>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^dannym3141:
@sgundamx I still think my comment stands - article or no article. Unless you can categorically state that there was no abuse before advertisements, there's no evidence for the sentiment that she's insinuating.
There's so many people in this thread arguing with other people, often times even two people in agreement are having some sort of tiff. I'll tell you why;
Firstly, males are less likely to notice sexism towards females because it doesn't affect them, doesn't even happen when they're around perhaps.
Secondly, women are more likely to notice sexism towards females because it only happens to them or around them, and women who are aware of sexism (or perhaps anti sexism campaigners) are more likely to see false positives, times when there was no sexism, just plain ignorance or rudeness, and it's chalked down to sexism.
Thirdly, everyone is different - some guys think they wouldn't be bothered if they were a girl and all they saw were skinny girls, and then you'll get girls saying "how can you say that? oh yes you would!" and then they'll get a reply saying "how can you say i would? oh no i wouldn't!" and so on.
But let's at least be fair about the matter. People saying "how would you feel if ALL YOU SAW was toned and fit handsome guys?" - this is not the situation. If that were the case, all your friends and relatives and everyone you ever saw or knew about would have to be skinny, and you were the only one that wasn't. In actual fact, advertisements display something utterly bullshit but then you go out into the street and see a load of perfectly average people. I'm not saying whether you should or should not get offended, but at least make the argument fair - it is advertisements and media, not everything

Sorry, what?
I don't see anywhere in my comment or the video where people are insinuating that there was no "abuse" (I'm not sure what you mean by the use of this word) before advertisements. I stated--in several posts--that the advertisements are both a cause (maintaining the status quo) and an effect of a societal norm that makes it okay to objectify women. And both I and the presenter in the video pointed out that objectifying a person is one of the first steps taken when someone wishes to commit violence against another person. Therefore, these ads are basically fostering a social atmosphere where it is okay to dehumanize women, to value them only for their appearance, and that seems extremely dangerous to me.
The objectification of women is a problem that extends way beyond just advertising--it pervades all of our mass media: movies, tv, and music. And why does it pervade our mass media? Because it works. Because we've accepted it as normal. It's no fluke that the cosmetics industry is a $1.9 billion dollar industry with around 3% growth a year and fantastic profits or that the diet industry rakes in $55 billion dollars a year (as of 2006) and is still growing. It's not a coincidence that rates of eating disorders in adolescents are rising. It's not solely the ads that are responsible for this, but the message--that gets reinforced constantly by the media and often by our own peers--that our worth as a human being is directly related to how well we fit the images we are bombarded with daily. Like she said in the video, we may walk out the door and see that what is being presented is impossible to obtain but that doesn't seem to stop us for striving for it anyway as the statistics I presented above show.


In the same way - sorry, what?

I originally stated that insinuating that abuse came from adverts objectifying women was a poor argument, and then when you replied saying abuse comes from objectification, i replied saying that it wasn't fair to say adverts cause abuse. I haven't read your massive post because the snippets i skimmed through didn't even seem to relate to what i was saying.

Nice talking with you, but i don't think we're having the same conversation.

>> ^dannym3141:

@sgundamx I still think my comment stands - article or no article. Unless you can categorically state that there was no abuse before advertisements, there's no evidence for the sentiment that she's insinuating.
There's so many people in this thread arguing with other people, often times even two people in agreement are having some sort of tiff. I'll tell you why;
Firstly, males are less likely to notice sexism towards females because it doesn't affect them, doesn't even happen when they're around perhaps.
Secondly, women are more likely to notice sexism towards females because it only happens to them or around them, and women who are aware of sexism (or perhaps anti sexism campaigners) are more likely to see false positives, times when there was no sexism, just plain ignorance or rudeness, and it's chalked down to sexism.
Thirdly, everyone is different - some guys think they wouldn't be bothered if they were a girl and all they saw were skinny girls, and then you'll get girls saying "how can you say that? oh yes you would!" and then they'll get a reply saying "how can you say i would? oh no i wouldn't!" and so on.
But let's at least be fair about the matter. People saying "how would you feel if ALL YOU SAW was toned and fit handsome guys?" - this is not the situation. If that were the case, all your friends and relatives and everyone you ever saw or knew about would have to be skinny, and you were the only one that wasn't. In actual fact, advertisements display something utterly bullshit but then you go out into the street and see a load of perfectly average people. I'm not saying whether you should or should not get offended, but at least make the argument fair - it is advertisements and media, not everything


Sorry, what?

I don't see anywhere in my comment or the video where people are insinuating that there was no "abuse" (I'm not sure what you mean by the use of this word) before advertisements. I stated--in several posts--that the advertisements are both a cause (maintaining the status quo) and an effect of a societal norm that makes it okay to objectify women. And both I and the presenter in the video pointed out that objectifying a person is one of the first steps taken when someone wishes to commit violence against another person. Therefore, these ads are basically fostering a social atmosphere where it is okay to dehumanize women, to value them only for their appearance, and that seems extremely dangerous to me.

