1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Will Perez Hilton finally receive a little karmic justice?

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by uyeahu, Jun 16, 2010.

  1. BigB08822

    BigB08822 Well-Known Member

    It is one thing to REPORT on a celebrity who has received a DUI but it is another to make fun of them and wish them long jail sentences and post about it constantly for days. He is not a reporter, he is a bully, big difference.

    Thanks Windspirit, I did not know about that but it makes sense. I had not gone to his site for a very long time but have recently been when I find a link and I found that picture online and posted the link, didn't think about it being to his site.
  2. WindSpirit

    WindSpirit OmnipresentAdmeanistrator

    LOL Music videos "offend" you but this creep doesn't. Shouldn't you be more consistent with your outrage?

    SEMEN. He draws dripping semen on their faces. That's the point. You can't be taken seriously when you do shit like that.
  3. DickButtonFan

    DickButtonFan New Member

    He DOES offend me but just because I'm offended by someone doesn't mean it's ok to wish ill on that person or hatred.
  4. agalisgv

    agalisgv Well-Known Member

    I thought the reason behind that and whatever other things he does to pics is because if he publishes them unaltered, it's a copyright violation. But if adds something to it (however small or stupid), it can be labeled parody and therefore not a copyright infringement.

    That's how he is able to use pics from different sites without having to pay for them.
  5. WindSpirit

    WindSpirit OmnipresentAdmeanistrator

    He spreads and spews hatred himself. He backs people into a corner and causes them great suffering. He demeans people. And he's making money doing all that. I have no problem wishing him whatever he gives to others. It's only fair that he gets it.

    Btw, I don't think he offends you. You said his drawing dripping semen on people faces was supposed to be funny and was not meant to be taken seriously. Obviously you don't see it as demeaning even when he does it to minors.
  6. BigB08822

    BigB08822 Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure if this is the case any more. I think, but am not sure, that he does have to pay for images unless he gets them from some place and links directly to them or something? Not sure but I think this was an issue that came up when he became really popular and it didn't go so well for him. I could be wrong on that.
  7. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    Or a local dance competition.

    But I do think she was trying to suggest a pole dance. It mostly doesn't succeed just because she's such a sucky dancer, but I am sure her intent was to titillate and make people think of pole dancing.

    Then she has more sense than I gave her credit for.

    Me too.

    And I still don't get it. How does she have so many fans? That performance was *horrible*.
  8. DickButtonFan

    DickButtonFan New Member

    I said that I don't find it funny. I meant it shouldn't be taken so seriously that you would want him "knocked out" or something like it, because of that. I didn't know he did that to minors but still wishing violence against another is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Why not just wish his site fails or jail time if he has broken the law is that not enough. (And this opinion is not on the Miley pic because I don't know what the evidence is)
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2010
  9. Prancer

    Prancer Cursed for all time Staff Member

  10. overedge

    overedge Janny uber

    Hmm. If she doesn't lip-sync then she must be the most amazing live performer ever. Because I saw part of her concert show on ABC this past weekend, and she managed to sing with exactly the same tone, intonation and breath control while jogging up and down, doing back bends and lunges, or holding the microphone somewhere around her cheekbone. She even sang one line of a song with absolutely no change in volume when she held the microphone above her head.
  11. Prancer

    Prancer Cursed for all time Staff Member

    I didn't see the concert, so I don't know what went on there, but singing live and not lip synching is something Miley is known for, both for better and for worse.
  12. Theatregirl1122

    Theatregirl1122 Enjoying Vicarious Voids!

    This post and a significant number amount of the rest of this thread smack pretty heavily of victim blaming. A women should have a reasonable expectation that photographs will not be taken of her "bits", covered or uncovered, unless she is actually naked/walking around in her underwear in a public place. Whether or not Miley was wearing underwear and no matter what image she tries to project, she and every celebrity should have the ability to get in and out of a car and up and down the stairs or an escalator without anyone taking pictures up her skirt. It is not a woman's job to guard against ever standing or sitting in a spot where an a$$ with a long lens and no sense of human decency could possibly get an upskirt photo. It is the job of paparazzi and fans to NOT take these pictures and to NOT read websites that publish these pictures. Doesn't matter how you feel about celebrities.
    jamesy, Nan, PrincessLeppard and 9 others like this.
  13. uyeahu

    uyeahu Agitator. Sharpie lover (figuratively speaking).

