I’m sure you’ve all been waiting to hear what Kim Kardashian has been up to. Apparently, she has landed a leading role on a new television series (honestly, I didn’t need to read the review to know I have no interest in watching it), but I did learn something new. Kardashian is a moon landing denier! I shouldn’t be surprised, since she was married to Kanye West, but I’m supposed to keep track of looney conspiracy theories and missed that one.
Fortunately, NASA shut her down this time.
But it’s one thing to purchase a billionaire’s (breathable and stylish, hand to God!) product and another to buy into the skewed version of reality they’re promoting. We can laugh at the conspiracy-minded lunacy Kardashian touted on a recent episode of “The Kardashians,” but the fact that NASA had to publicly and officially refute what she said tells us plenty about the times in which we’re living. NASA does a lot more than plant flags on lunar surfaces. It undertakes vital scientific research that is at risk of being defunded under an administration more devoted to bathroom renovations than functional progress.
But I have something to add to the legend of Kim Kardashian. NASA may have rebuffed her, but guess who wants her to join his “research team”?
Kim Kardashian is welcome to join my research team on 3I/ATLAS
— Avi Loeb
Is anyone surprised? She has negative research qualifications, but she is loaded with empty PR potential, which is all dear Avi wants. Sign her up!
Do you think you would be talking about her if she didn’t claim to be a moon landing denier?
She knows what to say to get attention.
The TV series has been getting historically-awful reviews: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/nov/06/kim-kardashian-alls-fair-show
I guess Loeb does all his research on TikTok too.
Do you think Kardashian gives a shit whether PZ talks about her?
As far as I’m concerned, Kim Kardashian is little more than a mannequin with a heartbeat.
That only evinces your ignorance, John Watts. She’s a lot more.
Here, inform yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Kardashian
↓
Kardashian founded KKW Beauty and KKW Fragrance in 2017, both of which operated until 2022; the former was valued at over US$1 billion in 2021.[2][3] She founded the shaping underwear and foundation garment company Skims in 2019, which is valued at over US$4 billion as of 2023.[4] Following the closure of her cosmetics and fragrance brands, Kardashian founded her skincare line, SKKN by Kim, in 2022.[5] She has released a variety of products tied to her name, including the 2014 mobile game Kim Kardashian: Hollywood, the 2015 photo book Selfish, and the 2015 emoji app Kimoji. Her acting credits include the films Disaster Movie (2008), Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor (2013), two PAW Patrol films (2021 and 2023), and the twelfth season of the anthology horror series American Horror Story (2023–2024).[6]
Time magazine included Kardashian on their list of 2015’s 100 most influential people.[7] She was named among Fortune magazine’s Most Powerful Women in the world in 2023.[8] With a significant presence online and a large following across numerous social media platforms, she is the seventh-most-followed individual on Instagram and the eleventh-most-followed individual on Twitter.[9][10][11] Both critics and admirers have described Kardashian as exemplifying the notion of being famous for being famous.[12] She became a billionaire in 2021,[13] and is estimated by Forbes to be worth US$1.7 billion as of May 2025. Kardashian has become more politically active by lobbying for prison reform and clemency,[14] and, as of 2019, is under a four-year law apprenticeship supervised by the legal nonprofit Cut50.[15][16]
@ beholder
Considering who she comes from, it would be more shocking if she were a Moon landing truther.
“Will Avi Loeb initiate Kim Kardashian in alien probe research?”, Enquiring minds…
#4: What? Are you suggesting she isn’t a daily reader of Pharyngula? I am shattered.
#6: Exactly. “famous for being famous” — exactly what John Watts was saying.
Yes, PZ, but not only for being famous. She leveraged that into a business empire.
The claim that ‘Kim Kardashian is little more than a mannequin with a heartbeat’ ignores her business and charitable and educational and advocacy activities as much as her business acumen and wealth accumulation.
A rather successful and powerful and influencial 45-year old woman, who has hardly rested on her laurels.
Are you a Kim K. fan, John? Because you’re doing a lot glazing for a person of no discernible talents who was born into wealth.
<snicker>
No. But I am not misogynistic, either.
And I respect achievement. I respect competence.
Sure, she has some shit beliefs, maybe. So what?
(I am not that shallow)
—
You are making the error so many make; I am disputing your thoughtless caricatured perception, and adducing something somewhat objective instead.
Right? That I dispute your thoughtless attempted putdown does not mean I am a fan.
