The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Achewood => Achewood => Topic started by: pmcd9 on February 21, 2005, 09:36:14 am
-
Ooh I do, I hate her the most.
~Paul
-
And a return to bigger panels. It works, though. You can get a lot of mileage out of hating Paris Hilton.
I would have titled this thread "Scientific, Though". Since what we need more of is science.
-
I don't think Beef's suggestions is totally fair. Granted watching kids get gunned down isn't fun, but Beef doesn't really like children to begin with so he'd react less.
So was she famous before the Simple Life or what?
-
So was she famous before the Simple Life or what?
She had a brief stint as a porn star.
~Paul
-
This strip is topical because someone hacked her PDA thing yesterday, so her whole address book was on the internet. It was pretty cool if you ever wanted to call Vin Diesel or Pauly Shore but did not know how to go about doing that.
As for the contest, I think it's pretty futile. There is basically no way to quantify or qualify your hate for Paris Hilton.
-
my mom when the SimpleLife came on,
"What the hell! no one wants to know how tiny their dogs are or what tennis shoes they wear! Turn this crap OFF!"
heh. She hates a lot of people on T.V. that aren't on PBS. She might win.
-
my mom when the SimpleLife came on,
"What the hell! no one wants to know how tiny their dogs are or what tennis shoes they wear! Turn this crap OFF!"
heh. She hates a lot of people on T.V. that aren't on PBS. She might win.
I think pop culture needs a return to Victorian mores and styles. I say this partially to point out what a shit Paris Hilton eseques are, but also as an excuse to paste this exchange:
11:05 < isosceles> i totally respect men who wear pith helmets
11:08 < dawa> is that respect in a rap sense?
11:09 * dave holds out his clenched fist, horizontal like, to dawa - lay a
pound on me nigga
11:11 < isosceles> actually
11:11 < isosceles> you know
11:11 < isosceles> i would totally get behind a portly english man in a
waistcoat, pith helmet, mutton chops to handlebar moustache,
spats and monacle rapping about totally fuck*ng up some cape
buffalo in the hood
11:12 < isosceles> at the end making a ghetto hand sign and going "what up mah
BWANAAAAAAZ"
11:12 < isosceles> and admit it: SO WOULD YOU
11:12 < dave> Sounds like an industry engineered artist waiting to be unleashed
on the public to me
11:12 < dave> Make it happen isosceles
11:13 < isosceles> will do
11:13 < isosceles> The Notorious Reginald Swillworth Oglethorpe, III, Esq.
11:13 < isosceles> repreSENT the house of lords
-
I love this strip
-
I think they need to build up just to see exactly how much a person hates Paris Hilton.
Hook them up to a blood pressure monitor... Start with Pauly shore dancing, then move up to Garfield pushing Odie, then a person just pouring ketchup on their fries (like a ridiculous amount), then Kevin Smith exchanging awards with Quentin Tarentino, then Pat with a tray on carob covered prunes, then a guy shooting kids, then a puppy getting stomped, then Mel Gibson sitting on the pile of money he got from Passion of the Christ, and then Paris Hilton talking on the phone.
I think for me ot would be a tie for Mel and Paris. That Kevin Smith one would be close too.
-
So was she famous before the Simple Life or what?
She had a brief stint as a porn star.
~Paul
I believe she was the star of these (http://www.plushieschwartz.com/video/shorts/plushie03.mov) videos. (http://www.plushieschwartz.com/video/shorts/plushie04.mov)
-
I think they need to build up just to see exactly how much a person hates Paris Hilton.
Hook them up to a blood pressure monitor... Start with Pauly shore dancing, then move up to Garfield pushing Odie, then a person just pouring ketchup on their fries (like a ridiculous amount), then Kevin Smith exchanging awards with Quentin Tarentino, then Pat with a tray on carob covered prunes, then a guy shooting kids, then a puppy getting stomped, then Mel Gibson sitting on the pile of money he got from Passion of the Christ, and then Paris Hilton talking on the phone.
I think for me ot would be a tie for Mel and Paris. That Kevin Smith one would be close too.
Congratulations. You have just invented VH1.
-
then Mel Gibson sitting on the pile of money he got from Passion of the Christ,
Don't forget that they're now re-releasing (http://movies.insidepulse.com/article.php?contentid=31969) this with some of the more violent parts taken out to try and bring in younger/more squeamish viewers.
-
Congratulations. You have just invented VH1.
I'd like to see some VH1 bashing in general. If Micheal Ian Black (http://mcsweeneys.net/links/black/) is not on the screen, no one else should be.
