The following is a respost of an old entry that was originally on Livejournal, but had to be deleted by community moderators in response to empty legal threats from defensive, misinformed wannabe goons.
So here is my response to an editorial in
The New York Times, which was itself a reaction to an article in
Rolling Stone magazine. The reason that I bothered to write this in the first place, was largely because I felt that many young girls looked up to the Girl In Question, without realizing how frighteningly bigoted she is. You will realize what I mean momentarily. I'm not talking about offhand comments or off-color jokes that could be interpreted by a sensitive person as being offensive. No, I'm talking about blatant homophobia and unapologetic racism, of the type one might not even expect coming from anyone born after around 1930.
Without further ado...
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I finally got around to writing this.It's totally informal, just a typical efagz post, and certainly not of the caliber of the editorial to which I'm responding.
Also, this post is rather massive.
Recently, in the wake of
a recent article in Rolling Stone about longtime efag Kiki Kannibal, someone wrote about her situation, more briefly and, frankly, in a more neutral fashion, in
an editorial in none other than the New York Times. (The link redirects to the efagz post about it, which includes Kiki's amusing reaction to it).
The editorial paints a picture of a tragic, lonely little girl, describing Ms. Kannibal as “a young teenager who got mauled by the some of the worst forces of the information age”, who “didn’t understand the consequences of her [sexual] appeal”; a victim of “death threats” and “mob-like behavior” on the part of legions of spiteful Internet denizens who said cruel things about her. Although I think that the article is dead-on in its appraisal of Kiki as an unfortunate example of some rather disturbing cultural trends, I thought it was a bit over-sympathetic toward Kiki’s case. I feel like a piece of the story is missing. Kiki is a very troubled young girl, this is certain; but I think that she has some very nasty and highly narcissistic attitudes—- I might even go so far as to say malignant personality traits. This in itself is sad— stuck-up and self-centered, reveling in self-glorification, I’m sure on the inside she’s more lost and broken than she lets on. But quite often—- more often than not, perhaps—- these pathological attention-seekers are, well, not the nicest people, and I think that this applies to Kiki. I think it’s a mistake to “blame society” in full for what happens to girls like this. These individuals can often be extremely rude, self-centered, and self-aggrandizing people, a far cry from the editorial’s implication of a lonely, insecure little girl who did what she did because all she ever wanted was a friend.
There’s more to the case of Kiki Kannibal than other, often anonymous people being aggressive toward her. These kids like Kiki aren’t always so helpless and naive as one might think, and I feel that this needs to be taken into account in order for these recent cultural trends to be properly and accurately assessed and understood. I think that it’s important to note that at least some of the people who are drawn strongly to this kind of Internet popularity exhibit narcissistic and/or histrionic traits, tendencies toward excessive self-aggrandizement, and the kind of rudeness and unpleasantness one often finds in such individuals. It’s not always that shy, socially inept girl who turns to the Internet for attention; sometimes it’s an individual who is manipulative and who enjoys power. Online attention-seeking isn’t always a matter of remedying an atrophied sense of self-worth, but can often be just the opposite: a way to further engorge an already bloated ego.
I'm not just slinging mud here. Ms. Kannibal, who has been an internet presence on various social networking sites that have come and gone over the last four years or so, has repeatedly shown herself to hold attitudes so disgusting, so vile, so appalling, I actually felt a little nauseous watching these videos in preparation for writing this. Kiki isn't some sweet, shy, doe-eyed girl. She makes fun of disabled people. She ruthlessly mocks people who are "ugly" or "fat". Anyone she deems inferior to her own amazing and infallible self, she subjects to ruthless, cruel mockery. For someone who complains so much about being on the receiving end of the snarky comments of "haters", she herself is
one mean bitch.
Don't believe me? Then let's get to The Evidence.
The following are three videos, involving footage that I think was recorded from Stickam. I included transcripts below them. However, I recommend watching the videos themselves, if possible. Kiki's not the most eloquent individual, and written out as a transcript, I think one misses the full effect of what's being said.
Video the First: Making Fun of the Disabled and Laughing at Car Accidents
I think Kiki Kannibal has changed. And she is sorry about all her mistakes from the past.
ReplyDeleteShe was so young and ignorant. And all this set of mind, where did you think it comes from? Society teaches it. Specially american society. A lot of people is disturbed by this kind of thinking...
And about the shop. She was so immature to handle that.
Now Kiki is more aware about what she does and what she has done in the past. It's no good all that hate and it's not good to carry on Kiki a problem that it is from society not hers.
i gotta say: wow.
ReplyDeleteBlaming society for Kiki's words is an nonsensical excuse made from thin air. Kiki was at least 17 during those videos and like the author said "attitudes so disgusting, so vile, so appalling, I actually felt a little nauseous watching these videos", they weren't fabricated by society, they came right out of the horse's mouth. She has even less of an excuse for them for the fact that she regularly removes and quiets anyone who questions her about them. How can you trust the word of someone who does that? Ever wondered why the Rolling Stone article doesn't allow comments? Because people who knew the other half of the story, the ones she bullied were telling their experiences and everyone who read it shifted their opinion of her, until she had to force the website to disable comments. I want to like her and I want to think she's changed and she could have done this by moving on. Why does she continue dragging the same victim card again and again? The RS article was a one-sided, fishing hook for sympathy with a huge plothole: why in the world does the internet suddenly turn on a single girl for no reason whatsoever? Instead of slowly letting the past die and developing herself as a great person, she's magnified it and made it the centerpiece of her online persona. This is an extraordinarily shameless act on her part given the fact she was a immense bully herself. I would like to know what sort of advice she would give the disabled "ugly bitch" she had so much fun laughing at.