Here’s an analogy I’ve made in the past: if you said Hitler used to fuck chihuahuas every morning, I’d dispute that claim, and it would not entail that I am a Hitler fan.
Same sort of thing. I get this all the time.
Disputing that claim would simply be a matter of correcting an untrue statement. It neither requires praise nor condemnation of the subject to do so.
Obviously when someone calls Kardashian “a mannequin with a heartbeat” they’re not being literal and, therefore, aren’t making an untrue statement. What they’re doing is using metaphorical language to describe how they feel about her.
To disagree with that sentiment suggests you feel more charitable toward her. True, that wouldn’t necessarily make you a “fan” but it strongly implies you believe her to be a positive figure.
And I’m not sure what misogyny has to do with any of this. Can a woman public figure not be criticized without it being misogynistic? If I called Travis Kelce a jockstrap with a pulse would that be misandrist?
“Disputing that claim would simply be a matter of correcting an untrue statement. It neither requires praise nor condemnation of the subject to do so.”
That’s exactly what I did.
(Read my extract, if you doubt me)
Yes. But your #5 is rather dismissive and ignores the facts I adduced.
And I very much classify it in that broad category of misogyinstic dismissal — she’s a bimbo, no more.
Ahem.
You’re suggesting that in our milieu calling a woman a derogatory name that fits a pattern of gendered devaluation is no different than calling a man one, and that misandry has the weight of misogyny.
Facile, but evasive.
(Perhaps consider that ‘you too’ is tantamount to a confession)
No, you didn’t. Here’s what John Watts wrote:
It’s pretty clear that he was stating his opinion of her. There was nothing there that needed to be corrected.
Your response consisting of an exhaustive list of her accomplishments does nothing except to show you felt the need to justify your difference of opinion.
No one wrote this or even implied it. She, as PZ stated, is someone who is famous for being famous and whose public persona comes off as vain and superficial.
She’s not the only celebrity, male or female, to fit this description but she’s the subject of this thread, therefore criticisms have been focused on her.
No, I’m asking you if dismissing a male celebrity would be considered misandrist since you’re suggesting it’s “misogynistic” to do so to a female celebrity.
Are female celebrities beyond criticism? If I called Lord Jamar (look him up) an ignorant loud mouth regarding his opinion on the shape of the Earth, am I being racist since he’s a Black celebrity?
Since I’m now using a Black celebrity as an example, you can’t resort to some evasive bullshit about false equivalence. Racism, if that’s what it is to criticize a Black celebrity, is at least an equal scourge as misogyny.
Walte, tsk.
Indeed. You got me.
Yup. I confess I did.
I felt the need to point out an exhaustive list of her accomplishments in response to the claim about her being “little more than a mannequin with a heartbeat”.
That you don’t think there’s a LOT more to her than being a mannequin with a heartbeat is up to you and John.
“little more than a mannequin with a heartbeat” is more than implying she’s but a bimbo.
That’s the extent of her merit, for some. You and John, for example.
Yes you are suggesting exactly that.
The fact you’re searching for analogues is telling, BTW.
Also, what? I don’t need to look your Black celebrity, unless you call him “little more than a mannequin with a heartbeat” it’s not comparable. It’s not a sexed claim, but it has different resonance, as I noted above. Misandry and misogyny are not equivalent in our culture.
—
But hey, carry on dissing the billionaire businesswoman. Little more than a manikin!
(BTW, the term is based on the diminutive of ‘man’, because of default gendered terminology)
Best of luck Walter and John. Yet another thread taken up by 1 person taking up near on half the replies, and not only that but off topic, all about him, and specifically designed to vampire your time away. Again and repetitiously again. I have a stock standard reply to this fellow whenever directly addressed by him. Do feel free to use it,
indianajones, feel free to verify that each and every comment by me is in response to another to me by someone else. This is fact.
I am not the one taking up the thread, is those who keep addressing me, or whinging about me with a false claim.
See, I can’t respond to a non-comment, can I? Takes two to tango.
Gotta love how some imagine me responding to people is making it all about me, rather than others making it all about me. As you just have!
@ 5. John Watts : ” As far as I’m concerned, Kim Kardashian is little more than a mannequin with a heartbeat.”
That is literally dehumanising language there. Also obviously false.
