Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Heiress of Grievances

I'll make this quick.

Apparently, GLAAD -- the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation -- is demanding that Paris Hilton apologize to both the gay and black communities in the wake of a recently-released videotape in which she's seen using racist and homophobic language. The video, which is at least a few years old and was obviously shot by someone who knows her personally, shows Hilton doing what she does best: flailing around some club like a human coke spoon and giggling about how much better she is than everyone else. More than once, she uses the words "fag" and "nigger" to describe the aforementioned inferior beings.

GLAAD president Neil G. Giuliano, having finally won the battle for gay rights in all fifty states, took time out to personally chastise Hilton, saying, "These are not frivolous words, and to use them as if they are gives tacit sanction to the racism and homophobia they engender. Hilton has an obligation to go on record, explain herself, and publicly apologize to the LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Trans-gender) and African-American communities and all those offended by these slurs."

Unfortunately, demanding an apology from Paris Hilton gives tacit sanction to the idea that anything coming out of her mouth actually fucking matters. Paris is quite possibly the single most worthless human being on the planet; treating her as if her views hold any more influence than those of your average crack-whore just makes you look stupid. This isn't Mohammed el-Baradei we're talking about; it's Paris fucking Hilton. No one with two brain cells gives a damn what she thinks.

That said, I never thought I'd be defending this idiot, but guess what: she doesn't owe anyone an apology anyway; she certainly doesn't owe an "explanation" to a group which has taken upon itself the role of self-righteous, moral demagogue. A personal videotape in which someone makes a personal statement is still -- do you see where this is going? -- personal. As far as I know, it's still okay to be offensive. It's even okay to be a racist and homophobic moron without having to say you're sorry to another living goddamned soul. Putting the authority to decide what is and isn't right or wrong language into the hands of the masses is both dangerous and stupid, simply because someone will always be offended by something. Likewise, demanding an insincere mea culpa from every single person who's ever said or done something to irritate the sensibilities of another is not only useless -- it'll keep you unnecessarily busy for years.

You don't like what Paris said, knock her down the next time she's dancing next to you at Marquee.

Until then, keep in mind: Paris Hilton has every right to be an asshole.

So does anyone else.

Speaking of which, am I the only one who thinks it's funny that the president of a gay organization is a guy named Neil.


Anonymous said...

All this does is make her grotesque vanity piece from Out magazine look even more silly. Michael Musto asking her if she was a "fag hag" was the pinnacle of how worthless they both are and it's always nice to see gay Uncle Tom's like Musto and complete wastes of skin like Paris look stupid. Hopefully, she can go crying to The Advocate and ruin that fluff rag too. I'm all for Paris using "that horrible word" if takes her equivalent entities (Musto, Reichen, cutesy vanity periodicals) in the gay community with her.


I was thinking the same thing when I saw the reaction GLAAD had to the Snickers commercial (where the two guys absent-mindedly bite at the same candy bar and accidentally wind up sort of kissing), and demanded that it be pulled off the air.

When you scream and jump up and down about how offensive you think something is, you give legitimacy to the idea that it is (or could be) offensive.

Just look at the ad campaigns in Europe: nudity, sexual innuendo, all manner of bodily functions lampooned. The rest of the civilized (read: culturally grown-up) world simply chuckles and moves on; we have to re-write the fucking Constitution if a nipple pastey pokes out at the half-time show. Two obviously un-gay guys reacting to an accidental lip-lock? Momentarily humorous, but otherwise forgettable.

If I were the president of Mars Candy (or whatever the arch-criminal global illuminati corporation is that owns Snickers), I would agree to stop running that "offensive" ad only on the condition that the world is never again subjected to another Pride Parade full of prancing, fuscha feather boa festooned queens, and leather bois wearing ass-less-chaps and slave collars.

Chez said...

My point exactly. If you believe that you're owed an apology by anyone who's ever offended you -- if you consistently put the burden on the one supposedly committing the offense -- then you're gonna wind up doing a hell of a lot of apologizing yourself.

If GLAAD takes it upon itself to demand that Paris apologize to every homosexual she might've insulted or offended, then likewise Focus on the Family can demand that everyone who's ever participated in a televised gay pride parade apologizes for offending the sensibilities of every single person in Beaumont, Texas.

soaringhawk71 said...

I saw part of that tape and wanted to poke my own eyes out to try and unsee it, then I briefly redlined from sheer boredom. I am your bestest ditto head Chez, it was a personal tape and as much as I would like to skin Paris and make a wall hanging from her internal organs, it was never meant to be seen by the public. Gah, now I have to go punish myself for sticking up for her.

Anonymous said...

Well, what about Mel Gibson's offensive comments last summer? Do they fall under the same category?

Daphne said...

Interesting that you mentioned Focus on the Family - I was just about to comment that GLAAD is getting as bad as they (or similar groups) are.

The entire trend of celebrities and the like having to "apologize" for their ignorant comments is ridiculous. How can any single organization, regardless of their cause, dictate what someone else should be saying? Can they passionately disagree? Sure. But demand apologies? The hell? So GLAAD wants freedom for gays and lesbians to have recognizable civil unions and/or marriages, but wants to prohibit the freedom of someone's opinion? Bullshit.

