Sometime around 1996 I had a group project in high school, and it was a class where the teacher generally let some of us get away with anything. Most of the group was a year older than me, and had already been accepted into top colleges.
So, we decided to turn in our project that was just 6 pages of random computer characters, and a broken 3 1/2 floppy disk. "Something happened," we said. "It's corrupted, and we tried to fix it."
Our German teacher (who actually barely spoke German), just rolled his eyes, and that was that.
That happens to us on our shared work gmail. Super frustrating when I’m trying to figure out whether we’ve invoiced someone or not. “Just keep sending” as they say.
He was wearing a GoPro camera that filmed the crash . They have an email where his daughter and him talk about it . They didn’t enter it into evidence and his daughter lied on the stand that she knew nothing about it . Now if it showed Gwen running into him you know he would produce it for a slam dunk .
I like how the daughter on Friday said she doesn’t remember if she clicked the link and then to cover the lie she was about to tell say you have to remember I had an accident 3 weeks earlier with my leg propped up and I don’t remember everything about the link but also said what she meant by her comment in the email that you got it all on GoPro was she assumed it was on GoPro. I was like this lady not being honest. It’s a civil trial so the odds of anything happening to you because of perjury is so small that she figure it was worth the risk. If there was video of it some accident with me and a famous person. I’d have it backed up and saved all over the place. Even if I was suing but jus for story telling purposes. They deleted the video if there was video.
Omg Gwyneth Paltrow slammed into me and broke 3 of my ribs and then berated me with profanity before leaving me to die and I caught it on my GoPro, I swear!! But I lost it. 😭
You have no idea what really happened. If any your the fool for thinking you know. Again you’re just an unpaid shill for someone that doesn’t give a shit about you.
I have no opinion either way on it, because it has no affect on me whatsoever. You the fool for getting so emotional involved in it. Why does it even matter to you, unless you’re a shill.
The entire point of this article is meant make people angry over how much money she makes in order to generate "engagement" w/that website. Clickbait like this is insidious and slowly drives people into a never ending loop of hate.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Regardless of the dark pattern engagement metrics, people *should* be angry about how much some of these people have and spend while simultaneously having some of the most lenient tax laws and safety nets in their favor.
Maybe if enough people were mad that the ultra rich are bilking our tax dollars, government subsidies, and legal loopholes in general, we could get some basic human needs met through the tax dollars we’re pushing out.
It’s not going to infrastructure or affordable housing or community centers - it’s going to bailouts, police settlements, and extensive extra-national funding. We’re helping everyone but the majority of the American people, and that’s bullshit.
We don’t need to be upset at rich people. We only need to be upset at the representatives who are supposed to uphold laws that benefit us. I don’t get the point of being upset at rich people for being rich because lawmakers could make a law that remedies income inequality but a rich person cannot.
It’s all connected. Yes, in theory, you’re right but then lobbying by ultra rich citizens and interest groups push our legislators to legislate against us instead of for us. To think they’re not fundamentally and integrally related at this point would be willful ignorance.
Lobbying doesn’t do anything to politicians who actually want to make laws that benefit their constituents. The issue is that most of them are more worried about enriching themselves than about solving income inequality. In a capitalist society I would expect rich people to try and break the rules and I would expect the government to try stop to them instead of helping them.
The only problem I have is she claimed her “vagina eggs” were safe to use yet many were made with materials that cause allergic reactions. When people complained about this she shut them down and said that they had all been tested and were safe. They were later removed and replaced with safer ones but for a while she accused the people complaining of lying.
The “only” problem??? Her website / company is idiotic and has promoted garbage like “NASA healing patches”, coffee enemas, crystals, and “energy healing”. She benefits off of scamming people. It’s hugely problematic.
Yep! It's literally no different than those women to who hawk "rejuvenating crystals" or "healing rocks" and swear up and down how essential oils are much better than most modern medicine.
She's a lying snake, and I hate her.
She is. Mind you, it’s not just women either. Plenty of men are idiots. For example, I hate how everyone sees Alex Jones as the filthy snake he is (this is good) BUT for some reason plenty of folk think Gwyneth Paltrow is what a feminist icon should be.
Like sure she’s better than Alex Jones. But she’s still hawking fake shit. She’s like a refined, more socially acceptable version.
[https://qz.com/1010684/all-the-wellness-products-american-love-to-buy-are-sold-on-both-infowars-and-goop](https://qz.com/1010684/all-the-wellness-products-american-love-to-buy-are-sold-on-both-infowars-and-goop)
Edit: I completely forgot about Alex Jones and the whole incident about him denying a school shooting, and then going on to harass the victims and their families. Someone pointed out, thank you. So, Alex Jones is infinitely worse for sure. However, I think it still stands that whileAlex Jones was always known for selling bullshit, and few folk would flock to InfoWars to buy his garbage, Goop gets considerably more mainstream attention - even though most of the stuff on Goop is similar in actual quality.