Call Kim Kardashian out for her words and actions and esp here her denial of the Moon landing’s reality which insults everyone who worked on the space program – and the Russians too who were beaten by it and also followed it’s progress & know too well its reality? Sure. Absolutely! Deny that she’s a human being or consider her only barely so somehow. Nope. Definitely not.
No fan of the Kardashians at all – Kim included – but yeah, that’s not cool.
Hey, I can clear this up once and for all. America is …
…
..an asteroid!
Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/916_America
When that specific asteroid is colonised by humans and they develop their own little world there, they will have the absolute rright to call themselves unambiguiously Americans.
@1. The disingenuous Trump-assisting troll : “Do you think you would be talking about her if she didn’t claim to be a moon landing denier? She knows what to say to get attention.”
You think she said that just for attention and doesn;’t actually beleive it then? That it is pretence on her part? Citation very much needed.
Also as totally wrong and insulting and crappy as it is, denying the Moon landing is nowhere near as globally damaging and evil as denying political relaity and arguing for Trump over Kamala and voting in practice and in reality for tyranny and fascism over Democracy and theDemocratic party. As you did, dishonest troll. Inarguable fact that.
FWIW :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_Island
(I am so very sure that Caine would’ve had some things to say here if only she were still alive to say them. FWIW.)
The Americas – Caribbean islands included were also called the New World as opposed to the Old World of Europe and, kinda, the rest of Eurasia. Still sometime gets referred to esp in terms of monkey species. Inold lady bird books anyhow.
Then there’s Vinland the term the original~ish (?) European travellers to it named it..
FWIW seems Oz was origionally first mapped as “Beachänd also later Java la Grand or Big Java on the very first European maps that vaguely showed (parts of it) then we were newHolland and van Diemans land..
She has a lot of money and occasionally gives some of it way. Wow. I definitely underestimated her. You really let me see the error of my judgement of Miss Kardashian.
^ She’s not an inaminate object that merely somehow has a heartbeat tho’..
However you or I estimate her – & I do NOT rate her highly – she’s a human individual not, well, that.
Dehumanising others is the trunk of all evil, I reckon.
@ 23 Long before then Lt Cook who mapped our eastern coastline and wasn’t even the first Brit to see our shores arrived and nearly wrecked the Endeavour on the GBR. (Dampier 1688, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dampier )
I keep seeing trailers for “All’s Fair”, which I assumed was a riff on Vanity Fair, and that it was about the high fashion biz. I had to read a review to find out, no, it’s a legal show about the high-end divorce biz. But it seems like the real schtick is having the main characters strut about in gorgeous (if you like that sort of thing) clothes, with scripts and acting as an afterthought. So maybe “mannequins with heartbeats” isn’t too far off, at least as far as the show is concerned.
@22 StevoR
Well, I don’t know about evil, necessarily, but taking the moon away would involve vastly more global damage. The energy inputs to the Earth-Moon system alone would cause chaos on the larger body.
A third-party vote in a presidential election in the United States just doesn’t compare. You’ve got to admit that’s a stretch even for you, Stevo.
StevoR #25
Was this comment directed at me? If so, reread the thread. I didn’t call her that nor did I cosign it. I did make it clear that it’s statement of opinion not fact which should be obvious.
BTW, Trump is human. Would you care if “dehumanizing” comments were made about him?
Walter, you do flail at disputation, but you excel at missing the point.
“I did make it clear that it’s statement of opinion not fact which should be obvious.”
But it is a fact that it is the opinion. And whether fact or opinion, it says what it says.
Your labeling doesn’t absolve error; an opinion can be wrong just as a fact can.
(Are mannequins human beings?)
[meta]
beholder, gotta love how you avoid me but stalk StevoR. Clueless, you are.
(And StevoR would not be the only one who notices your obviously deliberate misnyming)
Thing is Trump’s presidency is not just a domestic irritation, it’s a global destabiliser.
He’s withdrawn the USA from climate accords, he’s undermined NATO, expresses open support for authoritarian regimes. He’s persecuted migrants and is on the way to proper regulation authoritarianism.
Sure, the ‘evil’ is hyperbolic. Technically, it’s merely indifference to it, for the sake of ideology.
Functionally, you are neutral evil; you don’t actively do it, you merely condone and support it as long as it suits you. You agitated against Trump’s only credible opponent.
Are you familiar with metaphors?
Walter, not only with metaphor, but with simile, allegory, analogy, hyperbole, personification, onomatopoeia, symbolism, irony, paradox, oxymoron, allusion, metonymy, synecdoche, euphemism, pun, anaphora, litotes, and apostrophe. Changes nothing.