"Because, at the end of the day, I believe telling topical jokes and interviewing C-level celebrities is a higher calling. If this were the Middle Ages, talk-show hosts would be the priests, their guests the penitents. Or not. I don't know. Regardless, it's a hell of a lot better than what I'm currently doing, which is expounding on the cultural significance of The A-Team for VH1. (When they asked me for my occupation on my income tax return this year, I wrote down "Fundit," and almost collapsed from depression.)"
-
I like Beef's weird synthesis of science and fun. Also, real human-sized panels are like a breath of fresh air.
-
Michael Ian Black is an incredibly beautiful man.
-
Strip was funny for crazy Beef antics, but...
Hating Paris Hilton is kind of weak and boring. And it probaby only generates attention for her, which is bad for her haters because she feeds off attention like I feed off of stout, pizza, and Cadbury's chocolate eggs. She'll just keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger.
-
Why would anyone hate Paris Hilton?
She is hot and likes to chug the cock. We must cultivate this kind of celebrity, and hope that her slut-falutin' lifestyle is influential for young girls.
Plus, you can call her friends and complain about her:
http://hacking.to/parishilton/book.html
You know, just in case you ever wanted to call Pauly Shore or Vin Diesel.
-
You know, just in case you ever wanted to call Pauly Shore or Vin Diesel.
Did you read my earlier post or did you pick those at random? Because if you picked them at random, that's pretty freaky.
-
You know, just in case you ever wanted to call Pauly Shore or Vin Diesel.
Did you read my earlier post or did you pick those at random? Because if you picked them at random, that's pretty freaky.
No one else on that list is worthy of calling, and they're in alphabetical order, so it's not that farfetched.
PS: except maybe Ashley Olsen
-
Why would anyone hate Paris Hilton?
She is hot and likes to chug the cock. We must cultivate this kind of celebrity, and hope that her slut-falutin' lifestyle is influential for young girls.
Plus, you can call her friends and complain about her:
http://hacking.to/parishilton/book.html
You know, just in case you ever wanted to call Pauly Shore or Vin Diesel.
I thought Pauly Shore was dead (http://movies.insidepulse.com/article.php?contentid=32216).
-
She is hot
Really? I kind of thought she was exactly what qualified as a SKANK.
-
Paris Hilton is frighteningly unattractive.
-
I too also have a man crush for Michael Ian Black. I never hearde that quote but it is great.
-
You know, just in case you ever wanted to call Pauly Shore or Vin Diesel.
Did you read my earlier post or did you pick those at random? Because if you picked them at random, that's pretty freaky.
No one else on that list is worthy of calling, and they're in alphabetical order, so it's not that farfetched.
PS: except maybe Ashley Olsen
Southwest Airlines is on the list. 1) Why would she fly Southwest? 2) While worth calling for inexpensive airfare, Lil Jon would be a more fun phone call.
-
You know, just in case you ever wanted to call Pauly Shore or Vin Diesel.
Did you read my earlier post or did you pick those at random? Because if you picked them at random, that's pretty freaky.
No one else on that list is worthy of calling, and they're in alphabetical order, so it's not that farfetched.
PS: except maybe Ashley Olsen
LIL JON
-
It is times like this that make me glad that I live in a city that is mostly shut up in a bubble of its own cultural self-importance so I don't have to think about things like Paris Hilton except when I walk past those porn stores on my way home from school.
-
Until about a week ago I thought Lil Jon was just a character Dave Chappelle had made up.
-
who could blame you? it's certainly more feasible than the objective existence of lil john.
-
Wow, I just picked those two out of the list when I was reading through it before I posted - but really, those two are the most ridiculous people to call out of the blue from that list.
EDIT:
Okay, so I called Vin Diesel and got his voicemail, which is HILARIOUS as he tries far too hard to sound cool "Hey, yo, this is Vin but I'm busy right now so you know what to do and I'll call you LATAH!"
Dear lord...
I wonder how many of these people will have to change their numbers because of this.
-
I wonder how many of these people will have to change their numbers because of this.
I'm surprised how many haven't already.
-
When I wasn't thinking about Hunter Thompson today, I was thinking about Paris Hilton.
My first and most primal reaction to Paris is hatred. Then I tried to dig a little deeper into my feelings about her? Why?
Do I hate her because she's inherited incredible wealth through no effort of her own? Not really -- she had no control over that.
Because she's stupid and vacuous? Not really -- lots of people are dumb as rocks and shallower than the gene pool in my home state. And I'm not convinced that the shallow/dumb thing isn't all an act anyway.
Why then? Then I thought some more.
Does anybody really like Paris Hilton? Admire or respect her? Not in my experience. She's a clown, a buffoon. She's somebody to be made fun of. She's Pauly Shore. She's Vegetable Brain.
So I realized. I don't really hate Paris Hilton (or the character she plays on TV.) I hate the overcorporatized, lowest common denominator, sick fuck*ng system that shoves her down our throat as an acceptable form of entertainment.