The objectification of women is a problem that extends way beyond just advertising--it pervades all of our mass media: movies, tv, and music. And why does it pervade our mass media? Because it works. Because we've accepted it as normal. It's no fluke that the cosmetics industry is a $1.9 billion dollar industry with around 3% growth a year and fantastic profits or that the diet industry rakes in $55 billion dollars a year (as of 2006) and is still growing. It's not a coincidence that rates of eating disorders in adolescents are rising. It's not solely the ads that are responsible for this, but the message--that gets reinforced constantly by the media and often by our own peers--that our worth as a human being is directly related to how well we fit the images we are bombarded with daily. Like she said in the video, we may walk out the door and see that what is being presented is impossible to obtain but that doesn't seem to stop us for striving for it anyway as the statistics I presented above show.

To the right of the Front page is always the Top 15 videos. And yes, you are up there with the barfing choirboy. (I just watched that and I am still queasy -- I can actually smell vomit, talk about being susceptible to advertising!)

Not to brag, but I will.... I have three in the Top 15. Although the highest ranking one was a gift from eric -- he knows the topic of Mormons and gay marriage is close to my heart, so he gave it to me, knowing I'd love it. Eric is the most generous fellow -- not the first time he gave me a vid that went to top 15.

Another fun place to visit is beggar's canyon -- click on unsifted and it is a choice. These are vids that didn't get "published" within 2 days. Someone came along and begged for attention by putting it in beggar's canyon. You can find some pretty good stuff in there. Also some stuff that makes you wonder what the heck the sifter was thinking, but hey. It's a big diverse world, yeah?

When you go to Unsifted, there is the Top 15 that are expiring soon -- another place to see good vids that are on the brink of being published.

There's what I know today!

In reply to this comment by taranimator:
wait, who in the what now?
Are you talking about that "Storm" vid? haha!
where would I go to see what happened to it?
what a fluke! right up there with the barfing choirboy!

>> ^bareboards2:

Jeesh! Are you going to hit number ONE???!!!???
Noob, you are golden!

wait, who in the what now?
Are you talking about that "Storm" vid? haha!
where would I go to see what happened to it?
what a fluke! right up there with the barfing choirboy!

>> ^bareboards2:

Jeesh! Are you going to hit number ONE???!!!???
Noob, you are golden!

>> ^Zyrxil:

I hope they put some of the RPG back in. In many ways, ME2 being good was almost a fluke. The characters were good enough to carry gameplay that was too simplistic and storytelling that didn't flow very well.


Unfortunately that's unlikely, considering they are also 'streamlining' Dragon Age 2. i.e. ripping out RPG elements and making it actioney.

I hope they put some of the RPG back in. In many ways, ME2 being good was almost a fluke. The characters were good enough to carry gameplay that was too simplistic and storytelling that didn't flow very well.

Yeah, but people say "lets play a Football Game" and that doesn't hold that back. It wouldn't matter what you call Video Games, the stigma off lonely nerds locked up in their basements was always going to be attached to it. I guess there has been an effort to re-brand it as an E-sport, but I think that kind of fails because its so different to traditional sports that people see it as a bit of a joke. Competitive gaming is gaining ground though, mostly due to the hardwork of relatively few progamers and commentators, mostly in the SC2 scene, showing that you don't have to be a spotty shutin to be passionate about gaming at a competitive level. And yeh, playing competitively far from takes the fun out of it, I'd say it was quite the opposite.

On TorcH: I think its a little harsh to say his qualification was a fluke. He's certainly not on the same level as the other progamers in Korea, but he's still pretty solid.

As for this stunt, well, tbh I think pretty much any Diamond League player worth their salt could at least 1v2 or even 1v3 a bunch of new players. That said, if those same people played a few more games together, found a build order to execute and made an effort to combine their forces and attack together then I think even the very top level pros would struggle to hold it off. They might have vastly superior micro, but I think ultimately the numbers advantage would simply be too great.

Torch's match at Korea's first pro Starcraft 2 tournament, season 1 of the GSL (sign up required):

http://www.gomtv.net/2010gslopens1/vod/1031

He is not a top player, and frankly, its a fluke that he even qualified for the round of 64. It is unlikely that he will ever play again in a GSL.

>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^budzos:
Great extemporization, but I find it kind of sad that this is worthy of posting and discussion. "Extra! Extra! Man can express a concept clearly and soundly off the top off his head... in other words, is not an idiot! Read all about it!" This level of articulation should be the norm, not some amazing occurence.

Unfortunately, we're crude primates commandeered to sapience by some fluke of evolution


Heh, I like that. Well said.

>> ^budzos:

Great extemporization, but I find it kind of sad that this is worthy of posting and discussion. "Extra! Extra! Man can express a concept clearly and soundly off the top off his head... in other words, is not an idiot! Read all about it!" This level of articulation should be the norm, not some amazing occurence.