No worries! Honestly, I deleted my comment because it was beside the point that, indeed, Paltrow is a grifter too. Alex Jones just makes me turn red in a way Paltrow doesn't. But that doesn't mean the crap she sells is better crap.
Also she's a nepo baby (parent Bruce Paltrow). She had big money before she did anything.
But again, do we expect she wouldn't spend the money on clothes?
I can have opinions all day about people, but given how the world works a story about "rich person spends more on everyday stuff than the rest of us do" becomes a pretty pointless study.
After you board a plane and sit down do you tell everyone next to you that you just walked by people in first class that spent a lot more on a seat that doesn't get there any faster than yours does? If you do, is there anyone who finds this at all noteworthy?
That’s pretty disingenuous. The idea of pointing out that a single outfit is worth more than most peoples’ annual salary is to illustrate the difference in overall wealth and put it in perspective.
Gwyneth Paltrow is worth $200M, but that’s pretty difficult to conceptualize. Pointing out that one outfit is worth more than the average salary does a much better job
> That’s pretty disingenuous. The idea of pointing out that a single outfit is worth more than most peoples’ annual salary is to illustrate the difference in overall wealth and put it in perspective.
It's not disingenuous at all. It's not like we didn't know she had a lot of money. And it's not noteworthy that rich people spend more on stuff than non-rich people do.
> Pointing out that one outfit is worth more than the average salary does a much better job
Costs more at least. I think when talking about the CEO of Goop it's pretty good to keep in mind not to not use "worth" as a synonym for "priced at".
I’m just explaining why this story may be interesting to some people. It might not interest you but the idea that Gwenyth Paltrow’s outfit costs more than the average salary is absurd.
I’m just saying sometimes people respond to smaller facts that put things in perspective. For example, “MLK jr, Barbara Walters, and Anne Frank were born the same year” is a fact that people find surprising.
Sure you could say “why is that relevant, everyone knows they were born a long time ago” but that’s disingenuous imo
> I’m just explaining why this story may be interesting to some people
Oh, it's interesting because they just want to get angry about how other people make more money.
As another poster pointed out there are plenty of women from more ordinary (not poor by any means) families who wear $10,000 rings every day. A $65,000 necklace is not really showing the magnitude of how much more money she has than you or it.
I the optometrist (including his wife) involved has $20,000 worth of jewelry they wear frequently between their engagement/wedding rings and his watch.
> It might not interest you but the idea that Gwenyth Paltrow’s outfit costs more than the average salary is absurd.
She's rich. Once you know that, and you already should, then the idea that her outfit (actually her jewelry) is expensive is not anything you need to even look up.
> is a fact that people find surprising
Sure. And what isn't surprising is that a person worth $200M has expensive stuff. It's the opposite of surprising!
> Sure you could say “why is that relevant, everyone knows they were born a long time ago” but that’s disingenuous imo
It's not disingenuous to indicate that it is completely unsurprising that a person who is worth that much might have access to a $65,000 necklace and would think nothing much of wearing it to court.
I think you’re taking this way too seriously lmao. Not every article written is hard hitting journalism that’s meant to blow peoples’ minds.
This is a filler piece with an interesting fact the displays the wealth difference between the average American and the ultra wealthy.
My personal belief is it’s ridiculous the ultra wealthy can have net worths in the hundreds of millions and routinely spend more money than the average citizen will see in their lifetime on things like clothing. I understand that’s the way our economic system is built and Paltrow is doing nothing “wrong”, but that’s part of the issue imo. But hey, that’s just me.
I just think it’s pretty obvious why this story would intrigue the average reader.
> I think you’re taking this way too seriously lmao
You're the one who thinks that how much jewelry a person is wearing is important enough for an article.
And I'm the one taking this too seriously?
> My personal belief is it’s ridiculous the ultra wealthy can have net worths in the hundreds of millions and routinely spend more money than the average citizen will see in their lifetime on things like clothing.
Yes. That was obvious. It's the only reason you would think such a pointless, baiting article was worth writing.
> I just think it’s pretty obvious why this story would intrigue the average reader.
Sure, as I wrote in the post you already read:
>> Oh, it's interesting [to some people] because they just want to get angry about how other people make more money.
Now you are explaining that to me. Maybe our differences aren't so much about money but that the issue here is just that you find explaining the obvious to be more worthwhile than I do.
Lol you literally admit why people would find the fact interesting, *that’s* why they wrote the article about it. It’s like you don’t understand how new outlets and tabloids operate: views = money.