Paris Hilton is really pretty pathetic. Isn't that what her shows have all been about? "Look here are two stupid-ass rich girls who are utterly clueless and obnoxious! Laugh at them!" I hate the part of our culture that thinks that's worth watching and I hate the fucks who foist it on us.
Paris, on the other hand, is just doing what rich people usually do -- make more money. Sure, she does it in a particularly soul-sucking way, but what the hell -- what the fuck else is she capable of?
-
August, if I could slap the smug fuck*ng smirk right off of her fuck-me-right-in-the-talk-hole face on Pay-Per-View, I'd be rich, too.
But money wouldn't change me, baby. I might play a lot more pinball is all.
She is a terrible, self-absorbed cunt, and it's pretty fuck*ng clear that this condition goes right to the bone, like Rabies - too deeply ingrained to be fixed. Every fuck*ng movement, every "accidental" crotch shot, every meet-me-at-recess double entendre, every little twitch and tic all alone straining out a series of tight, miserable coke shits tweaks an overdeveloped nerve at the base of her brain that basically squirts a CONGRATULATIONS, YOU'RE EXCELLENT message up into the parts that make policy. F. Scott Fitzgerald's Buchanans were, above all, careless people. That's the gooey fruit filling of this problem, and all the attendant hate -
Not a goddamned thing she ever does will ever have any fuck*ng consequences, neither internally nor externally, because she's a silver spoon virus with marketable nipples.
-
I have noticed that Paris Hilton operates on a principle called "Perpetual Fame" in which she is famous for being famous. I suggest we hook her up to a machine with science and convert this into energy for cars, third world countries, spaceships, etc. It would be the only useful service she would ever provide humanity.
-
When I wasn't thinking about Hunter Thompson today, I was thinking about Paris Hilton.
My first and most primal reaction to Paris is hatred. Then I tried to dig a little deeper into my feelings about her? Why?
Do I hate her because she's inherited incredible wealth through no effort of her own? Not really -- she had no control over that.
Because she's stupid and vacuous? Not really -- lots of people are dumb as rocks and shallower than the gene pool in my home state. And I'm not convinced that the shallow/dumb thing isn't all an act anyway.
Why then? Then I thought some more.
Does anybody really like Paris Hilton? Admire or respect her? Not in my experience. She's a clown, a buffoon. She's somebody to be made fun of. She's Pauly Shore. She's Vegetable Brain.
So I realized. I don't really hate Paris Hilton (or the character she plays on TV.) I hate the overcorporatized, lowest common denominator, sick fuck*ng system that shoves her down our throat as an acceptable form of entertainment.
Paris Hilton is really pretty pathetic. Isn't that what her shows have all been about? "Look here are two stupid-ass rich girls who are utterly clueless and obnoxious! Laugh at them!" I hate the part of our culture that thinks that's worth watching and I hate the fucks who foist it on us.
Paris, on the other hand, is just doing what rich people usually do -- make more money. Sure, she does it in a particularly soul-sucking way, but what the hell -- what the fuck else is she capable of?
Actually, to be more of a reductionist, I don't think you hate the overcoroporatized, lowest common denominator, sick fuck*ng system, etc. I think you wouldn't give a shit about Paris Hilton OR the system if you were as rich as she is. So this vitriol can be traced back to a fact that you think you deserve the wealth and influence and power (and she, among others, doesn't). You want wealth; you can't have it, so you hate those who do. Greed sublimates to anger. Quite literally, anger is a thief.
-
I hate Paris Hilton [and the other one either too, don't forget the other one], but there's no passion in it because I've been pretty successful at avoiding them. My consumption of mainstream media is dwindling. My primary exposure to Paris Hilton is in the form of adverts for her show which air during The Simpsons.
~Paul
-
When I wasn't thinking about Hunter Thompson today, I was thinking about Paris Hilton.
My first and most primal reaction to Paris is hatred. Then I tried to dig a little deeper into my feelings about her? Why?
Do I hate her because she's inherited incredible wealth through no effort of her own? Not really -- she had no control over that.
Because she's stupid and vacuous? Not really -- lots of people are dumb as rocks and shallower than the gene pool in my home state. And I'm not convinced that the shallow/dumb thing isn't all an act anyway.
Why then? Then I thought some more.
Does anybody really like Paris Hilton? Admire or respect her? Not in my experience. She's a clown, a buffoon. She's somebody to be made fun of. She's Pauly Shore. She's Vegetable Brain.
So I realized. I don't really hate Paris Hilton (or the character she plays on TV.) I hate the overcorporatized, lowest common denominator, sick fuck*ng system that shoves her down our throat as an acceptable form of entertainment.
