We’ll always have Paris … TO POOP ON!
Two very funny pictures floating around the Internet this weekend, both reflecting the nation’s mood as a certain waste of space was sent back to jail on Friday.
My friend David Cornelius made this one:
(See this pic to appreciate Dave’s inspiration.)
Meanwhile, this picture was sighted at this blog:
You tell her, Nelson!
June 11th, 2007 at 11:53 am
I guess I’m just not getting the humor value from kicking someone when they’re down when they’ve never caused you any harm. I’m not a Parish Hilton fan by any stretch, but I’m more than a little troubled by the phenomenon you’re taking part in here. Notice how you refer to her as a “waste of space,” but damned if you’re not giving her space anyhow. And that’s just what people have been doing with her this whole time.
I’m glad she’s getting some jail time as a chance to get her head out of her butt and maybe start acting like a responsible human being. But when someone falls to pieces, the decent thing to do is avert your gaze. This is not a corrupt politician — this is a very wealthy clothes horse. She’s not a threat to national security, nor to anybody with minimum safe distance from her when she’s driving.
She’s doing jail time. That’s the punishment the community has allocated to her because of her bad choices. Legally, she can’t be punished again for the same choices, and I don’t see the morality of continuing to take shots at her just because she’s an easy target. Frankly, I was a lot more impressed by what Craig Ferguson had to say about Britney Spears back in February than I am by these shots at Ms. Hilton. I recognize that your job is to make fun of people, and you’re very good at it, but this is like making fun of some Down’s Syndrome kid in the Special Olympics because he runs with a dopey looking grin on his face. There are other targets more worthy of your skills than this one. The world will be better when we can go a week without hearing the name “Paris Hilton” mentioned anywhere in the major media, so let it begin with you, now.
June 11th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Sorry, blain, but when I see someone as arrogant and annoying as Paris get taken down a few notches, a part of me dances the conga. This is someone who has never had to take responsibility for her actions. She’s no victim. She broke the law, she goes to jail, just like anyone else.
And as far as the media paying all this attention to her during her low points… well, it’s not as if she’s ever shied away from media exposure before. On the contrary, she’s shoved herself into our faces any chance she gets. We, as a nation of Paris-haters, need this moment of catharsis for closure. THEN we can forget all about her.
June 11th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Kicking someone when they’re down is the American way. I fully expect that, whenever the time comes for me to be publicly humilated in a grand manner, to wind up the butt of many a Photoshopped wisecrack.
I request mine have something to do with “cheezburger”. Thank you in advance.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
If you don’t kick someone when they’re down, how will they ever pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make something of themselves, thus fulfilling the American Dream?
June 11th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
To be fair, we kicked her when she was up, too, and I favor consistency.
June 11th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
She was up? I thought she was always down (on her knees).
OH! ZING!!!!
June 11th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Kicking her when she’s up or down is creating the phenomenon you’re complaining about. It’s like driving a SUV to a Global Warming rally. If she’s a waste of space, you’re the one doing the wasting, not her.
Paris is never going to have to pick herself up by her bootstraps — she’s way too protected by her money for that. If you’re really, really tired of seeing her (I know I am, and I don’t watch TV), stop talking about her and start ignoring her.
I guess the point is that you’re not tired of seeing her, and you like the fun of taking shots at her from the safety of anonymity (the kind that most of us have based not in people not knowing our names, but not caring who we are in the first place). You’re elevating this dimwit by the quality of enemies you are providing her with. Is that really what you’re trying to do?
June 12th, 2007 at 4:41 am
Paris is not one of things in life that will magically go away if some people stop paying attention to her. She will always have some legions of adolescent fans who like her because of..um….what is she talented in again? Besides buying things? (and besides things I shall not mention on this site). As long as she has money, she will have ways of assaulting our intellects. No, the only way to kill the Hilton beast is to bring down the Hilton empire, or to get daddy Hilton to make his daughter(s) get real jobs and support themselves…. hahaha, not gonna happen. The Hilton hotel’s pillows are too soft and so is Mr. Hilton.
So I’m all in favor of taking Hilton off her high horse, dragging her through the mud a bit and putting her back so we can do it again soon. If she actually shapes up and LEARNS SOMETHING, then maybe we’ll just have to go pick on someone else and steals their special treatment. That won’t be hard.
June 12th, 2007 at 5:12 am
blain – Pull the stick out of your butt. Your “holier-than-thou” attitude is giving her just as much space as anyone else making fun of her. You have mentioned her name more times than anyone else here.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:00 am
How can criticizing her from a website called “ericdsnider.com” possibly be considered anonymous?
June 12th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Blain, the problem is that if we don’t kick her (whether she’s in an up or down state), the mindless drones who actually consider her to be a good role-model and worthy of press coverage and public attention would dominate proceedings.