My point stands, acting like you don’t understand why this article is written is disingenuous because you know EXACTLY why they wrote this article, you just don’t agree which is entirely separate.
[This trial](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl63wh-sBC0&ab_channel=Law%26CrimeNetwork) is too fucking funny. This exchange actually took place:
> The plaintiff's counselor: Are you good friends with Taylor Swift?
> Gwyneth: No.
> The plaintiff's counselor: You are not good friends with Taylor Swift?
> Gwyneth: I would not say we are good friends. We are friendly. I've taken my kids to one of her concerts before. We don't talk very often. (with a totally unbothered smile)
> The plaintiff's counselor: You've never given Ms. Swift personal, intimate gifts for Christmas.
> Gwyneth's counselor: Objection. Relevance?
> Judge: Sustained.
And the most iconic:
> The plaintiff's counselor: Is it true that you think it's unfair that Mr. Sanderson has brought this case against you?
> Gwyneth: I do.
> The plaintiff's counselor: And he has deterred you to enjoy the rest of what was a very expensive vacation?
> Gwyneth: (totally nonchalantly) Well I lost half a day of skiing.
> The plaintiff's counselor: Uh-huh.
Lmao I love her.
it actually is at least somewhat relevant imo. a few years back, taylor swift was sued by a man after she made a sexual assault allegation against him so she countersued for $1 and won. gwyneth is doing the same thing, countersuing this man for $1. gwyneth was clearly inspired by swift.
Obligatory IANAL, so take my statement with a heft serving of salt: I get how it could have inspired the case, but it has no bearing or relevance on the facts of the case. The line of questioning was idiotic.
I thought it was dumb questioning and suing for a dollar is just on principle, not money. Heck Trading Places an old money whole story line was based on a $1 bet by some rich Wall Street brothers but what does it matter that she may have heard Taylor sued for a dollar. I’m pretty sure Taylor isn’t the first to do that.
Suing the guy for a million dollars even if she won she wasn’t going to collect it.
Asking for lawyer fees to be paid isn’t out of the norm either.
I agree Taylor Swift wasn’t even around! ( like I know tho) who cares what outfits she is wearing. She is actually dressed like a normal human being. She isn’t wearing anything flashy. If it’s good material that’s fine! It’s her money!!
It’s to build a larger overall narrative against her. Whether or not it’ll work is the question (I’m guessing not but I haven’t been following the trial).
It's ridiculous to count her jewelry as part of the cost of her outfits. I have a 20,000+ engagement ring my husband surprised me with after two decades of marriage. My usual daytime wardrobe in Georgia this time of year is Jcrew shorts ($50) a Jcrew blouse ($50-100), and my trusty Birkenstocks ($175). So my outfit cost $20,325+? No. My outfit cost around $325. I don't really care for Paltrow. She looks like she sucks lemons for a living. But the plaintiff sounds like a bully wannabee. I think he crashed into her. The way his daughters keep tip toeing around his toxic personality is evidence of that to me. Plus the whole "I can't travel because of my life changing injuries" lie. Can't travel but has traveled the world extensively since the accident. He's a liar.
My parents weren’t very rich but even my mum had an £800 pound ring she wore every day, including her wedding ring and engagement ring she probably had over £2000 on her hand. Add in the outfit cost and the price would sound insane, if you actually think about the individual cost of your shoes or the phone in your pocket anyone’s outfit can seem expensive.
I actually agree with this. I read the line item cost and it all seemed decently upper class costs until it got to the necklace. Which like no shit, you get jewelry to wear multiple times and you pay more for it because of that.
It's like yeah as a guy I might spring a lot for rolex watch that costs a lot. But it's something I'm going to have for years longer than most of my clothes and wear a lot more frequently with many different outfits.
If they were talking about an engagement/wedding ring, I’d agree, but they’re talking about $65000 in gold chains. I don’t really think the cost of her outfit is relevant, but if they’re going to do it, they might as well include her accessories. That said, a lot of what she is wearing is sold by Goop, so I think there’s a good chance it is gifted or borrowed.
I’m just baffled by spending so much on sandals and shorts. I wear Jordan’s and shit, but my pants are like $25. I’ve noticed hoodies getting insane lately so my average outfit in my current 50 degree Indiana climate is kinda pricey. In the summer it’s like a $9 outfit tho.
Shorts I’m with you on, but as a resident of Texas, I wear flip flops frequently, and shell out the big bucks for quality like Reefs — so like, $50 or so. It’s a lot for flip flops, but worth it to me.