Paris Hilton is really pretty pathetic. Isn't that what her shows have all been about? "Look here are two stupid-ass rich girls who are utterly clueless and obnoxious! Laugh at them!" I hate the part of our culture that thinks that's worth watching and I hate the fucks who foist it on us.
Paris, on the other hand, is just doing what rich people usually do -- make more money. Sure, she does it in a particularly soul-sucking way, but what the hell -- what the fuck else is she capable of?
Actually, to be more of a reductionist, I don't think you hate the overcoroporatized, lowest common denominator, sick fuck*ng system, etc. I think you wouldn't give a shit about Paris Hilton OR the system if you were as rich as she is. So this vitriol can be traced back to a fact that you think you deserve the wealth and influence and power (and she, among others, doesn't). You want wealth; you can't have it, so you hate those who do. Greed sublimates to anger. Quite literally, anger is a thief.
Ah, the "You're just jealous" response. Perhaps that's part of it. But I don't think envy explains it all. I don't feel the same level of disgust for say, Hillary Duff or Ashlee Simpson, whom I view as equally manufactured celebrities. I don't hate Bill Gates (though perhaps I should). It's not just greed.
Also, Paris Hilton has influence and power? Over what?
-
Re AW's post and all since...
I hate her for the same reasons. Mainly the, people watch this. factor... I also hate her for being dumb as a brick. But I do really despair of the entertainment industry selling everything on sex and stupidity. I mean, the reality TV world and all that. I mean, 'The Swan' on Fox, is possibly one of the sickest show ideas I have ever seen.
You can watch corpses being dissected on TV.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD?!
Also... Stupidest. name. ever.
-
Ah, the "You're just jealous" response. Perhaps that's part of it. But I don't think envy explains it all. I don't feel the same level of disgust for say, Hillary Duff or Ashlee Simpson, whom I view as equally manufactured celebrities. I don't hate Bill Gates (though perhaps I should). It's not just greed.
Also, Paris Hilton has influence and power? Over what?
Well, more people care about what happens to Paris Hilton than you (or me, or even Ashlee Simpson, since Paris is the flavor of the moment). That's sure to sting a little. Bill Gates keeps to himself, but Paris rubs in the fact that she has the money and people care about her.
-
Also, Paris Hilton has influence and power? Over what?
Inexplicably over millions of Americans and their television sets during Prime Time.
No matter how ludicrous it seems that watching the exploits of a skanky dolt in a faux giraffe-out-of-water is classified as entertainment these days, the truth of the matter is they wouldn't have made a sequel to the first one had it tanked royally. Someone must actually watch the crap.
-
I have noticed that Paris Hilton operates on a principle called "Perpetual Fame" in which she is famous for being famous. I suggest we hook her up to a machine with science and convert this into energy for cars, third world countries, spaceships, etc. It would be the only useful service she would ever provide humanity.
There are a few people who fall into that boat of famous for being famous. Zsa Zsa Gabor (sp?) springs to mind. As well as that woman who used to guest host the Tonight Show. What's her face? Joan Rivers.
But I think the Us Weekly book Brad & Jen is sadder than Paris Hilton. Actually I think the fact that Us Weekly exists is pretty sad on its own.
-
But I think the Us Weekly book Brad & Jen is sadder than Paris Hilton. Actually I think the fact that Us Weekly exists is pretty sad on its own.
book.
book?
Someone should tell them that is not what books are for.
-
Someone should tell them that's not what books are for
That's probably not a big seller [unless it has lots of pictures]. People who are so interested in Brad and Jen they would read a book about it are likely illiterate. Those people need the tv.
~Paul
-
Someone should tell them that's not what books are for
That's probably not a big seller [unless it has lots of pictures]. People who are so interested in Brad and Jen they would read a book about it are likely illiterate. Those people need the tv.
Sad but true (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1932958576/qid=1109085039/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-7753172-4860012?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Right now it's ranked ~6,000 in Amazon. Jon Stewart was making fun of it last week. Apparently in the first page they compare the breakup to the shot heard round the world and the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I shit you not.
I didn't even know they were dating.
[edit: my coworker just informed me that they were married.]
-
I think the most interesting entry in Paris's phone book is that she has Super Dave (Osborne)'s number. Super Dave!
Also, regarding the strip. I enjoy the return to larger panels, I like the perspective on Ray's kitchen counter, and I like the fact that Beef has drunk the least amount of beer.
-
AW- yer post/rant = brilliant.
St Zartan- yer's too.
inre: paris hilton = "hot" vis a vis attractiveness. i find her face to be oddly shaped and that it evokes a sense of physical disgust.