    ^^^ Exactly. And I stand by my original statement that Perez is a nasty little vulture and I fervently hope the stupid little shit gets some karmic justice. If not for this offense then for something else and SOON.
  14. Ozzisk8tr

    Ozzisk8tr Well-Known Member

  15. Prancer

    Prancer Cursed for all time Staff Member

    It would be kind of shame if it was for Miley pics, as he will have a lot of defenders in that case saying she asked for it.

    As you can see.

    Now Taylor Swift? He'd be lynched.

    Personally, I think that he's done a lot worse, but....I guess they got Capone for tax evasion.

    Capella posted the link upthread. And if that's not a really bad photoshop chop, then Miley has a wildly mismatched pair of legs (something you'd think we'd have noticed before now, given the hot pants), not to mention, er, well, let's not mention it. But if that's a real photo, well, it's got to be one of the strangest camera angle effects I've ever seen.
  16. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    Flawed comparison.

    A prostitute makes a living by performing sex with their clients. They have to give consent for the transaction to take place. They do not gain anything from being raped, on the contrary.

    A celebrity makes a living by selling their public image. The more that image is displayed, the more their marker value raises. Hence my questioning of the sincerity of their appeals to privacy, if those appear.

    No chance. It's supply and demand. ;)

    Not really. Public appearances, interview, endorsements, etc.

    She is performing. That photo was taken when she was at work. She has chosen to wear that outfit.

    Shoot the messenger?

    That's your opinion.

    The celebrities Perez posts about cannot be taken seriously at any level.

    Drawing semen on their faces is very appropriate. :p

    And wishing ill on people is never right.

    Whilst DickButtonFun is easily outraged ;) she has never done that so in that respect she definitely is being consistent. :p
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2010
  17. Prancer

    Prancer Cursed for all time Staff Member

    That's the most asinine argument I have ever seen you make, and that's saying something. Do you really believe that crotch shots raise marker (do you mean marquee? market?) value? For whom? Paris Hilton?

    Look what it did for Britney Spears; yeah, that was a career move. And as it turns out, what we had there was a mentally ill woman off her meds. But no exploitation there, oh, no. It was all fabulous publicity and raised her market value.

    You can question sincerity all you like, but in saying that the fact that the mere raising of the question means that there is no exploitation, you are absolutely making the argument that the celebrity is asking for it by her other actions--just like a prostitute can't be raped and women only wear those tight clothes because they WANT men to make lewd comments about them and pinch their asses on the train.
  18. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    Go take your meds. :p

    You're too old and in a too responsible a position on this board to be losing it that easily.

    Yes they do. The more somebody is talked about the better.

    You could argue it's bad publicity (some will argue there is no such thing as bad publicity) but you can easily turn it round in your favour.

    What you can do is blame the evil paps, cry about your privacy, positioning yourself as a victim and then you get both publicity and sympathy.

    No it doesn't. Because the prostitute doesn't want to be raped but a celebrity does want to be displayed everywhere possible and his market value depends on it.

    The more you are talked about, the more work you get and ultimately you're worth.

    (Please note that all the time in this thread I am talking about the celebrities of the Miley Cyrus/Kim Kardashian kind and I agree with the reservations Vietgirlterifa has made above)
  19. Prancer

    Prancer Cursed for all time Staff Member

    You're right. The quoted post above is not the most asinine argument you've ever made.

    Humblest apologies.

    Right. They're asking for it.

    Positively begging for it, really.

    So you think Miley would get more work than she has now if she were flashing the paps? I don't know how she could get more work than she already has. As it is, people are having heart attacks because she's wearing short shorts and are predicting that her career is about to come crashing down because she is hypersexualized for her age and following the wrong career trend.

    But you think it would do her good to flash her bits to the paps? What would it do for her, exactly?