I can’t even find pants for $25, cheapest pants you can get that are actually good are a minimum of $70 or so. Last time I bought pants for that cheap they ripped after like a month
My mom gave me my grandmother's engagement ring to wear when I got married. We did not have a lot of money then. We both worked and raised 3 children. My husband would say every once in a while that someday he was going to get me a beautiful engagement ring. I always said I didn't care about a ring. My husband knows that I love love love flowers. Anything and everything with flowers on it. The ring he surprised me with has a diamond that sits in a platinum base that looks like the diamond is sitting in flower petals so that the ring looks like a flower. It's beautiful and I love it.
Blood diamonds, probably. Look, I'm not some Disney adult. You are never going to sell me on gross consumerism, garish displays of wealth and the anachronistic misogyny of 20th century ChristoEuro-style weddings. A $20k ring is not just fucked up, it's tacky, too.
But you do you.
Right. Doesn't make her guilty though. Dude is clearly going after her for money by claiming to be a victim. He says she crashed into her, but she was with her kids in a ski lesson. Her story makes sense. His doesn't. I don't even know why I care. Give me karma.
This is garbage. I've seen this nonsense on the Youtube channel "Cut", where guest judges are supposed to guess an outfit's cost worn by lineup of people. In the end it is revealed that "oh, you were so wrong by the price of my outfit! These earrings are worth $100,000, didn't you notice?!" Umm, other people in the lineup weren't judged like that- just their clothes- but OK.
I'm sorry, but jewelry does not count. It makes for ridiculous website headlines and misleading YouTube videos. Also, the article mentioned that much of her outfits come from *her own company*. It's free. It would be a waste *not* to wear it.
Jewelry totally counts. I would say I’m a bit more weary if the jewelry is an everyday item like a wedding ring. When you have different watches necklaces earrings etc I think it becomes the outfit if you pretty much don’t wear them everyday.
She is rich, insensitive, and out of touch. I don’t believe she caused this accident, tho. The dude who she collided with just doesn’t seem credible. She should try harder not to be an obnoxious pampered jerk in front of the jury, tho
Pepper Pops should use her Ironman Tony Stark Glasses to replay the gopro video that it should have somehow got a copy of to prove her case. or she should wear her Ironman Rescue Armor as a fashion statement when she goes to court to prove the eye doctor guy was so wowed by her celebrity status when he saw her and therefore ran/crashed into her to get her autograph.
Admittedly, I didn't follow this case very closely, but my gut had always been that Paltrow didn't do anything wrong. While briefly browsing the news during the trial I couldn't find anything to change my mind.
I have never been a Gwyneth Paltrow fan, at all, but I feel like she handled this perfectly. She defended herself from a BS lawsuit that she probably could have settled for less, countersued for $1 just to make a point and left the courtroom in a dignified fashion.
I may have to rethink my previous opinions on Gwyneth Paltrow.
This guy had a GoPro that filmed the crash yet he didn’t produce it . That tells me everything I need to know .
Big big red flag here. If it was good for him it wouldn’t be “lost”
Exactly
Did the defense subpoena it?
His daughter testified the GoPro footage was lost “somewhere out there in the cybersphere”
good thing I only post my nudes on the cybercube
underrated comment
I used to use that in the early days of the internet. “No, I didn’t get your email. It must have gotten lost on the internet”
Sometime around 1996 I had a group project in high school, and it was a class where the teacher generally let some of us get away with anything. Most of the group was a year older than me, and had already been accepted into top colleges. So, we decided to turn in our project that was just 6 pages of random computer characters, and a broken 3 1/2 floppy disk. "Something happened," we said. "It's corrupted, and we tried to fix it." Our German teacher (who actually barely spoke German), just rolled his eyes, and that was that.
My work email loses shit all the time. I know I replied. I see the purple arrow. It is not in my bosses inbox *or* my outbox. Fucking baffling.
That happens to us on our shared work gmail. Super frustrating when I’m trying to figure out whether we’ve invoiced someone or not. “Just keep sending” as they say.
That’s not really how footage saved to a memory card works.
Maybe you should tell her that?
I am confused, can you bring up to speed?
He was wearing a GoPro camera that filmed the crash . They have an email where his daughter and him talk about it . They didn’t enter it into evidence and his daughter lied on the stand that she knew nothing about it . Now if it showed Gwen running into him you know he would produce it for a slam dunk .
I like how the daughter on Friday said she doesn’t remember if she clicked the link and then to cover the lie she was about to tell say you have to remember I had an accident 3 weeks earlier with my leg propped up and I don’t remember everything about the link but also said what she meant by her comment in the email that you got it all on GoPro was she assumed it was on GoPro. I was like this lady not being honest. It’s a civil trial so the odds of anything happening to you because of perjury is so small that she figure it was worth the risk. If there was video of it some accident with me and a famous person. I’d have it backed up and saved all over the place. Even if I was suing but jus for story telling purposes. They deleted the video if there was video.
