No need to apologize.

I just wanted to get that little bit out there.

There is so much misinformation about the nature of this shite.

I didn't want to put my little comment on the comment stream, because I didn't want to distract from the TOTALLY COOL story you shared.

So I snuck it over here, for those folks who read all comments.

I was sharing my bit for my own purposes, sneaky devil that I am. Sorry you thought I was sending a different message -- I totally DID NOT think that you were saying she deserved it.

I think there is something different for men being sexually harassed than there is for women, since you brought it up.

Speaking from experience, I am -- I keep saying that my first reaction was to slough off the assault against me as funny. It was amazing to watch myself descend into this ... quagmire... of sexual objectification within 15 minutes. To be seen as nothing other than a piece of female meat available for this tiny guy to rub against. To feel so invisible as a person was a double violation. Or something.

Women aren't praised for what we do, mostly -- we are praised for what we look like. And when you look at the variety of men and male body shapes that are presented on TV and in the movies, compared to women -- and the active nature of the men versus the passive nature of women presented -- and this is the toxic soup that all young girls grow up in.... To be reduced like that was just horrifying. I was surprised at my reaction.

Men have their own issues, of course. It is not for nothing that men tend to die sooner than women -- the pressures on them are terrible in their own way and it is literally killing them, in my opinion.

So it doesn't surprise me that you could laugh it off and let it stay laughed off. You are used to seeing yourself as active. While I laughed it off, and then got mired in this crappy sexual objectification that is so toxic.

It's all so ugly.

I'm so proud of your beautiful strong friend. She didn't deserve what happened to her, no woman does, and I know you know that. And dang if she didn't fight back with everything she had. That is how this shite stops. Make the bastards accountable. Right now they aren't.

Great story you told. Really great.

I love it when people claim that content providers just refuse to find new ways to get paid...out of sheer laziness. While apparently not having any suggestions as to how to do so themselves.

Virtually the entire internet is nothing -but- experiments in alternative means of monetization. The fact is that there really aren't many options. You can sell access directly (via subscriptions, micro-transactions or some such), or you can sell advertising. Neither of which appear to be sustainable strategies; as soon as the content is made available to a few (or before), it'll be stolen and distributed for free, and advertising has been getting less and less profitable for a decade (since about the time the market got saturated, and there were no newbies left to click on the ads).

You really can't sell "support" contracts to content. I suppose you could sell crappy merchandise, like action figures and plushies, but that's wanting content creators to do something other than creating content to be able to pay the bills. Not a good trade-off, IMO.

Note, I don't have any answer either, but I'm not about to lay "a large part of the problem" on the content creators.They have -every- incentive to solve the problem...unlike the consumers, who have plenty of incentives to -be- the problem.

It's true, and it ruined the film. I really thought it was a crappy movie with terrible acting until I finally saw the original version. If you didn't already know, it wasn't particularly obvious that it was dubbed because the dialog was largely the same.

Also, incidentally. Gibson was born in the US, moved to Australia when he was 13, and made Mad Max when he was 18. So, I dunno. He was almost American then, and he's almost obscenely American these days. Maybe it all evens out.

They did that with Verizon already and Verizon threatened them with a cease and desist.

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/internet/netflix-to-cut-messages-blaming-verizon-for-crappy-streaming-performance-1252625

I misunderstood what @kitsch_ice meant initially as well.

He was saying that the YouTube channel that was initially embedded here was from one of those crappy/spammy "FunnyVideos" type channels who stole it from the original filmmaker's channel.

So much work for a crappy pay off.... (Personal Opinion) Sorry... All that just to spell out GTI? Come on...

This could of been something epic.

We have an American Military Base, German Car, Japanese driver.
Just a little subtle hint at something?

Work with me here....

welll that was a crappy song choice but now I want to paddle down a waterfall!

Would be better still if they came back as Coke bottle. Now the landfills are going to be filled with coke bottles and crappy little red attachments.

Actually, seems I was completely misremembering. They didn't announce platforms at all when they announced it initially. Crappy.

More passion in this crappy little video than the whole top fifty!

Some disconnected thoughts:

I didn't mean to say what you weren't saying. Apologies. I do like what you said here, "for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do." Yes, a crappy thing. I think we'd better get used to it; at least in the United States where people want to adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to asserting their rights.

Am I wrong in assuming you live outside of the States? If so that makes it easy for me to understand your stance on religious rights being unequal with other rights.

I am not insisting that discrimination be protected. Far from it. If you were being discriminated against you would want me in your corner. I detest discrimination. What I find interesting about all of the cases you mentioned, the only reason a gay couple has given for asking the state to enforce the anti-discrimination laws is over the issue of marriage and the issue of marriage alone. The photographer and bakers apparently served the gay community in other capacities from their storefronts without incident. No lawsuits, no nothing. I think we have to ask 'why?" What is it specifically about marriage that would cause a Christian (or a Muslim, or any number of religions for that matter), to say, "I can't participate in that?" I suspect that if the couple in question had been a man and two or three women getting married that the business owners response would have been the same - that is not our understanding of marriage, sorry we can't in good conscience go there." At the risk of repeating myself, their refusal isn't about the people they refused. It is specifically about the act of marriage.

As an aside, I find it ironic to the nth degree that the State of Oregon is trying to legally compel the bakery owners to participate in a ceremony that is illegal in the State of Oregon. Marriage among gays in Oregon is illegal. Sigh. This is why I wish religion, of any sort, would get out of the business of telling people what to do. I would like to see a withdrawal from the legislation of religious tenets that are not in line with the US Constitution. Then gays could marry freely in this country and this argument could be put away.

Many of the problems in this world could be resolved if the religionists didn't feel like they needed to make everyone outside of their religion believe and behave like they do. As I see it, in a free society, a religious belief should not be able compel those outside that belief to do anything.

You may be familiar with openly gay author/blogger Andrew Sullivan who has written about this subject. He says: I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

There is, of course, extensive writing on this issue by all sides and we may never be able to untangle it here but I have enjoyed getting your perspective.



“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

I hope you're right. I hope we never have an opportunity to find out. But here is, in part, the text of Oregon's law:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

"Religion" doesn't not have a special designation of 'unless' in there. I can see those Westboro Baptist a-holes notice that and will have some gay bakers baking a cake for them every day of the week.

All of this discussion is really a digression of my initial post which was to say: If our communities were stronger, if we'd risk more relationally, if we'd put down the electronics and get to know each other, it sure would be a lot easier to get along. We would have less use for the legal system to resolve our differences.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't suggest the Muslim men were not discriminating. I simply stated that the Canadian woman who wanted to force devout Muslim men to cut her hair, for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do. Just as if a mixed race couple were to find Archie Bunker to ask him to cater their wedding solely for the purpose of crying foul when they get discriminated against by the well known racist.

But that's not what's going on with the wedding couple, the photographer or the bakers. You are insisting that discrimination should be protected as a fundamental human right if someone calls it their “religion” and I find that idea abhorrent. So does the State of Oregon.

The bakers can't discriminate against a gay couple on religious grounds just as Archie Bunker can't deny blacks from drinking from the same water fountain as him. The difference between these two analogies is Archie Bunker wouldn't then turn around and suggest that his right to be a bigot is a fundamental human right that is on par with black's rights to not be discriminated against.

“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

As stated many times above, your right to religion extends to the tip of your nose. That's how and why physical rights trump religious rights.

DOUBLE promote! Thanks!

Might make up for my crappy title!

he has a crappy camera