User: veejane Date: 20 Oct 2009 19:50 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

I always wondered how those "hidden camera" TV shows managed to continue to exist. I mean, because anybody who tried that shit on me would die, and thus not have a TV show at all, but also, you know, they seem to hinge on false imprisonment, borderline assault, and other hijinks that must surely run afoul of some stalker or paparazzi law somewhere.

(I mean, I get that there are people who can laugh when they discover it's all a joke -- I'm not among them -- and will willingly sign the paperwork to get on TV and all, but for every one who can/will, there have got to be some who can't/won't, and then reach for their cans of whoop-ass or speed-dial their lawyers. So how do these shows make air??)

User: casperflea Date: 20 Oct 2009 21:48 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Jamie Kennedy had open casting for some new show here in town last week - I saw a poster. I wished you were here to - how did you put it? Make him able to say "I'm sorry" through more than one orifice?

User: veejane Date: 21 Oct 2009 01:54 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Yep, that is the phrase!

User: off_coloratura Date: 20 Oct 2009 19:56 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: Inigo Montoya

This SCREAMS "bad idea." Not only is it dubious publicity, but it's extended; a SERIES of emails designed not to reveal the fact that they're a prank.

I hope anyone who gets emailed by this disgusting farce of a publicity stunt gets the police involved and well pissed off.

User: coraa Date: 20 Oct 2009 20:24 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: carmen sandiego

Yeah, I just read about this on Consumerist, and my jaw just unhinged.

For one thing, evil. Living with fear of being assaulted is something that many, many women do without any encouragement, and with good reason. Feeding into that is... well, evil. And using a woman's fear to sell more product skirts suspiciously close to terrorism in my book. Also, stalking as a "stunt" is still stalking.

But for another thing... what exactly was this supposed to do for advertising? Or is it an 'all advertising is good advertising' thing?

User: _yggdrasil Date: 20 Oct 2009 23:05 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Seriously. My little sister is currently being stalked by a man who can't hear "no". It's hardly a joke when women have to put up with this shit ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

User: wordweaverlynn Date: 21 Oct 2009 04:49 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: feminist

Apparently some men think it's a great joke.

User: interactiveleaf Date: 20 Oct 2009 20:42 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: frustration

I'm reposting this, in its entirety, with credit to you and a link so people can discuss it here. This is appalling.

User: interactiveleaf Date: 20 Oct 2009 20:56 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

I've linked, and recreated your post on my own blog.

I think one of the ways in which this could happen is that the people who did it simply never conceived that anyone would take it seriously. Honestly, had *I* been the one to receive those emails, I'd've thought they were over the top enough to be suspicious of their provenance and accuracy. But I think Snopes (and a certain portion of my Friends List) has proven to me that there are otherwise well;-adjusted folks whose reality filters are so out of synch with my own that I have come to the conclusion that there is *someone* out there who will believe *anything*, and that there is no justification for the cruelty of taking advantage of that.

User: liviapenn Date: 20 Oct 2009 21:37 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Um, I don't think you'd have to be poorly-adjusted or gullible to fall for something like this. This isn't just some random, vague "Hello I saw you today at the place with the thing" email, your supposed *friends* are putting personal details about your life into it.

And even if you were suspicious enough to Google it thinking that it was a prank, did you miss the quote where they said, "Each piece of the campaign assures that the experience is as Google-proof as possible." So they're already prepared for the thought that someone would think "hmm maybe I'd better check Snopes" and they're actually defending against that, in order to make it more "realistic."

It's not as if this is a promotion that's asking you to believe a dragon is going to land on your house. Plenty of women are quite used to receiving creepy texts, phone calls and emails. Plenty of women are quite used to being followed around. I resent the implication that a person's "reality filter" would have to be mis-adjusted to believe in this, and a sensible, reasonable person (like yourself) would instantly think "hoax" and go to Snopes. This kind of thing happens all the time. The people whose reality filters are mis-adjusted are the people who *created* this, because they're not taking into account the actual reality, which is that this kind of thing is actually extremely common, and not amusing or entertaining for the people involved.

I think one of the ways in which this could happen is that the people who did it simply never conceived that anyone would take it seriously. Honestly, had *I* been the one to receive those emails, I'd've thought they were over the top enough to be suspicious of their provenance and accuracy.

I don't think it's implausible that somebody I'd never met might be stalking me, starting either from mistaking me for somebody he had once known, or from observing stuff I'd done in public. It's not like stalking is all that unusual, or that I think I'm hard to find. The idea that this persistent lunatic was in trouble with foreign law enforcement would make the situation quite a bit more threatening, and not a bit less plausible.

That's how *I* feel, now, after years of interacting with a social group that doesn't encourage intimidation/bullying/stalking. I'm used to hearing, "That's not ok," or "That's not funny." (I don't know anybody [except some former colleagues and former classmates] that might think of putting a name down for an ad campaign like this.) Somebody who was accustomed to hearing "What's the big deal, can't you take a joke?" might think of intimidation/bullying/stalking as even MORE common, and thus think of the threat as even more plausible.