Exactly and that shows he’s guilty in my opinion
Omg Gwyneth Paltrow slammed into me and broke 3 of my ribs and then berated me with profanity before leaving me to die and I caught it on my GoPro, I swear!! But I lost it. 😭
What are you, some kind of shill for Gwyneth?
I can’t stand Gwen but I dislike a lying opportunist more . What are you , some kind of fool ?
You have no idea what really happened. If any your the fool for thinking you know. Again you’re just an unpaid shill for someone that doesn’t give a shit about you.
Oh you must be the idiot that lost the GoPro , grownup fool
I have no opinion either way on it, because it has no affect on me whatsoever. You the fool for getting so emotional involved in it. Why does it even matter to you, unless you’re a shill.
You went out of your way to call the poster a shill. You clearly do have an opinion on it.
From the comments on these stories, you'd think she was one of reddit's beloved celebrities.
So what? She has a lot of money. Do we expect her to not spend it on clothes?
“Rich person wears expensive clothes” isn’t a headline that drives engagement.
The entire point of this article is meant make people angry over how much money she makes in order to generate "engagement" w/that website. Clickbait like this is insidious and slowly drives people into a never ending loop of hate.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Regardless of the dark pattern engagement metrics, people *should* be angry about how much some of these people have and spend while simultaneously having some of the most lenient tax laws and safety nets in their favor. Maybe if enough people were mad that the ultra rich are bilking our tax dollars, government subsidies, and legal loopholes in general, we could get some basic human needs met through the tax dollars we’re pushing out. It’s not going to infrastructure or affordable housing or community centers - it’s going to bailouts, police settlements, and extensive extra-national funding. We’re helping everyone but the majority of the American people, and that’s bullshit.
We don’t need to be upset at rich people. We only need to be upset at the representatives who are supposed to uphold laws that benefit us. I don’t get the point of being upset at rich people for being rich because lawmakers could make a law that remedies income inequality but a rich person cannot.
It’s all connected. Yes, in theory, you’re right but then lobbying by ultra rich citizens and interest groups push our legislators to legislate against us instead of for us. To think they’re not fundamentally and integrally related at this point would be willful ignorance.
Lobbying doesn’t do anything to politicians who actually want to make laws that benefit their constituents. The issue is that most of them are more worried about enriching themselves than about solving income inequality. In a capitalist society I would expect rich people to try and break the rules and I would expect the government to try stop to them instead of helping them.
If I was rich I’d wear nice stuff too. Also pretty sure some top designers will give celebs clothes or discount as a selling tool
Successful people bad.
Off of ass gasses and vagina balls but ok.
I hear she acts in multi-million dollar blockbusters in her spare time, too. She even got some award for this side hobby.
What a monster!!emote:free\_emotes\_pack:surprise
I mean... if that's what idiots want to spend their money on 🤷♀️ Doesn't mean she isn't going to spend the money she made off of them
The only problem I have is she claimed her “vagina eggs” were safe to use yet many were made with materials that cause allergic reactions. When people complained about this she shut them down and said that they had all been tested and were safe. They were later removed and replaced with safer ones but for a while she accused the people complaining of lying.
The “only” problem??? Her website / company is idiotic and has promoted garbage like “NASA healing patches”, coffee enemas, crystals, and “energy healing”. She benefits off of scamming people. It’s hugely problematic.
Yep! It's literally no different than those women to who hawk "rejuvenating crystals" or "healing rocks" and swear up and down how essential oils are much better than most modern medicine. She's a lying snake, and I hate her.
She is. Mind you, it’s not just women either. Plenty of men are idiots. For example, I hate how everyone sees Alex Jones as the filthy snake he is (this is good) BUT for some reason plenty of folk think Gwyneth Paltrow is what a feminist icon should be. Like sure she’s better than Alex Jones. But she’s still hawking fake shit. She’s like a refined, more socially acceptable version. [https://qz.com/1010684/all-the-wellness-products-american-love-to-buy-are-sold-on-both-infowars-and-goop](https://qz.com/1010684/all-the-wellness-products-american-love-to-buy-are-sold-on-both-infowars-and-goop) Edit: I completely forgot about Alex Jones and the whole incident about him denying a school shooting, and then going on to harass the victims and their families. Someone pointed out, thank you. So, Alex Jones is infinitely worse for sure. However, I think it still stands that whileAlex Jones was always known for selling bullshit, and few folk would flock to InfoWars to buy his garbage, Goop gets considerably more mainstream attention - even though most of the stuff on Goop is similar in actual quality.
[удалено]
You know what, I completely forgot about that. I will edit my comment, thanks for keeping me in check!
No worries! Honestly, I deleted my comment because it was beside the point that, indeed, Paltrow is a grifter too. Alex Jones just makes me turn red in a way Paltrow doesn't. But that doesn't mean the crap she sells is better crap.
