Mother shares HER side of the Chappell Security Incident

[MadArchitect 1,401]

23 hours ago, liamgaga said:

By mother i thought you meant this was chappells point of view lmao

she's not even cousin

 

23 hours ago, gagzus said:

I’m inclined to still believe Chappell more than this random woman. I find anyone who posts about their interactions with celebrities be them good or bad, is only after attention anyway

in Chappel's own words, she's a "random bitch" too, so here's two random women, i feel more inclined to believe the one who has a history of this kind of behavior... or is it the drawn of fame and notoriety applies only when it's convenient?

[southpaw773 4,352]

I’m dying at all the Chappell memes and reels in my feed now 

[windzo 811]

As far as I can tell Chappel didn't do anything ? All I can see confirm she had breakfast.

And it was a security gaurd who caused this.

I only feel sorry for the little girl.

Im absolutely baffled by the reaction ive been seeing.

[Omegahedron 318]

I doubt this video would have happened had Chappell not put out a "I'm sorry you felt that way but that had nothing to do with me" half hearted apology trying to distance herself from it. Also, when the post was made by the father and you start it saying "I'm sorry to the mother and child" then the subtext is that you're not actually really sorry, you're more salty.

Obviously hotels don't have aggressive security guards that bully their guests at breakfast. What an insane suggestion. If this was your team, own up to it and apologise.

[Murakami27 8,253]

Chappell when she saw that 11 year old

[Ladle Ghoulash 50,423]

9 hours ago, Controversiaga said:

I think the reason they took to social media…is because it holds the celebrities accountable.  That security guard was there foooor chappel, and indirectly represented her..yet somehow she was clueless to the situation and she so far has done nothing to make this little girl feel better after what the security guard did to her.

 

If Chappell cared and felt any amount of empathy for the 11 year old, she’d do something to show it. 

Nah, when it’s people as famous as this family, it’s not accountability, it’s baldly revenge lol. They could’ve reached out privately (and gotten ahold of her, for sure, given how famous the husband is in Brazil), but they wanted to make Chappell pay because they felt she disrespected their little princess lmao. 

Edited March 24 by Ladle Ghoulash

[Ladle Ghoulash 50,423]

9 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

No, it means that you should accept that when you're in public as a famous person that you will see people doing double takes when looking in your direction and maybe smiling if they're a fan. Sometimes even us normies have it happen to us because someone thinks they recognise us and have to go a bit closer to see. The girl didn't even approach her. What happened in this scenario is normal human interaction that we deal with everyday and to label it as disrespectful and harassment (which ironically, is being disrespectful and harassing) is being a narc of the highest order. If Chappell is so sensitive to another human (and a child, at that) looking at her from a distance for a few seconds while at a hotel breakfast, she needs help. 

I think all of that would have sounded awesome in Judge Judy's voice btw

Idk this is also coming from someone who defended Lana for accosting a random drag queen for doing a Lana vs. Ethel drag brunch (which she absolutely should be able to handle, given her notoriety). The math ain’t mathin’.

[Controversiaga 15,644]

2 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Nah, when it’s people as famous as this family, it’s not accountability, it’s baldly revenge lol. They could’ve reached out privately (and gotten ahold of her, for sure, given how famous the husband is in Brazil), but they wanted to make Chappell pay because they felt she disrespected their little princess lmao. 

I disagree.  This famous family knows and understands what it’s like to be recognized and to need security and body guards, and the wife is saying that the people who represent you are a reflection of you.   They have every right to share their experience publicly, as they felt it was very unfair and inappropriate treatment. So she can be held accountable because, again, she has built this type of reputation for herself.  So keeping this private would not result in any accountability, I’m sure.  I mean, even making it public, Chappell still showed that she couldn’t care less about what happened and has no interest in trying to make up for it. So the least she can deal with is some deserved backlash, imo 

[Ladle Ghoulash 50,423]

33 minutes ago, Controversiaga said:

I disagree.  This famous family knows and understands what it’s like to be recognized and to need security and body guards, and the wife is saying that the people who represent you are a reflection of you.   They have every right to share their experience publicly, as they felt it was very unfair and inappropriate treatment. So she can be held accountable because, again, she has built this type of reputation for herself.  So keeping this private would not result in any accountability, I’m sure.  I mean, even making it public, Chappell still showed that she couldn’t care less about what happened and has no interest in trying to make up for it. So the least she can deal with is some deserved backlash, imo 

Eh, it’s awfully petty and feels more or less spiteful to me. Being public figures, they also know that disputes and issues can be resolved privately if the interest isn’t in escalating or dogpiling and they opted out of that option because they’d rather sic the public on her than handle it like adults. The indignity, imo, feels less “Chappell disrespected my daughter” and more like “I have the power to **** your **** up and I will.” 
 

You can justify them going public, but you can’t treat going public as being neutral or even necessarily just. It’s the decidedly nuclear option for something that, while shitty, is really nowhere near the scandal people want it to be. IMO, I think the bottom line is that everyone in this story is being shitty. 

Edited March 24 by Ladle Ghoulash

[Controversiaga 15,644]

9 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Eh, it’s awfully petty and feels more or less spiteful to me. Being public figures, they also know that disputes and issues can be resolved privately if the interest isn’t in escalating or dogpiling and they opted out of that option because they’d rather sic the public on her than handle it like adults. The indignity, imo, feels less “Chappell disrespected my daughter” and more like “I have the power to **** your **** up and I will.” 
 

You can justify them going public, but you can’t treat going public as being neutral or even necessarily just. It’s the decidedly nuclear option for something that, while shitty, is really nowhere near the scandal people want it to be. IMO, I think the bottom line is that everyone in this story is being shitty. 

You don’t think parents have the right to go public if their child was unfairly and inappropriately treated??? 

[Ladle Ghoulash 50,423]

3 minutes ago, Controversiaga said:

You don’t think parents have the right to go public if their child was unfairly and inappropriately treated??? 

 

13 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

You can justify them going public, but you can’t treat going public as being neutral or even necessarily just. It’s the decidedly nuclear option for something that, while shitty, is really nowhere near the scandal people want it to be. 

Did you not read the second paragraph or…

TL;DR: You can, but I seldom think mob justice is called for and most disputes between individuals can and should be handled privately if your intention is to resolve it (but I still contend that the intention was revenge)

Edited March 24 by Ladle Ghoulash

[Controversiaga 15,644]

4 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

 

Did you not read the second paragraph or

I did or

its kinda contradictory what you said. “You can justify them going public” but then you basically said going public wasn’t justified 

Edited March 24 by Controversiaga

[Ladle Ghoulash 50,423]

1 minute ago, Controversiaga said:

I did or

So you just glossed over the part where I said they can, but I happen to think it’s the wrong approach  and it leans spiteful/vengeful or what’s the tea? 

Edited March 24 by Ladle Ghoulash

[Controversiaga 15,644]

Just now, Ladle Ghoulash said:

So you just glossed over the part where I said they can, but I happen to think it’s the wrong approach or what’s the tea? 

Reread I clicked submit reply too soon

[Ladle Ghoulash 50,423]

3 minutes ago, Controversiaga said:

I did or

its kinda contradictory what you said. “You justify them going public” but then you basically said going public wasn’t justified 

Eh, not really. I said you *can* justify it (meaning hypothetically you can argue it’s about “accountability”) but I don’t think it’s just because I think it’s escalatory and the backlash is disproportionate. I was basically conceding that I understand why people think it’s a valid approach, but that I disagree and I actually think it does more harm than good.

Edited March 24 by Ladle Ghoulash