm guessing that the smug assholes who created this blog have no idea they are propagating right-wing values, reinforcing the idea that the American class system is merit-based and not a fucking kleptocracy wherein people eat rats on TV to escape their financial provenance and the rest of us point and laugh.
+1
Yes.
I disagree with every word of this, including "the."
Now that I've had my coffee, allow me to elaborate. Your comment appears to conflate "poor" with "white trash." I would submit that the site does not aim to mock people who do not have money; rather, its target seems to be people who are simply trashy. Whether or not they have money is incidental (I submit to you any of the women on any of the Real Housewives iterations, in re: money not buying class, etc.)
There are plenty of folks who barely get by who nonetheless would never dream of cutting their children's hair into mullets and going out into society wearing short shorts and a tank top. To suggest that all 'poors' do so, rather than just a certain type, is to tip your own hand.
I see what you're getting at, but I would submit that the people pictured here have more pressing issues on their plates than fashion, and that to claim that poverty does not come into play here is pretty disingenuous. These are obviously not wealthy people, and they are obviously products of either their birthright, their lack of exposure to broader culture or lack of education.
Or maybe they are unattractive and overweight and not meeting basic sartorial standards by *choice*, as I gather (correct me if I'm wrong) you're inferring.
Either way, just seems like bullying people, who -yes, given their faces and weight and poor grooming habits - probably have it hard enough already.
I think we have to settle this via thumb war.
People of LA
http://www.therealmalingering.com/
and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/malingering/collections/72157594588207914/
Hmmm, I find Malingering a little gross. Not very witty, pictures are only so so, and every once in a while she throws in a sleazy boob shot.
There's a very cruel streak to her site; she goes looking for people she finds ridiculous, shoots them in secret, then makes really awful comments. I don't know how I feel about someone taking secret shots of women's thongs showing above their pants and then uploading them to a site to be mocked.
Also, I've read the way she reacts to her critics and it comes off very screw you I do what I want it's not MY fault all these idiots are out there. There's no real social commentary there, just someone being an asshole.
It's one thing to laugh at fat-ass Wall Street douches and people like Bill O'Reilly who are ugly and mean. These people don't know any better and are victims of their circumstance.
The obese woman doing a split did make me chuckle, though I'm not proud.
I love this post so much I want to marry it.
Something is indeed fishy with the site itself. That's one huge disclaimer policy. And why are the captions sometimes funny, sometimes apt, and sometimes wrong and mean?
And at first I missed the captions entirely. They're small and easy to mistake for the blog timestamp. So I went through just looking at the pictures. I found many of them difficult to look at in their intimacy. They're like Philip-Lorca diCorcia with a 2004 phone camera. The people are mostly poor, and some of them (the two-mullets picture, the scary lady amongst the teddy bears) left me sad: shopping at Wal-Mart is a vast enterprise in basic survival for some people.
I wish I were a good enough person that I didn't require daily doses of blogenfreude to get me through the day. Alas, this is not the case, and People of Wal-Mart will be added to the list of trainwreck sites of ugly cakes, ugly babies, and awkward family photos that make me giggle and forget the monotony of my job.
I watch VH1 too.
you're sick.
VH1 is the Radio Shack of television. I can only assume you have a pale upper-lip 'stache and giggle, in a tinny whine, knowingly to yourself as you read copies of Popular Mechanics.
i'm not into blogenfreude, but ugly cakes takes the, er, you know what.
http://cakewrecks.blogspot.com/
Some day I will have a real job, until then...
http://whythefuckdoyouhaveakid.com/
http://www.sexypeople-blog.com/
Concur that the site is not only slightly cruel (which I have been known to heartily endorse) but strangely off-putting.
They wouldn't really need releases though right? You need one of those when you're implying an endorsement of something. You don't need endorsements for AHHTISTIC PURPOSES.
They would need releases if they ever sought to publish all the pics in a book.
(If I were Douglas, this is when I would say, "Learn to parse!" Can we bring that back, please? Totally topical!)
Actually, I'm parsing correctly, but thanks for assuming I'm an idiot! Publishing in a book turns out to be essentially the same as publishing online. Profit is not a consideration to whether or not someone can sue you for publishing a picture of them, though it probably factors into whether they would WANT to or not; implying an endorsement or anything non-factual is a no-no though (meaning that the catty captions might be problematic). You can take a picture of anyone you want who's out in public and publish it anywhere you want and charge however much you want for it and nobody's got a right to stop you. There are court cases about this.
Aw, see I was afraid you would take it that way! I really do mean "learn to parse" in much more of an endearing way than you may have assumed. Promise!
That being said, you're right that various states do have varying laws (and case law!) with respect to the tort of misappropriation of likeness. Now, that's admittedly not something that I've given a whole lot of thought to since law school, many moons ago, but if the whole point of the book is to publish pics of the people themselves (rather than saying here are a bunch of people that enjoy walking around WalMart, or Times Square, or any other public place), that would seem to take the issue out of the realm of whatever the equivalent of "fair use" is in this context.
We can be friends after all then. <3
Ummm.... did you guys break it?
I can't seem to be able to access the site.
You fuckers killed it, they took it down.
The disclaimer is still up.
more wal mart fun
http://worldofwonder.net/2009/08/28/Thank_you_for_shopping_at_Walma/
Yeah. Broken.
Thanks, guys.
Thbbt
I always know it's one of Choire's posts because of all of the question marks in odd places?
Said with love and respect, of course!
I wonder if I am a candidate for a photo if I don't know who Philip di Corcia is?
Hm. This and Cintra's JC Penny thing differ in no real way (the latter being this blog with a thesaurus) in that they choose to target what they see as the visual failings of others. Look at this Fucking Hiptser. Hot Chicks and Douchebags. This Wal-Mart thing. JC Penny as fat people shithole. All these choose to mock how people look because it is easy. Mocking how people think and act is much more difficult because it is very hard to do it and seem funny... not mean. This is why, in terms of mockery, Wonkette is infinitely readable and necessary and these are sad and one-dimensional and lazy.
I laughed so hard at the pow site. I think it is the funniest site I have seen this year.
http://krashr.com/2009/08/the-people-of-wal-mart/
Shame there is no similar site for those who, in self-linking their blog post on the subject of mocking others, manage to make the dumbest apostrophe mistake possible: "I wish they had this site up a while ago as my local Wal-Mart has it’s fair share of these “Wal-Creaturesâ€Â."