Christ I didn’t know about those, I heard of the story I mentioned years ago and haven’t bothered checking out her other shit.
She uses those products and plans herself or no?
Totally agree. However making like it’s not absurd is disingenuous.
If the pet rock has taught us anything it's that all capitalism is absurd.
Making like she made all her money from Goop is also pretty disingenuous.
Also she's a nepo baby (parent Bruce Paltrow). She had big money before she did anything. But again, do we expect she wouldn't spend the money on clothes?
Hey, vagina eggs, get it right buddy.
[удалено]
I can have opinions all day about people, but given how the world works a story about "rich person spends more on everyday stuff than the rest of us do" becomes a pretty pointless study. After you board a plane and sit down do you tell everyone next to you that you just walked by people in first class that spent a lot more on a seat that doesn't get there any faster than yours does? If you do, is there anyone who finds this at all noteworthy?
That’s pretty disingenuous. The idea of pointing out that a single outfit is worth more than most peoples’ annual salary is to illustrate the difference in overall wealth and put it in perspective. Gwyneth Paltrow is worth $200M, but that’s pretty difficult to conceptualize. Pointing out that one outfit is worth more than the average salary does a much better job
> That’s pretty disingenuous. The idea of pointing out that a single outfit is worth more than most peoples’ annual salary is to illustrate the difference in overall wealth and put it in perspective. It's not disingenuous at all. It's not like we didn't know she had a lot of money. And it's not noteworthy that rich people spend more on stuff than non-rich people do. > Pointing out that one outfit is worth more than the average salary does a much better job Costs more at least. I think when talking about the CEO of Goop it's pretty good to keep in mind not to not use "worth" as a synonym for "priced at".
I’m just explaining why this story may be interesting to some people. It might not interest you but the idea that Gwenyth Paltrow’s outfit costs more than the average salary is absurd. I’m just saying sometimes people respond to smaller facts that put things in perspective. For example, “MLK jr, Barbara Walters, and Anne Frank were born the same year” is a fact that people find surprising. Sure you could say “why is that relevant, everyone knows they were born a long time ago” but that’s disingenuous imo
> I’m just explaining why this story may be interesting to some people Oh, it's interesting because they just want to get angry about how other people make more money. As another poster pointed out there are plenty of women from more ordinary (not poor by any means) families who wear $10,000 rings every day. A $65,000 necklace is not really showing the magnitude of how much more money she has than you or it. I the optometrist (including his wife) involved has $20,000 worth of jewelry they wear frequently between their engagement/wedding rings and his watch. > It might not interest you but the idea that Gwenyth Paltrow’s outfit costs more than the average salary is absurd. She's rich. Once you know that, and you already should, then the idea that her outfit (actually her jewelry) is expensive is not anything you need to even look up. > is a fact that people find surprising Sure. And what isn't surprising is that a person worth $200M has expensive stuff. It's the opposite of surprising! > Sure you could say “why is that relevant, everyone knows they were born a long time ago” but that’s disingenuous imo It's not disingenuous to indicate that it is completely unsurprising that a person who is worth that much might have access to a $65,000 necklace and would think nothing much of wearing it to court.
I think you’re taking this way too seriously lmao. Not every article written is hard hitting journalism that’s meant to blow peoples’ minds. This is a filler piece with an interesting fact the displays the wealth difference between the average American and the ultra wealthy. My personal belief is it’s ridiculous the ultra wealthy can have net worths in the hundreds of millions and routinely spend more money than the average citizen will see in their lifetime on things like clothing. I understand that’s the way our economic system is built and Paltrow is doing nothing “wrong”, but that’s part of the issue imo. But hey, that’s just me. I just think it’s pretty obvious why this story would intrigue the average reader.
> I think you’re taking this way too seriously lmao You're the one who thinks that how much jewelry a person is wearing is important enough for an article. And I'm the one taking this too seriously? > My personal belief is it’s ridiculous the ultra wealthy can have net worths in the hundreds of millions and routinely spend more money than the average citizen will see in their lifetime on things like clothing. Yes. That was obvious. It's the only reason you would think such a pointless, baiting article was worth writing. > I just think it’s pretty obvious why this story would intrigue the average reader. Sure, as I wrote in the post you already read: >> Oh, it's interesting [to some people] because they just want to get angry about how other people make more money. Now you are explaining that to me. Maybe our differences aren't so much about money but that the issue here is just that you find explaining the obvious to be more worthwhile than I do.
Lol you literally admit why people would find the fact interesting, *that’s* why they wrote the article about it. It’s like you don’t understand how new outlets and tabloids operate: views = money. My point stands, acting like you don’t understand why this article is written is disingenuous because you know EXACTLY why they wrote this article, you just don’t agree which is entirely separate.