I don’t know what reflects worse on society; the fact that we relish bashing her, and find it to be a necessity, or the fact that there are people who rush to her defence and hang on her every word.
June 12th, 2007 at 9:22 am
KMD — Well, there’s the obvious aspect that you haven’t included your name in the post, but that’s really beside my point, which is that this is the anonymity where it doesn’t matter if your name is attached because nobody of significance (which includes me) is going to read it or even know that it (or you) exist. It’s the anonymity of being another brick in the wall, or a grain of sand at the beach.
David — I don’t think it would work that way. Yesterday I heard of a poll that only about 10% of the respondents were sympathetic to Ms. Hilton, compared to something like 15% for Lindsay Lohan and 12% for Britney Spears. I think the problem in all three cases is the media-creation aspect of this — these young women are easy to write about because they’re pretty, they actively seek media attention, and the two that aren’t Ms. Hilton are actually quite talented. The problem is that they’ve received way more coverage than they deserve to the point that it’s been destructive to their lives (another example would be Michael Jackson in both respects), and, when their lives go down the crapper in partial response, the media’s there documenting every step along the way without taking the least amount of culpability for their contribution to what they’re covering. The American Fame Machine chews people up and spits them out, destroying far more than it creates, and it gets to make money out of the whole process. I mean, I’m talking about a clothes-horse, an actress, and two singers. As big as they’ve been (and few have been bigger) they’ve not discovered a vaccine for HIV, they’ve not invaded neighboring countries militarily, they’ve neither created nor ended genocide, nor have they straightened out the problems with international commerce and lending.
If they produce something that’s part of their jobs, I think it’s okay to talk about the marketing campaign, movie or album and its merits and flaws, but we don’t need to know about what clubs they went to, who they went with, or how they’ve treated their children. We certainly don’t need to watch their wardrobe malfunctions or mental breakdowns. They’re not important enough, and the only way to make that message get through is to announce that that’s what you’re doing, and then stop paying attention to the things that don’t deserve it. When people find a Paris-free-zone, they will like it, and the Paris-freeness will spread until only the sycophants remain, and everyone will lose interest in them and move on to something else. Think OJ, Vanilla Ice and Milli Vanilli.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Look friends, after all is said and done Paris will be returning to her palace and servants in a few short weeks. I am going back to a cubicle and no health insurance. Kick away!
June 12th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Alright, Blain. Paris Hilton is part of the financial aristocracy of our country. She has enormous power because of her money. Her voice has far more reach than yours, mine, or anyone I know personally. America is founded on principles that allow us to criticize these people. The old kings of Europe, and most dictators today punish those who criticize them. But U.S. public figures don’t have such protections, and thank goodness they don’t.
If you feel criticizing public figures is in bad taste, you are certainly free to feel that way, and even express that opinion. But Eric, and most of his readers would not consider the above pictures to be in bad taste. In fact, all the negative attention might just get her to think about what she does a little bit more before she makes the choice next time.
It reminds me of the NBA lockout or strike or whatever it was. With the players saying “sure we make a lot of money, but we spend a lot, too.” Mocking people who are out of work might be considered in bad taste, but anyone who makes a statement like that needs to be mocked.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Question. Who has wasted the most space blathering on the topic of Paris Hilton on this page?
June 12th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Whome — that would work if I was saying that nobody had the right to say these things, but I didn’t. I’m not even saying that public figures shouldn’t be criticized — not at all. If you want to criticize the President, the Speaker of the House, the Secretary of State, etc., I’m good with that (might or might not agree, but I tend to think your criticism would be reasonable). None of that is addressing my point.
I wouldn’t mind mocking whatever idiot said that from the NBA — as I recall, I was the guy promoting the idea of a one-day fan strike in response to that fiasco. I think I even did a guest editorial on the local radio station about that idea iirc.
Let me suggest you look at the Craig Ferguson piece I mentioned before — it’s on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/v/7bbaRyDLMvA , and it gets at part of what I’m talking about. It’s not exactly schadenfreude that’s going on that’s bothering me — it’s a bit more twisted than that.
And then there’s the other piece that comments like the original blog post are contributing to the problem Ms. Hilton’s media existence is. If it doesn’t end by people not talking about her, somebody tell me how it does end. How did it work for the last five empty media creations? Is the point to say every bad thing you can think of, or is it to get her out of your face, and, if you don’t like my plan for getting to that outcome, then pony up your own and give me reasons your plan is better.
Oh, and Chango, you don’t get to mess with the stick up my butt until, at the very least, there’s been dinner and a movie, big fella. I’m not that kind of boy.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
That’s already been established.