And the fact that all of the hullabaloo is about Paris fucking Hilton is even more ludicrous. Why won't people just ignore her?

TK said...

Summed it up best, Daphne. Paris is the ultimate attention whore. If we would just ignore her, on a national level, she would actually go away. But, as I've said before, we (meaning American society, not you kind folks) are too damn obsessed with her and the rest of the pop culture hordes to do that. GLAAD is just perpetuating the same worthless celebrity idolatry, but from the other side of it.

It hurts me to even type anything about her.

Magiel said...

Paris can say what she want's.
Cramer can say what he want's.
Mel can say what he want's.

Anyone can say what they want, isn't that the famous freedom of speach?
(I'm not up to date on this legally in the US). I just know there are very few things you can'tsay in Holland in public. About jews and gays and discrimination based on color you have to be carefull what you say.

Using the word faggot is not on that list.

I'm getting tired of this news out of the US, do not use this word or do not use that.
Grow up, all you complaining lobby groups, get angry about real event to get your names in the headlines.

How many gay people were bashed in america in the time the GLAAD took to formulate their anwser to the great threat of La Hilton?

And Chez, your right.
'Neil' is hilarious.
Always will remind me of "The Young Ones."

Anonymous said...

People are entitled to be stupid without offering the world an apology. It is kind of patronizing to me as a half jew/half catholic white gay man, that this spoiled bitch's apology would make her relevant in my eyes.

Chez said...

Magiel -- obviously not quite the "Neil" reference I was getting at, but you get all kinds of bonus points for bringing up the Young Ones.

Vegetable rights and peace.

slouchmonkey said...

Freedom of Speech-1st Amendment. "Anybody can say whatever they want about anybody and anything, just as long as most folks agree with it." -The Constitution

vivaBarca said...

Point taken, but isn't all this discussion (not to mention the care and deliberation that goes into a blog post such as this) just perpetuating the "problem" we all so profess to abhor and wish would stop being paid attention to? Just sayin'.

The best - and most hopeful - analogy to the whole Paris Hilton (I too shudder at the thought of having actually typed out her vile appellation) "phenomenon" - though this implies tacit sanction to her being described in similar terms to events/objects with greater intrinsic value than her mobile fashion accessory/dog's steaming piles - I can offer is the classic Simpsons short, "Attack of the 50-foot eyesores," during Treehouse of Horror VI. Here's the synopsis, courtesy of America's favorite faux-authoritative reference, wikipedia:

When Homer goes to Lard Lad Donuts to get a "Colossal Donut", he denounces their advertising when he realizes that the "colossal donuts" aren't very colossal. So, in revenge, he steals the Lard Lad's donut, and in the midst of a freak storm, Lard Lad, and other giant advertising statues come to life to terrorize Springfield. Homer eventually returns the donut, but Lard Lad and his friends simply keep right on destroying. Finally, Lisa goes to an ad agency, and an executive suggests not to look at the monsters. He tries to write a song, but suggests it would actually sound better coming out of Paul Anka, who performs a song with Lisa. The citizens of Springfield do not look at the monsters, who lose their powers and become lifeless.

Such a simple solution for such an agonizing problem. Goodbye Paris, Hugo Chavez, Carrot Top, et al. You may say I'm a dreamer...

choenbone said...

i would just like to say that one of my goals in life is to offend as many people as possible, using as little energy as possible.
And for the record, Nicole Richie is equally as worthless as Paris Hilton, simply because they hang together.

ms_wonderland said...

The difference between the Mel and Paris utterances is that one was public and the other was private. As chez said, Paris' tape was private and personal. To expect anyone to police their private speech is beyond controlling. Mel Gibson said what he did to insult police officers carrying out their duties. Everyone has the right to do their job free from harrassment. Would you expect to go to the store and abuse the Asian shopkeeper without consequences?

This apology business is getting way out of hand. It does not undo the 'crime'. An apology under pressure is worthless anyway as it needs to come from the heart and reflect a change in attitude.

I think the more we see of Paris being a dickhead the better. Maybe if people realise how worthless she is, they will stop buying her perfume and buying mags with her on the cover. Then she wil crawl back under that rock.

Christy said...

I agree - why do you want an apology from someone that doesn't mean it? Demanding an apology is a ridiculous concept. Just accept that she's a vacuous twat and move on.

Liz said...

Neil, kneel *snort*

Nick M said...

I'm trans-gendered, so presumably, I'm a member of one of the communities whom she seems to have maligned. Honestly speaking?

I think being insulted by Paris Hilton is one of the best endorsements my community could have. "Look, it's a slutty idiot! Hating the gay community is the practice of slutty idiots! Why emulate the behavior of slutty idiots?"

Seriously. I don't think this is an insult. I would be far more disturbed and offended if Paris Hilton were trying to champion gay rights. She makes homophobia look bad by association! It's brilliant!

(So, too, is the Neil/Kneel homophone. Oh dear. XD I can't believe I never noticed that...)