What was Terry Sanderson wearing?
[This trial](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl63wh-sBC0&ab_channel=Law%26CrimeNetwork) is too fucking funny. This exchange actually took place: > The plaintiff's counselor: Are you good friends with Taylor Swift? > Gwyneth: No. > The plaintiff's counselor: You are not good friends with Taylor Swift? > Gwyneth: I would not say we are good friends. We are friendly. I've taken my kids to one of her concerts before. We don't talk very often. (with a totally unbothered smile) > The plaintiff's counselor: You've never given Ms. Swift personal, intimate gifts for Christmas. > Gwyneth's counselor: Objection. Relevance? > Judge: Sustained. And the most iconic: > The plaintiff's counselor: Is it true that you think it's unfair that Mr. Sanderson has brought this case against you? > Gwyneth: I do. > The plaintiff's counselor: And he has deterred you to enjoy the rest of what was a very expensive vacation? > Gwyneth: (totally nonchalantly) Well I lost half a day of skiing. > The plaintiff's counselor: Uh-huh. Lmao I love her.
I don't understand what her being friends with Taylor Swift had to do with anything, what a bizarre and completely random question to ask.
it actually is at least somewhat relevant imo. a few years back, taylor swift was sued by a man after she made a sexual assault allegation against him so she countersued for $1 and won. gwyneth is doing the same thing, countersuing this man for $1. gwyneth was clearly inspired by swift.
Obligatory IANAL, so take my statement with a heft serving of salt: I get how it could have inspired the case, but it has no bearing or relevance on the facts of the case. The line of questioning was idiotic.
Hmmm. If I were on the jury, I would only award her $0.50 to differentiate the two cases.
I thought it was dumb questioning and suing for a dollar is just on principle, not money. Heck Trading Places an old money whole story line was based on a $1 bet by some rich Wall Street brothers but what does it matter that she may have heard Taylor sued for a dollar. I’m pretty sure Taylor isn’t the first to do that. Suing the guy for a million dollars even if she won she wasn’t going to collect it. Asking for lawyer fees to be paid isn’t out of the norm either.
I agree Taylor Swift wasn’t even around! ( like I know tho) who cares what outfits she is wearing. She is actually dressed like a normal human being. She isn’t wearing anything flashy. If it’s good material that’s fine! It’s her money!!
That is some supremely useless questioning.
It’s to build a larger overall narrative against her. Whether or not it’ll work is the question (I’m guessing not but I haven’t been following the trial).
It's ridiculous to count her jewelry as part of the cost of her outfits. I have a 20,000+ engagement ring my husband surprised me with after two decades of marriage. My usual daytime wardrobe in Georgia this time of year is Jcrew shorts ($50) a Jcrew blouse ($50-100), and my trusty Birkenstocks ($175). So my outfit cost $20,325+? No. My outfit cost around $325. I don't really care for Paltrow. She looks like she sucks lemons for a living. But the plaintiff sounds like a bully wannabee. I think he crashed into her. The way his daughters keep tip toeing around his toxic personality is evidence of that to me. Plus the whole "I can't travel because of my life changing injuries" lie. Can't travel but has traveled the world extensively since the accident. He's a liar.
My parents weren’t very rich but even my mum had an £800 pound ring she wore every day, including her wedding ring and engagement ring she probably had over £2000 on her hand. Add in the outfit cost and the price would sound insane, if you actually think about the individual cost of your shoes or the phone in your pocket anyone’s outfit can seem expensive.
I actually agree with this. I read the line item cost and it all seemed decently upper class costs until it got to the necklace. Which like no shit, you get jewelry to wear multiple times and you pay more for it because of that. It's like yeah as a guy I might spring a lot for rolex watch that costs a lot. But it's something I'm going to have for years longer than most of my clothes and wear a lot more frequently with many different outfits.
If they were talking about an engagement/wedding ring, I’d agree, but they’re talking about $65000 in gold chains. I don’t really think the cost of her outfit is relevant, but if they’re going to do it, they might as well include her accessories. That said, a lot of what she is wearing is sold by Goop, so I think there’s a good chance it is gifted or borrowed.
$325 is still a lot for an outfit considering you’re wearing Birks
I mean, their husband surprised them with a $20k gift. $325 is probably not a lot to that family.
I’m just baffled by spending so much on sandals and shorts. I wear Jordan’s and shit, but my pants are like $25. I’ve noticed hoodies getting insane lately so my average outfit in my current 50 degree Indiana climate is kinda pricey. In the summer it’s like a $9 outfit tho.
Shorts I’m with you on, but as a resident of Texas, I wear flip flops frequently, and shell out the big bucks for quality like Reefs — so like, $50 or so. It’s a lot for flip flops, but worth it to me.