Should be, yes. Unfortunately, we're crude primates commandeered to sapience by some fluke of evolution, and most of us aren't particularly bright. While you can't (rationally) hold that against people, you must at least face up to it.

>> ^castles:

I've heard things like 'we share 93% of our DNA with slugs' or something like that - so what does it mean that only '1-4% of our DNA is Neanderthal'? Can someone explain?
EDIT:
Here's the kind of stuff I'm talking about..
Mice, men share 99% of genes
Humans related to humble mud worm
Genome Study Finds Rats, Humans Share Stretches of DNA


The difference is hereditary and pair structure. Genetically speaking, many of the chromosome base pairs are nearly identical from animal to animal. Reproductively speaking, there can't be to much variance in the chromosomes for successful mating. A rat can't mate with a human for example. However, other pre-Homo sapiens's and Neanderthal could, and unlike mules, mate and have non-sterile offspring. The 1-4% is direct ancestry. If you were to compare, like that study did with mice, actual base pair similarity, it would rank higher than chimps most likely (99.9999% or something). However, there is a chance that they are more dissimilar than chimps, and through some reproductive fluke, were still able to have virile offspring. The point is, the difference he was highlighting is the direct mating heritage of early man with Neanderthal, much like someone saying they are 4% Indian, even though they are both 100% human.

Engineered obsolescence. It isn't that the chip is inaccurate by fluke. It was designed to be inaccurate so you spend more money. Fill up the landfills. Fill up the corporate coffers.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^rougy:
Cenk's wrong.
You know, America, if you're so god-damned short-sighted, chintzy, and selfish to invest in a girl with a 4.09 GPA who has been here since she was eight years old, then you're too god-damned stupid to deserve any of the respect that you demand, even if it is at the point of a gun.

Our taxes, no sir. Give her a free ride? Fuck where does that leave the ones who are still at Ellis Island?


It's pathetically petty to deny any sort of aid to a person who has distinguished themselves to the degree that she has.

I like you, NR, but last I heard everyone left at Ellis Island was dead.

Her parents brought her here when she was eight years old.

She's lead an exemplary life, at least in academic terms, and I think that a country--a country that brags so much about free markets and wise investments--that denies this young person any kind of assistance based on what amounts to a fluke of geography has its head up its ass.

I gave that channel back to the site when I had the power to do so-I created the channel but can't do anything with it-it's Videosift's....but yeah, fuck yeah-anything that speaks to less "pussified" times..folks, can go there-
There was a user here a couple years ago (raven....female) who I was pretty tight with...we chatted one night and she convinced me to create a channel for some shits and giggles-her's was the Horrorshow-now that she's gone, that channel too, has no owner...I think-I don't look at channels anymore.Never did really-

My first channel was EIA, then Jazz/Blues (gave that one up to kulpims i think), then wildwestshow -surrendered that one to start another, Videodrome, which never came to be because dag unilaterally decided that I had had created too many channels already-Bout that time, I got double-teamed by a couple of popular users, and then I decided, "fuck this" and summarily broke every rule stated in the FAQs in a span of 20 mins, got banned, the rest is Siftstory-

For a year, off and on, I created about 10 other accounts, (never wanting to be back if I could not have my old account back) and it was like a game for these two douchebags to find me out (made it pretty obvious)and instaban me.

It was a fluke that gwhiz665 posted a poll to allow me back, and dag decided at that time to allow me to return conditionally.....the only power i don;t have anymore is making a new channel and leaving private profile comments. That last caveat is because certain pussified individuals could not stand their own fucking medicine, when served cold. One bailed (kronosposiden) and one refuses to enter into any meaningful discourse with me, well, because he's Blankfist. I had issue when he came with his asshole showing and a cat fart video evoking my handle here.
http://videosift.com/video/A-Special-Highbrow-Video-For-Choggie

In reply to this comment by geo321:
I had a great time out of that. Especially the Betty Page one...such a brilliant video. A question for you though, since the wild west show is your channel... does a video like this apply...http://videosift.com/video/Guy-Wrestles-an-Anaconda-Underwater
In reply to this comment by choggie:
http://videosift.com/video/She-Lives-feat-Betty-Page
http://videosift.com/video/Gunslinger-Model-404-or-406
http://videosift.com/video/Big-IronCowboy-Bebop

http://videosift.com/video/Amboy-Dukes-Journey-To-The-Center-Of-The-Mind-1969
http://videosift.com/video/Janet-Klein-and-Her-Parlor-Boys


A few favorites from the VS wayback machine-I think we need a mash-up channel m'self(3 of my favs here)

(that last one is Janet Klein whom I have a particularly hardcore crush upon )

I don't know what is is about Jewish chicks I dig so much-
http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID12090/slideshows/israel1.jpg

in the year two thooousaaand

>> ^Playinwithfire:

LOL @ Frickin sharks with lazerbeams on their heads...