• Z3k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Its really wierd to me that Streisand effect became the accepted name for this.

      For example the 1st child’s play is saw In the UK was 3. Purely because it was banned

      Attempt at clarification edit

      I had no interest in yhe child’s plat movie franchises until the 3rd movie because it was banned

      • Fisk400@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s a catchy name and it was among the first examples of the effect in the internet era that amplified the effect many fold. There is no reason for me to know about Streisand’s house and there is no reason for me to know about this painting. I have only know about them because the internet exists.

        • skulblaka@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          I have only know about them because the internet exists.

          It’s even better than that, even with the internet existing I’d have never interacted with these bits whatsoever if it weren’t for the person in question throwing a hissy fit and trying to get something deleted off the internet. If they just laughed it off and let it slide it would have gotten about 1% of the attention currently being brought to it. We only know about this painting because she was so offended by it that she decreed no one must know about it. We only know about Barbara Streisand’s house because she decreed no one must know about it.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        6 months ago

        Can you repeat or clarify that second sentence? I’m pretty sure there was a typo or mistyped word somewhere, and usually I wouldn’t mention it, but in this case I actually can’t interpret the meaning.

        • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          34
          ·
          6 months ago

          The first movie in the Child’s Play movie franchise they saw was the third iteration, Child’s Play 3; they were motivated to see it because it was banned, an ironic backfire of the censorship decision.

          • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            6 months ago

            Thanks! Knowing the meaning now, it was the “I” to “is” typo that threw me off, since “saw” is also the type of movie to get banned.

          • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            Perfectly clear now, thanks. :)

            I got thrown because “is” came before “saw”, which is also a scary movie, and I just couldn’t disambiguate.

  • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    if she weren’t rich, i’d feel bad for her. her status and authority, unfortunately, make her an acceptable target for nonviolent criticism, such as really ugly portraits.

    • SuperApples@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      her status and authority, unfortunately, make her an acceptable target

      Agreed, but It’s really more that she’s a complete arsehole. As a nimby mining magnate, she is a sponsor of organised climate denialism and vocal about it herself, a race she clearly has a horse in. She’s also an active libertarian who wants to further dismantle the welfare system, and reduce taxation, and wants Australian workers to be cool like Africans and work for $2 a day. And a vocal Trump supporter.

      It’s not the painting that makes her ugly, it’s her behaviour and ideology.

      • answersplease77@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        It’s crazy to me how most if not all billionares cheerish exploiting poor wages and keeping poor people poorer while hoarding unimaginable wealth that’s enough for lifetime for generations of their family. That’s because billionares are mentally sick.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah no famous artist has ever felt the need to pain me ugly. Hell the most artistic depiction of me is a charcoal drawing by a guy who didn’t know we’d gone out for hookah a few times a few years prior. But regardless artists are only depicting her poorly because of how poorly she behaves.

    • Fisk400@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s not uglier than the other portraits in the set. Its really weird that she would object when she is sharing a wall with royalty.

      • Baphomet_The_Blasphemer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, I was going to say I’m not Australian, so I’m not super familiar with her, but from what I do know of her, this portrait seems fitting.

  • reagansrottencorpse
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Rinehart has an estimated net worth of $30.2 billion USD, according to Forbes.

    Piece of shit.

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, mining magnate basically means she’s rich cause her father’s company has raped the earth using labor they paid pennies for while those who actually did all the work are likely living in abject poverty.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          “Magnate” even gives cuts her slack by making it sound like she did any of it. Heiress is the term that’s both polite and accurate.

  • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    She is basically the Koch brothers, but bigger, dumber, and more evil.

    The only reason why the Koch family is probably worse, is because their influence flows through the American state.

    All this is to say, it’s a good bet that after this story dies down, the gallery will quietly acquiesce and take down the painting. This will either be followed by a carrot, or a removal of whatever stick she used.

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Man… You could just fucking own it and be far better off in every way. Just speaks to the crazy ego these people have.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    6 months ago

    Maybe she could buy the painting? I’m sure the artist would be willing to part with it for a donation of a few billion to charitable causes.

  • ipkpjersi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I think it’s a pretty accurate drawing, seems like art to me.