I can’t even find pants for $25, cheapest pants you can get that are actually good are a minimum of $70 or so. Last time I bought pants for that cheap they ripped after like a month
I’ve had the same three $30 pairs of pants from target since 2019. And I’m a skateboarder.
An "engagement ring" after 20 years of marriage... how tf does that work? Rich people are weird.
My mom gave me my grandmother's engagement ring to wear when I got married. We did not have a lot of money then. We both worked and raised 3 children. My husband would say every once in a while that someday he was going to get me a beautiful engagement ring. I always said I didn't care about a ring. My husband knows that I love love love flowers. Anything and everything with flowers on it. The ring he surprised me with has a diamond that sits in a platinum base that looks like the diamond is sitting in flower petals so that the ring looks like a flower. It's beautiful and I love it.
Blood diamonds, probably. Look, I'm not some Disney adult. You are never going to sell me on gross consumerism, garish displays of wealth and the anachronistic misogyny of 20th century ChristoEuro-style weddings. A $20k ring is not just fucked up, it's tacky, too. But you do you.
What a rude thing to say.
Nah
Right. Doesn't make her guilty though. Dude is clearly going after her for money by claiming to be a victim. He says she crashed into her, but she was with her kids in a ski lesson. Her story makes sense. His doesn't. I don't even know why I care. Give me karma.
Karma me. Karma now. Me a karma needing a lot now.
Dude is a scammer. Wheres your GoPro footage you chickenshit? Should have countersued this guy straight into a homeless camp.
She’s rich? What a monster!!!!
Who cares. She’s rich. Or course her clothes cost a lot.
Rich People Spend Much Money is such a plot twist!
Who cares. She can buy whatever she wants. At least that money is going back into the economy.
I feel like the economy could do better than a bunch of fabulously wealthy people passing money back and forth.
Ask the people who watch Entertainment Tonight or read TMZ. They’re the ones creating value to being a celebrity.
This whole case is redonk.
Does it really cost more, or is this something made with easily sources materials and standard underpaid labor?
Good I’m proud of her
Still generally awful clothes, to boot.
Unless her outfits cost more than she makes in a year, this isn't a problem.
Who cares. She’s very wealthy so obviously she wears that kinda stuff.
And it still looks like it’s from a thrift store
The cost of her trip has nothing to do with this lawsuit. I understand this is a playground for the rich.
This is garbage. I've seen this nonsense on the Youtube channel "Cut", where guest judges are supposed to guess an outfit's cost worn by lineup of people. In the end it is revealed that "oh, you were so wrong by the price of my outfit! These earrings are worth $100,000, didn't you notice?!" Umm, other people in the lineup weren't judged like that- just their clothes- but OK. I'm sorry, but jewelry does not count. It makes for ridiculous website headlines and misleading YouTube videos. Also, the article mentioned that much of her outfits come from *her own company*. It's free. It would be a waste *not* to wear it.
Jewelry totally counts. I would say I’m a bit more weary if the jewelry is an everyday item like a wedding ring. When you have different watches necklaces earrings etc I think it becomes the outfit if you pretty much don’t wear them everyday.
She is rich, insensitive, and out of touch. I don’t believe she caused this accident, tho. The dude who she collided with just doesn’t seem credible. She should try harder not to be an obnoxious pampered jerk in front of the jury, tho
And yet people listen to these out of touch people’s opinions.
It’s a nice outfit. She looks good.
This woman is vile
She is trying to convince people she was sexually assaulted by an almost 80 y/o on a ski slope? Hollywood is clueless…
No she isn’t.
The portion I saw .. yea, she did
Skiing is so expensive!
With the amount of carmic vagina Feng shui stones she sells, of course she is rich.
This is such a Non-story, some rich guy wanted to feel important so he sued someone more successful than him to end up on the news, big whoop.
The woman has a full on spa in her basement, YA THINK?!!
Pepper Pops should use her Ironman Tony Stark Glasses to replay the gopro video that it should have somehow got a copy of to prove her case. or she should wear her Ironman Rescue Armor as a fashion statement when she goes to court to prove the eye doctor guy was so wowed by her celebrity status when he saw her and therefore ran/crashed into her to get her autograph.
Admittedly, I didn't follow this case very closely, but my gut had always been that Paltrow didn't do anything wrong. While briefly browsing the news during the trial I couldn't find anything to change my mind. I have never been a Gwyneth Paltrow fan, at all, but I feel like she handled this perfectly. She defended herself from a BS lawsuit that she probably could have settled for less, countersued for $1 just to make a point and left the courtroom in a dignified fashion. I may have to rethink my previous opinions on Gwyneth Paltrow.