Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Karl Lagerfeld on Kim Kardashian

Recently, Kim Kardashian was involved in a very unpleasant and even dangerous event in Paris.

About this, everything that needs to be said has probably been said. I have spared myself the disagreeable task of getting informed on the topic, but if something needs to be said I am happy to leave that task to one of the world’s greatest fashion designers: Karl Lagerfeld. After all, the Kaiser knows something about luxury.

And yet, the man is slightly deficient in empathy. He said this to Reuters:

I don’t understand why she was in a hotel with no security … If you are that famous and you put all your jewelry on [social media], you go to hotels where nobody can come near to the room.

But that would require some serious thought. And, on that score, Kim K does not seem to be very well endowed.

Lagerfeld is no stranger to extravagance. His cat Choupette has two maids and almost 90,000 followers Instragram.

As for Kim K, he says that she should have foreseen the eventuality:

You cannot display your wealth and then be surprised that some people want to share it with you.


Trigger Warning said...

Based on what very little I know of Kim Kardashian, her "foreseeing an eventuality" has about the same probability as a grand piano suddenly popping into existence on Panama City (FL) Beach; nonzero, but...

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Kim Kardashian-West favors gun control, and had to travel to France to find out it doesn't work. As for Mr. Lagerfeld, I'm sure he believes in gun control, too. Hence the humor of his line "I don’t understand why she was in a hotel with no security …" So it's okay for celebrities to have armed men around them, but law-abiding citizens being armed is self-evidently wrong. Duh! Maybe he thinks Matt Damon's a thought leader on this and other topics.

Ms. Kardashian-West is a celebrity because of who she is, and she created and fed a persona. I'm sure she thinks Black Lives Matter, too, and that Climate Change is ravaging the earth -- certainly topics she can understand in deep, meaningful ways. I'm sorry she got held up, but the reason she needs "security" is because she's obsessed with being seen. Being seen attracts admirers. By the law of averages, some of those admirers will inevitably be creepy. Then again, it's important to be important.

Ares Olympus said...

To IAC's caring concern, KK at least can be happy her assailants were only interested in material gain, and not murder.

Certainly security could have helped, either the hotel or her own body guards, and trusting armed professionals seems like a smarter move than becoming an amateur gunslinger packing heat just in case. She would have had a higher chance of being killed if she exposed a surprise gun to her robbers.

“Kim’s in shock and blaming herself. She’s tearing herself up that she Snapchatted the ring so much and wore it all the time. This incident is making her question everything. How she dresses, what she does,” a source close to the Kardashian family tells PEOPLE.

So it does look like she's taking personal responsibility for her choices in sharing personal information and carrying around so much bling.

Traumatic situations promote imagining what she could do different to protect herself. Perhaps she will choose to pay armed body guards to be with her, or more often, if she wants to carry such wealth.

As well perhaps she'll conclude conspicuous wealth isn't fun any more? Probably realizing she could have been killed is the biggest trauma, and the stolen wealth not such a big thing.

Whatever her responses, you can guess it much less likely that she'll be carrying around $10 million in easily transportable wealth, and she'll be a harder target than before, although maybe she'll be paying an extra $10 million for body guards over the next 10 years or whatever.

And when she can't afford that any more, perhaps IAC will get his wish, and Kim will go to the range and do some target practice. And best of all she'll stop promoting gun control on twitter (does she do that?) and the second amendment will be saved and we'll all be safer from criminals who will think twice next time before robbing people without shooting first.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @October 5, 2016 at 4:56 AM:

"And best of all she'll stop promoting gun control on twitter (does she do that?)..."


Ares Olympus said...

Thanks IAC! That's awesome that people care so much to tally this.

I'm now curious which one of these tweets is threatening citizens legal right to buy guns to defend themselves?

I apparently need a lesson on why "Background checks" threaten our "Second amendment rights".

Or I suppose its the same argument that the Left uses on voter rights, not wanting requirements of photo IDs - the number of fraudulent votes is small compared to the number of potential legitimate votes that would be lost by people who don't have the required IDs.

Maybe a compromise, like issuing provisional ballots that are never counted, we could allow gun sellers to sell (without background checks) "provisional guns" that can't actually shoot, but make you look scary enough that a criminal would prefer to back away than test if its a real gun or not?