(I’m sure you’re not literally a knob-head)
Are you? I can’t say the same for you.
So you literally think I’m a knob-head?
Way to vitiate your attempted ‘metaphor’ excuse.
So far, you’re attempted to excuse yourself due to it being opinion rather than fact, and then due to ir being metaphor rather than literal, and now you’re not being able to say I am not literally a knob-head?
(I’ve driven you into the dark deep woods, have I not? Thus your alleged disability)
—
Meanwhile, facts apply.
https://www.celebritynetworth.uk/2024/08/kim-kardashians-net-worth-comprehensive.html
↓
Kim Kardashian is more than just a reality TV star; she’s a global business mogul and cultural icon. Over the years, her net worth has soared, thanks to her savvy business ventures, social media influence, and strategic partnerships. In this article, we delve into Kim Kardashian’s net worth from 2007 to 2024, explore her financial growth before and after marriage, and compare her wealth with other celebrities like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé.
Whatever you say, John.
And for someone who claims not to be a fan of Kim K, you certainly seem to love expounding on her accomplishments. You do know you already listed all of that already, right?
I can’t wait to see your reply, knob-head.
Walter, you sure are invested in dissing her.
“And for someone who claims not to be a fan of Kim K, you certainly seem to love expounding on her accomplishments. You do know you already listed all of that already, right?”
Wrong. Different source, different slant. So, no, not already listed.
Want more? I can give you a lot more, none of which I’ve hitherto adduced.
Just say the word.
No need to yearn; here I am.
Anyway.
Apart from all those achievements, and apart from her life trajectory, and apart from her apparent social acumen (we’ve covered the financial aspect, no?), ‘Kim Kardashian is little more than a mannequin with a heartbeat’.
(You do get that’s the position you are endeavouring to support, no?)
—
Face it. Whether opinon or fact (both can be wrong), whether metaphor or literal (both can be wrong), nothing excuses such a bad misreading.
She’s a lot more than that, without me endorsing her or her views.
(Reality remains what it is)
Really? By simply calling her vain and superficial and then focusing most of my attention on you? If I’m invested in dissing anyone, it’s you. In fact, I’ve insulted you more in this thread, and you me, than I have her.
Yes, I support it by not pearl-clutching at mildly insulting language and being overly worried about “misogyny” against wealthy white women.
Um. PZ has banned me from having fun with other commenters, but you are really, really making it hard.
“Really? By simply calling her vain and superficial and then focusing most of my attention on you?”
Yes, really. Obviously.
“If I’m invested in dissing anyone, it’s you.”
How’s that working for you?
“In fact, I’ve insulted you more in this thread, and you me, than I have her.”
<snicker>
O, woe is me!
(But I appreciate you making your intent clear)
Heh. You missed most of it, at that.
e.g. “NASA does a lot more than plant flags on lunar surfaces.” was from the quotation in the OP.
Thus, @6, I echoed that (one of those rhetorical techniques about which I am not unaware): “That only evinces your ignorance, John Watts. She’s a lot more.”
There you go. That is the pearl-clutching.
And? What more would you be doing if PZ hadn’t “banned” you from having “fun”? You’re already quite annoying and pedantic. Could you possibly get any worse?
You omitted the accusations of misogyny and claims that John Watts and I insinuated that she was a “bimbo.”
He did not use those quotation marks.
(It would not be more, but it would be at least some)
To get worse I’d have to start by being bad.
Nope. There it is, in black and white.
(Page up and page down and scroll are your friends)
The fact that the person who runs the blog needs to explicitly “ban” you from certain activities you’d otherwise be doing and has even placed an “injunction” on you, per your own admission, that says a lot about you and nothing good.
Anyway, I should’ve ended this a long time ago and since you don’t seem to be entirely control of your own faculties, needing to be told how to behave and such, I take full responsibility for even engaging with you.
I’ll be nice and let you have your coveted last word, John-Boy.
PS
< heh > and < snicker >
@27. Dishonest troll who helped Trump &hurt Kamala beholder
Nope. You’ve got to admit you fail at reading comprehension.
As you noted “evil” doesn’t apply to taking away our planet’s largest natural satellite but i certainly doesapply to voting and arguing against the only alternative to Trump thereby helping him take power . Are you happy with what trump is doin with it?