Also, Paris Hilton has influence and power? Over what?
i liken paris hilton to a hammer. unless someone/something is swinging it, it's not going to do much but be a paperweight.
her fame, like many other's, is an Ouroboros. there is a line where after "it takes money to make money" becomes ridiculously obvious, and Ms. Hilton exists a distance across that line that approaches infinity. There are those who "defend" her, positing that while she inherited/stood to inherit oodles of cashola (money, mo money, MO money), she was able to create a fortune of her own. Such quibbling is the more ridiculous given her "unique" (compared to people who have to work or even shop at Wal-Mart) position across that line.
There is a system that exists, that i think could be defined mathematically. there are circles within circles intersecting circles ad infinitum. I am not convinced that the point of Hilton occupies an area within a circle that is even based on the same mathematics as the circle my point occurs within.
tomorrow on Achewood: Alice Stuffed Animals and Talking Cats argue over who Hates Gravity More.
-
AW- yer post/rant = brilliant.
St Zartan- yer's too.
inre: paris hilton = "hot" vis a vis attractiveness. i find her face to be oddly shaped and that it evokes a sense of physical disgust.
Also, Paris Hilton has influence and power? Over what?
i liken paris hilton to a hammer. unless someone/something is swinging it, it's not going to do much but be a paperweight.
her fame, like many other's, is an Ouroboros. there is a line where after "it takes money to make money" becomes ridiculously obvious, and Ms. Hilton exists a distance across that line that approaches infinity. There are those who "defend" her, positing that while she inherited/stood to inherit oodles of cashola (money, mo money, MO money), she was able to create a fortune of her own. Such quibbling is the more ridiculous given her "unique" (compared to people who have to work or even shop at Wal-Mart) position across that line.
There is a system that exists, that i think could be defined mathematically. there are circles within circles intersecting circles ad infinitum. I am not convinced that the point of Hilton occupies an area within a circle that is even based on the same mathematics as the circle my point occurs within.
tomorrow on Achewood: Alice Stuffed Animals and Talking Cats argue over who Hates Gravity More.
WE RETURN WEDNESDAY
This thread may now be closed.
-
WE RETURN WEDNESDAY
This thread may now be closed.
It's a "WE RETURN WEDNESDAY" Tuesday!
EDIT: Which is still preferable to a "Judas Priest" Friday.
-
WE RETURN WEDNESDAY
This thread may now be closed.
It's a "WE RETURN WEDNESDAY" Tuesday!
EDIT: Which is still preferable to a "Judas Priest" Friday.
Not this Friday. Fuck you.
-
i liken paris hilton to a hammer. unless someone/something is swinging it, it's not going to do much but be a paperweight.
Thanksyou Ark. I love that sentence so much!
-
WE RETURN WEDNESDAY
This thread may now be closed.
It's a "WE RETURN WEDNESDAY" Tuesday!
EDIT: Which is still preferable to a "Judas Priest" Friday.
It is quite possible that Onstad is dealing with the same flu I'm currently experiencing. I have taken a turn for the worse every Monday night/Tuesday morning for the last three weeks straight. It's kind of starting to piss me off.
Edit: When you take out a phrase offset by commas you should remove the commas too.
-
judas priest friday was fuck*ng awesome.
-
tomorrow on Achewood: Alice Stuffed Animals and Talking Cats argue over who Hates Gravity More.
Gravity is a harsh mistress.
-
It's a "WE RETURN WEDNESDAY" Tuesday!
Aren't they all?
i liken paris hilton to a hammer. unless someone/something is swinging it, it's not going to do much but be a paperweight.
Beeeeyoutiful.
Also, I do not find Paris exceptionally attractive. I wouldn't kick her out of bed, but she doesn't do all that much for me.
-
tomorrow on Achewood: Alice Stuffed Animals and Talking Cats argue over who Hates Gravity More.
Gravity is a harsh mistress.
As is the moon, or so i've read. and, i can't type.
Also, I do not find Paris exceptionally attractive. I wouldn't kick her out of bed, but she doesn't do all that much for me.
metoo, i suppose, as long as she was not speaking and it was dark, and i was not in my current relationship. so, i guess, too bad for Ms. Hilton. I have no idea how she will survive without me.
-
See, I'm a pragmatist. So when I see someone that useless I think of uses for her - and Paris Hilton would be useful for taking a load in the face.
Yes, she's a spoiled rich vapid brat, but I am willing to bet that you can fuck that out of her.
God willing, I'd try. I'd try...
-
So uh I just dig how Beef is so insistent that he would hate Paris Hilton the most. And that he can prove it with science.
longtime lurker, first time poster.
-
This is what I think. If you are born wealthy, you have an obligation to the world to be as educated as possible, and to use your wealth and power to help those who weren't given all of the cards at the start of the poker game. OF LIFE.