User: liddle_oldman Date: 21 Oct 2009 01:51 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Not to mention the sheer assault of it. "Joking" threats are still threats.

User: dxmachina Date: 20 Oct 2009 21:37 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Wow, what an incredibly stupid idea to use as a promotion. Especially for a corporation the size of Toyota. The lunatics truly do seem to be running the asylum.

User: irontongue Date: 20 Oct 2009 22:06 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Holy shit.

User: neadods Date: 20 Oct 2009 22:56 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: wtf

How in hell does Toyota think this will help them sell cars? How could it possibly do more than blow up in their corporate faces?

Also contemplate what sort of 'friend' would sign you up

Seriously. Fake freakouts? Hardly. This strikes me as being an excellent way a stalker or other vengeful person could multiply the harassment - after all, with a little adjustments, they could get all 5 of the lunatics *and* the real whackaloon after their victims.

Toyota's too big to go down over this, but they had better start backpeddling and dealing with the black eye. As for YourOtherYou - I can only hope that THAT business will be a chalk outline ASAP.

User: sabra_n Date: 21 Oct 2009 01:01 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

I hate pranksters like this. "Hey, now you can have fun at the expense of another person's well-being!" This is different than being a sadist how, exactly? Seriously, fuck those people. I hope the women in their lives - hell, anyone in their lives with an ounce of empathy or common sense - reams them out so badly about this their ears ring.

User: gramina Date: 21 Oct 2009 05:39 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

*bitterly wry* -- Ethical sadists ensure they've got explicit and ongoing consent for their activities. (But folks into BDSM are the 'sick' ones. Yeah.)

User: nancylebov Date: 21 Oct 2009 01:37 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: green leaves

I'm just trying to figure out how this campaign could have happened. On the first pass, my assumption was that the stalker was driving a Toyota, and maybe some nitwitted executive thought the campaign was clever and edgy and involved net stuff, so people would like it.

With a more careful reading, I think Toyota should take a very careful look at anyone who signed off on the campaign-- they're probably cruel enough to be creating problems in the company, aside from any havoc this campaign will cause. I wonder what the legal implications are of pranks which cause the police to be called.

I'm amazed that a company which is famous for excellent cars-- which means knowing that pleasing customers is important-- would be responsible for such a thing.

User: smurasaki Date: 21 Oct 2009 01:51 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: why

I can't for the life of me figure out how that campaign was supposed to promote Toyota. I can't figure out how it could be used to promote anything but weaponry and home security systems. The only association I can make between stalkers and cars is that you can, possibly, run one over with the other.

Did they think any publicity was good publicity? Did they actually sell their souls to satan and lose all perspective of what is and isn't a good idea? Seriously, this has WTF? written all over it.

Oh, wait, they were trying to corner the evil sadistic bastard market. Lovely.

User: interactiveleaf Date: 21 Oct 2009 19:15 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: I can be bought with coffee

Seriously, "viscous[sic] pigshit"?

No, really?

Like, for realsies?

This is what people here are coming to?

User: livii Date: 21 Oct 2009 23:59 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Just wanted to say I'm sorry that you've had to deal with someone going off in your comments again, and in such a spectacularly offensive and potentially incredibly triggery way (my stalker was mild luckily but I know women who would be very upset by the shit being slung). I appreciated the link and as always appreciate the vast majority of your commenters who provide thoughtful insight - you run a good journal, here.

User: jonquil Date: 22 Oct 2009 02:24 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Thanks. It's been a long day. Speaking of which, how's your trip Stateside going? I went home with a migraine, dammit.

User: draggonlaady Date: 22 Oct 2009 14:57 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: Grinding Bones

Have to wonder who at Toyota thought this would be a good thing to have associated with their name.

User: jonquil Date: 22 Oct 2009 15:00 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Somebody hip and edgy, I'm sure.

User: sewaddicted Date: 25 Oct 2009 09:42 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

yeah, cos I thought my stalker had a firm grasp of reality and a healthy respect for boundaries set by others.

And he was a guy I met twice - thanks be he only had my mobile phone number, and not my surname. Cos there's only 1 other person in Sydney's phone book with my family name. Tom the Stalker phoned every day for 4 months - despite me never answer a single call.

Did I go to the police? NO cos I expected to be treated by them as an attention seeking drama queen.

I'd totally read "going back to sort out a muppet" as implied physical violencet. Why would you go back to have a conversation to a place you don't need to visit again?

Do I think random acts of violence don't exist, no cos a girl from my class was murdered on holiday in france 25 years ago. My friend C knows 2 women murdered by strangers (each in a different country). OK I'll give that we're assuming the american woman on holiday in Queensland who disappeared was murdered cos she's never been heard from again & no body found.

And I live a middle-class anglo life.