    I don't think Miley and Kim K. DO have the same kind of celebrity, but that's beside the point. If Miley or Kim want to put their crotches on display, they have every right to do so--but they should have the right to make that choice, just as the "serious artists," whoever they may be, should.
  20. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    She can get more and bigger endorsements, she can get invited to more shows/apperances, she can be paid more for interviews, etc.

    Her calendar is obviously always full but she can always be paid more money and be invited to do higher profile stuff. All that also translates into more records being sold obviously.

    That's what I mean by raising her market value.

    Her management team surely realised that her sexualised image would have provoked such a backlash. They must be loving it because it means she's talked about a hell of a lot more than if she was playing a good girl.

    Miley Cyrus IS choosing to flash her crotch all the time though. All the pictures of her I have recently seen featured her wearing the kind of clothes shown here: http://twitter.com/PerezHilton/status/16703624639

    The idea of a camera "being shoved up somebody's skirt" is ridiculous. If that happened, it would mean assault. That's why it doesn't.

    They are being photographed from a distance whilst exiting a car and they know very well it is going to happen. If they don't wear underwear, they are either stupid or doing it on purpose.

    You can keep comparing that to a prostitute (P.S. the term that should be used is sex worker) being raped whilst desperately calling my argument assinine. But it's common knowledge that being photographed constantly is part being a celebrity (whilst being raped is not neccessarily a part of being a sex worker, is it?).

    I am not going to shed tears for people who earn money mainly through being plastered in our faces in every possible way and then cry about the lack of privacy.

    If you're somebody like Bjork who controls her image very carefully then you can complain about your privacy. Because you genuinely guard it all the time.

    But if you don't, then don't cry wolf when it bites you in the ass.
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2010
  21. Prancer

    Prancer Cursed for all time Staff Member

    You're kidding. She's worth, what, $241 million, something like that? And you think she would be paid MORE if she were flashing her bits? Can you give me an example of someone with an established career who has made MORE money by flashing the paps?

    Higher profile than what she's been doing?

    What, will flashing the paps get her an invitation to sing for the Queen or something?

    Maybe; maybe not. After all, being talked about doesn't translate into movie roles and record sales--something Miley already has and stands to lose.

    I don't see any gain for her in your scenario.

    Oh, we're talking about Miley's clothes? I thought we were talking about women flashing their bare crotches.

    Oh, we're talking about people who aren't wearing underwear again?

    So that means we're not talking about Miley and I don't think we're talking about Kim, either. So who are we talking about now? The uber successful Paris Hilton, maybe? How is her career going again? When Britney flashed her goodies, it was used against her in her competency hearing, IIRC; what a career move that was.

    In any case, I don't think women should have their covered crotches photographed like that, either. I consider that exploitative as well. I think women should have absolute control over their crotches, in public and private. If they think a beaver shot will get them where they want to be, then that's a choice they should be able to make--but it should be a choice.

    Photographed as you pose somewhere? Yes. Photographed from a distance without permission, especially in an exploitative way? No. In one, you're working. In the other, you're being stalked.

    Again, who are we talking about here?
  22. leesaleesa

    leesaleesa Active Member

    Couldn't he do something like just draw mustaches, warts, and boogers on them, then?

    I guess that's pretty passe in today's society.

    Drawing semen dripping from anyone's photo is disturbing and sexually abusive, I don't care if it's a porn star, the president, or even a Kardashian or three. Doing it to teens is just so wrong that I can't even articulate how disgusted it makes me feel.

    Perez Hilton is a vile, parasitic sociopath. Karmic justice? Sorry, it doesn't exist. As long as people give him attention, he will thrive, and never suffer consequences for his actions. If you have no conscience, you simply can't suffer.
  23. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    As if you didn't know how Madonna established her and maintained her career. The Sex book for example?

    Oh yes but that was her own choice and not an invasion of privacy.

    Celebrities know very well they are being photographed when they exit a car without underwear, they are making a conscious choice there too.

    You might think that it is wrong to be photographed without permission by the paps, I don't. We're not going to resolve this and it's just going to go round in circles as it has already been.