Anyone who gets to her age, while being extremely wealthy, without doing anything even VAGUELY positive for ANYONE, should be shot in the back of the head.
-
This is what I think. If you are born wealthy, you have an obligation to the world to be as educated as possible, and to use your wealth and power to help those who weren't given all of the cards at the start of the poker game. OF LIFE.
Anyone who gets to her age, while being extremely wealthy, without doing anything even VAGUELY positive for ANYONE, should be shot in the back of the head.
I would hesitate to say there's an obligation, but I definitely believe that it's the only really moral route. Nobody should be obliged to be philanthropic, but being born wealthy puts one in a unique situation to help the world, and the most moral route is to take those opportunities.
That said, I'm also willing to waive the education bit. If you really don't want to go to school -- hell, you don't have to. Don't worry about it. (Of course, this may just be my reaction upon going to a very prestigious private liberal-arts school with a massive legacy contingent, rooming across from a legacy my freshman year, and thus inadvertently partaking in her "Officially Taking Time Off From College But Staying in the Dorms, Staying Up Until 4 AM Listening to Eminem, And Smoking Enough Pot To Fumigate a Football Field" semester. This may be selgiraffe, but I have no problems with unmotivated legacies staying the hell out of my academic experience.)
-
This is what I think. If you are born wealthy, you have an obligation to the world to be as educated as possible, and to use your wealth and power to help those who weren't given all of the cards at the start of the poker game. OF LIFE.
Anyone who gets to her age, while being extremely wealthy, without doing anything even VAGUELY positive for ANYONE, should be shot in the back of the head.
I would hesitate to say there's an obligation, but I definitely believe that it's the only really moral route. Nobody should be obliged to be philanthropic, but being born wealthy puts one in a unique situation to help the world, and the most moral route is to take those opportunities.
That said, I'm also willing to waive the education bit. If you really don't want to go to school -- hell, you don't have to. Don't worry about it. (Of course, this may just be my reaction upon going to a very prestigious private liberal-arts school with a massive legacy contingent, rooming across from a legacy my freshman year, and thus inadvertently partaking in her "Officially Taking Time Off From College But Staying in the Dorms, Staying Up Until 4 AM Listening to Eminem, And Smoking Enough Pot To Fumigate a Football Field" semester. This may be selgiraffe, but I have no problems with unmotivated legacies staying the hell out of my academic experience.)
Why? Where is the link between wealth and some perception of increased social responsibility?
The most basic responsibility people have as individuals is to survive. As members of societies, the most basic is not to hurt other people, followed fairly rapidly by doing your share to ensure the survival of the group. Your accumulated wealth shouldn't come with an enhanced responsibility (nor should it excuse not contributing in a meaningful way); everyone should share equal amounts of responsibility. Philanthropy is a good thing but certainly should not be a requirement. The world would be better if everyone did more personal service to the community and the world; the money is nice but means less in terms of building a sense of humanity and community.
I think.
-
If I had gobs upon gobs of money. Enough that I didn't have to do anything. I would very quickly get bored of doing nothing.
I would find something to apply myself to and apply 100%. I think many people would do the same thing.
Think of the books you could read, songs you could learn, people you could help...
Ms Hilton was born into this hypothetical situation and like the skeletor to many people's He-man's she chose to use her power for evil: For reinforcing in young girls that it's okay to be vacuous as long as you're cute. That you should never have to lift a finger as long as you put out. That anybody can be rich and famous.
Paris hilton like Jessica Simpson, Hillary Duff, Avril Lavigne and Ashleigh Simpson, is another example of high powered marketing in action, working toward the catastrophic end of all civilisation.
Instead of fiction based on real life we are presented with real life based upon fiction. It's far more devastating because once you fuck with reality, there's no turning back. The damage the Paris Hilton's of the world are doing can never be undone.
-
Hmmm. I guess I don't think it should be mandatory. But fuck, in my mind it's the really only moral choice (like V pointed out). If you have more than enough money, at a young age, to provide for yourself and your family until you die, morally you really should be putting that money to use for those who weren't born with a silver spoon.
In terms of whether or not more money increases social obligation: I don't think there's a hard and fast correllation. But, personally, I'm going to think you're a vapid ass if you could, I don't know, spend what amounts to 1 percent of your yearly income and, say, help reduce the spread of AIDS in Africa. I try and help out in my community as well as I can, according to my resources, and to some degree I expect the same from others, even if that just means helping friends with projects or being a nice person, etc.
And V, you're right about the legacy thing. Maybe not education, but do SOMETHING, damn it.
-
Bozack pretty much said it, AD: I don't think it's a responsibility that necessarily comes with money, but there is a connection in that very rich people have more opportunity to act on it. I'm not saying that philanthropy is a requirement, but philanthropy is morally right, and rich people just logically have the money, time, and other resources necessary to do it. (Philanthropy is just as much of a moral right for the poor as for the rich, but you're very right in that survival is a primary goal; thus, I will excuse from any expectation of philanthropy those who have to work and scrimp just to survive before I excuse those who were destined to never have to work from birth.)
Basically, what I'm trying to say here is: don't be a dick. Try to be an anti-dick to the limits of your capabilities -- and certainly, if you don't have any obligation to work to survive, working to be an anti-dick is the most noble application. (Also tax-deductible.)
-
Who is Egplant dike ass?
-
Bozack pretty much said it, AD: I don't think it's a responsibility that necessarily comes with money, but there is a connection in that very rich people have more opportunity to act on it. I'm not saying that philanthropy is a requirement, but philanthropy is morally right, and rich people just logically have the money, time, and other resources necessary to do it. (Philanthropy is just as much of a moral right for the poor as for the rich, but you're very right in that survival is a primary goal; thus, I will excuse from any expectation of philanthropy those who have to work and scrimp just to survive before I excuse those who were destined to never have to work from birth.)
Basically, what I'm trying to say here is: don't be a dick. Try to be an anti-dick to the limits of your capabilities -- and certainly, if you don't have any obligation to work to survive, working to be an anti-dick is the most noble application. (Also tax-deductible.)
I still don't get the MORAL obligation. Certainly, you are all speaking to social pressure on people with a lot of money but from whence do you derive a moral obligation? What is the source of the moral imperative for the 'rich' to use their resources on behalf of the 'not rich'? If that is the case, is there somehow less obligation for those of us who are not rich to help out? Is there a measurable difference in the obligation? Or is helping your fellow man an imperative that applies 'moral pressure' to action REGARDLESS of your level of wealth?
Worse yet; is making an obvious grand gesture of generosity merely done for attention or recognition? In that case, is it moral or immoral? Is the Morality of the action based on the action itself or the intention behind it?
I believe that the obligation to help those in need is independent of your financial situation, and that the 'moral imperative' for the 'rich' to be philanthropic is a construct of societal expectation and has nothing at all to do with morality itself.
-
What is the source of the moral imperative for the 'rich' to use their resources on behalf of the 'not rich'?
Ever major religion.
If that is the case, is there somehow less obligation for those of us who are not rich to help out? Is there a measurable difference in the obligation? Or is helping your fellow man an imperative that applies 'moral pressure' to action REGARDLESS of your level of wealth?
Do what you can with what you have where you are. The rich have more resources, in terms of disposable income, free time, or both, thus can do more.
Worse yet; is making an obvious grand gesture of generosity merely done for attention or recognition? In that case, is it moral or immoral? Is the Morality of the action based on the action itself or the intention behind it?
If you believe in karma or an invisible man who lives in the sky then accepting praise for a gesture is fine, while making a gesture while seeking praise is signifigantly less good. For the same reason bitching about not eating meat during Lent is considered a sin, because seeking pity defeats the purpose of personal gain through sacrifice.
-
because seeking pity defeats the purpose of personal gain through sacrifice.
I think that's what did in the Aztecs.
-
YEAH WHY CAN'T EVERYONE JUST STOP WHINING AND GET A JOB
GOD DON'T MAKE NO TRASH AFTER ALL
The fact is that these are not fuck*ng caveman times, where survival is a zero-sum game and LIFE IS EAT AND FUCK. We live in an era of absolutely mind-boggling plenty and wealth. We ought to be goddamned fuck*ng ashamed of the vast disparity between rich and poor, if not globally, then at least in this country.
But no, we have a complex set of societal / emotional failsafes in place, through which those who have can rationalize, to what may be their purely vestigial remnants of a conscience and social contract, the existence of those who have not, and their attendant squalor and suffering. DUR BLUR HORATIO ALGER, ANYONE CAN MAKE IT IF THEY WORK HARD ENOUGH, MEANWHILE I HAVE HIRED AN ARMY OF MEXICANS (UNDERPAID IN CASH, BECAUSE POOR PEOPLE MUST BE LAZY) TO POLISH THE BIG RAGING BONER I SECRETLY HAVE FOR FEUDALISM
This is why Paris Hilton, the perfect human embodiment of a fuck*ng open sore, has TV shows and magazine covers and a line of heart-stoppingly tacky jewelry and accessories your twelve-year-old daughter wants to buy from Amazon.com. The Big Lie is that everyone is Potentially Rich - and, of course, when you make it (and it's always when, never if) you certainly wouldn't want to support FREELOADERS AND WELFARE QUEENS WHO JUST DON'T WANT TO WORK, now would you? Paris Hilton is the excuse and Judas goat for all your future excesses.