    But in any case, because celebrities know they are going to be photographed, they should be taking responsibility for their appearance. The blame cannot be entirely put on the papparazzi.

    Of course it does. It's free advertising. You think Paris Hilton got her movie roles because of her acting skills? :p

    Which is exactly what she is doing by wearing those kind of clothes, isn't it? They are hardly covering her privates and can easily slip to reveal more when she is performing as shown in that photo tweeted by Perez.

    Are you enjoying this? :rolleyes:

    Do you want to take some time out to think about what is being talking about?

    The career that only began with her sex tape being publicised. :D

    So if Miley Cyrus goes out on stage dressed in an outfit barely covering her crotch that slips to reveal more as she performs, it's wrong to photograph it?

    Because a photograph is as much an invasion of one's body as rape?

    And again we're going round in circles because I am totally convinced that Miley Cyrus is going out on stage dressed like this because she knows this kind of appearance is going to attract more coverage than being dressed modestly.
  24. Prancer

    Prancer Cursed for all time Staff Member

    Right. She posed. That's working.

    And the Sex book?

    "As a career move Sex was an unmitigated disaster," according to Madonna: The Style Book. Which, IIRC, it was.

    Oh, yes, Paris's flourishing movie career. Which would be a definite downward step for Miley, who has marginally better acting skills and tremendously better box office--all without making a porn video or flashing the paps.

    Have you actually taken a good look at that photo? If you have and haven't noticed that something looks a little odd there, maybe you should look again; I'm not the only one who thinks there's something a wee bit off there:

    I wouldn’t recommend staring too long at today’s image, but the “offending” area doesn’t make a lot of anatomical sense even if you do.


    If nothing else, the two legs in the picture don't make a whole lot of anatomical sense.

    Actually, no, I want you to tell me what YOU are talking about. Are we talking about photos taken of people who are performing on stage and having costume malfunctions (or not), people who pose for sex books and appear in porn films by choice, or women who have photographs of their crotches taken from a distance without giving their permission for such photos to be taken or displayed--because apparently it's understood that the photographers are always there and if you leave your home, you are going to be photographed and an up-the-skirt shot is just as fair game as any?

    Never did I claim that it was. I claimed that you were making the same argument that people make if a sex worker (there, so nice and PC, just for you) is raped--she can't be raped because she sells sex for a living. That is exactly like the argument you are making about celebrities--they can't be exploited because they sell their images for a living. They should just lay back and enjoy it.
  25. BigB08822

    BigB08822 Well-Known Member

    Perez has posted another picture on his actual website, I am assuming it is the same one he tweeted and was posted about last night. I guess he got enough reactions and figured it would be good business for the website. He is like a child, doing something he knows he is going to get in trouble for...
  26. Norlite

    Norlite Well-Known Member


    I guess he did. :lol:
    IceAlisa and (deleted member) like this.
  27. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    There are less passive aggressive ways of going around that. So please start employing those.

    And I explained to you how the situation is different more than once now.

    No point in continuing this so let's leave it there. ;)
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2010
  28. Prancer

    Prancer Cursed for all time Staff Member

    I thought I asked a pretty direct question, inspired by some honest confusion. But whatever.

    And I have disagreed with your explanation every time but apparently not clearly enough. You asked if I was equating photography with rape and I wanted to clarify that I was equating one argument with another, not equating levels of violation.

    Is this an example of a less passive aggressive way to go about things? :rolleyes:

    Moving on:

    I think he believes he's covered.

    It seems that the photo is real (if weird--I mean, that is one weird looking picture) and was taken by Reuters, which is distributing the photo.


    There's actually one that is more normal looking and more revealing.

    It will be hard to go after Perez without taking on Reuters--and Reuters will be hard to take on.

    Miley has had no comment, but for her concert last night wore leather pants over her leotard. :D
  29. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    No, you have employed a passive-agressive mode of speaking.

    Something like "I don't understand what you mean by this" would indicate confusion in a direct way.

    It's not, that's why I have edited it out.
  30. michiruwater

    michiruwater Well-Known Member

    Ziggy, love, if there's no point in continuing the discussion further, then, even if Prancer replies... don't :p