No, there's no law that says the rich should contribute to society in proportion to their wealth. SO OBVIOUSLY THAT IS A FAULTY CONCEPT. There's no law that says hoarding money, power, and materials is fuck*ng vulgar and anti-social, either. Maybe if the prevailing emotion in modern culture weren't fear (The OTHER is out to take my money / children / life / anal virginity), compassion would come a little more freely, and charity and the quality of life of other human beings wouldn't be considered mentally and fiscally weak ideas.
-
What is the source of the moral imperative for the 'rich' to use their resources on behalf of the 'not rich'?
Ever major religion.
If that is the case, is there somehow less obligation for those of us who are not rich to help out? Is there a measurable difference in the obligation? Or is helping your fellow man an imperative that applies 'moral pressure' to action REGARDLESS of your level of wealth?
Do what you can with what you have where you are. The rich have more resources, in terms of disposable income, free time, or both, thus can do more.
Worse yet; is making an obvious grand gesture of generosity merely done for attention or recognition? In that case, is it moral or immoral? Is the Morality of the action based on the action itself or the intention behind it?
If you believe in karma or an invisible man who lives in the sky then accepting praise for a gesture is fine, while making a gesture while seeking praise is signifigantly less good. For the same reason bitching about not eating meat during Lent is considered a sin, because seeking pity defeats the purpose of personal gain through sacrifice.
This is a hell of an interesting argument coming from a group of people who, in another thread, were either agnostic or very secular, and fairly exercised about it. Most of these arguments move you away from the secular - it is difficult to defend morals and values without appealing to the supernatural, which in my mind is God. Either the values are real and meaningful and derived from a source that the majority believes is real, or they are a social construct developed to maintain the social fabric. There isn't much of an in-between there.
My point was that you can't make it a moral obligation for the rich to contribute time/talent/treasure without a comcomitant obligation for the middle class or even the poor. It's not a "moral" obligation if it obligates only the rich. Just as rich vs poor is a social construct, basing an obligation on rich vs poor becomes a social construct as well.
For the record, I'm a fairly conservative Christian who does contribute to church benevolence for local, national and international efforts through my pledged giving. I don't consider it a moral obligation as much as a transactional duty - the world and God give me a lot and I return what I can to the world and to God. It's part of the spiritual job of a Christian, if that makes any sense.
-
Most of these arguments move you away from the secular - it is difficult to defend morals and values without appealing to the supernatural, which in my mind is God.
No, it really isn't that difficult. Other people have feelings / hopes / lives that continue after we are no longer obliged to deal with them, and human beings, unless they are autistic or sociopaths, seem to recognize this. All the evidence tends to bear this out, as well - freshman year philosophy dilemmas (OMG IS EVERYONE A ROB OT BUT ME??? BRAIN IN A VAT) notwithstanding. Morals and values are why other people's feelings matter to us - or, rather, other people's feelings generally matter to us as a quality of being alive, and human, and morals and values are how we rein in our worse impulses. # OF PEOPLE WHO THINK ABOUT MURDER, EVEN IN LOVING DETAIL < # OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY COMMIT THE MURDER ACT
You don't need religion to experience empathy.
-
I didn't really factor emotion into the questions regarding morals and/or social pressures, but it is an interesting added dimension to the whole question.
Do you think that the rich can be empathetic to the plight of the poor in the same way that other poor people can be? It's an interesting question - I tend to think not - the most empathetic icons of charity I can think of are people along the lines of Mother Theresa, say - she gave up all comfort to live and work amongst the poor. Sister Marianne Cope and Father Damien DePuyster here in Hawaii - also gave up their lives for the poor and suffering. I don't consider myself a good model of empathy as long as I share my gifts with the needy from a distance.
-
i don't necessarily see it as a moral imperative for the rich to give money to the poor, but i do see a moral imperative to make the world better. that onus would apply equally to rich and poor. a rich person would have signifigantly superior access to money purchasible assets than a poor person would. to me, that's the difference. it's not that rich have to give away their money, it's that the rich have access to tools that others do not.
i do not expect an idiot to invent a zero pollution engine, i expect the idiot to drive with one.
not to sound communist, but all to the best of their abilities, because it's hard to do acts beyond your ability.
it is difficult to defend morals and values without appealing to the supernatural, which in my mind is God.
how so? because i'd say it's easier to defend morals and values without appealing to the supernatural.
-
The cartoon cats are teh funnay!!!
-
The cartoon cats are teh funnay!!!
Rock Over London
Rock On Chicago
This thread may now be closed.
-
Goddamn Paris Hilton, she's gotten us into a religious argument. Fuckin' bitch I hate her. Someone lock the thread before this goes any further.
~Paul
-
Done and Done.