[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
random

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 407828)
Message
File  []
close
operation-good-guys-2.jpg
407828407828407828
>> No. 407828 Anonymous
7th January 2017
Saturday 1:36 pm
407828 spacer
Weekend thread? Weekend thread.

How's it going, lads?
387 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 410114 Anonymous
1st May 2017
Monday 11:04 pm
410114 spacer

maxresdefault.jpg
410114410114410114
>>410113

>Paedogeddon

Anybody remember the anecdote of some thug vandalising the front door to a doctor's practice because it had a sign on it that that doctor was a paediatrician?

We're doomed as a species. And that isn't even pondering the fact that somebody, however dim, would not only mistake a paediatrician for a paedophile, but actually think that a nonce would advertise the fact that they are a nonce with a sign on their front door.
>> No. 410120 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 1:34 am
410120 spacer
>>410110

Stop it please. There's a fit 16 year old at work and the fact a person I'm physically attracted to is too young to remember 9/11 or has ever used a telephone box is causing me great existential pain.
>> No. 410121 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 1:41 am
410121 spacer
>>410111

I'm the same. If you'd asked me to put those events on a timeline, I'd have put the fuel protests about five years after Bob the Builders hit song.

To be fair I was 11 then so my memory is probably hazy
>> No. 410124 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 8:35 am
410124 spacer
>>410114
>>Anybody remember the anecdote of some thug vandalising the front door to a doctor's practice because it had a sign on it that that doctor was a paediatrician?

We're doomed as a species. And that isn't even pondering the fact that somebody, however dim, would not only mistake a paediatrician for a paedophile, but actually think that a nonce would advertise the fact that they are a nonce with a sign on their front door.

There are several incidents like that. I experienced a similar situation about twelve years ago online when a man became angry at my use of the word oxymoron. He thought I was calling him a moron, which in hindsight would have been accurate, and made all sorts of angry threats, the best of which was promising to beat me into the gutter if I ever came to Wembley.
>> No. 410127 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 9:16 am
410127 spacer
>>410124
> but actually think that a nonce would advertise the fact that they are a nonce with a sign on their front door.
Even their craftiest plans at evasion fall through. Reverse psychology and all that.
>> No. 410128 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 11:44 am
410128 spacer
>>410120

Well she is 16. That is the age of consent. If she wants, she can fuck anybody from 16 to the end of the physcially possible human lifespan.

If that makes it alright for a middle-aged git to obsess about her is quite another question.

That said, I was stumped the other week when I drove home one of my parents' oldest friends and her granddaughter. She is 17, and at some point, a song by Oasis came on the radio. So I said "Man, those were the days... I was a big Oasis fan!". And then the 17-year-old said, "What's Oasis?"

You begin to understand deep time once you've knocked on the door of middle age. You get an appreciation for the fleeting nature of time, and the fact that you really only live once. Every generation leaves its own mark, most of which is then forgotten again by the following generations.
>> No. 410130 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 11:48 am
410130 spacer
>>410128
My brother's girlfriend who is, if not older than me, at least my age, with a degree in music, had never heard of the Rolling Stones. I don't think it's just a question of age for people to be ignorant about some glaring things, occasionally.
>> No. 410131 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 12:02 pm
410131 spacer
>>410130

Agreed, I guess. And I think it's unforgivable to not know certain bands with such a lasting influence on pop music. Even if Britpop was before your time and you have barely been given to understand that it was a fad in the 90s which only lasted half a decade, if that, I don't see how you can actually not have heard of Oasis.

Not knowing the Rolling Stones is certainly the bigger insult to music history, but again, you should at least be aware of the biggest frontrunners of a musical movement such as Britpop in the late 1990s.

Also, if something lik this doesn't still give you goose bumps, then maybe music isn't for you to begin with:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q
>> No. 410133 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 12:26 pm
410133 spacer
>>410131

It depends what you're into, I suppose. I was one year old when The Charlatans hit the top 10, but I could still talk to you for hours about britpop and the five decades of influence that led up to it.

But if someone named the most impactful dance music producer in history, I might not even have heard the name.
>> No. 410134 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 12:56 pm
410134 spacer
>>410133

>But if someone named the most impactful dance music producer in history, I might not even have heard the name.


I think that is also because the music scene is becoming ever more fragmented. In dance music alone, you've got about a dozen different sub-genres.
>> No. 410137 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 1:38 pm
410137 spacer
>>410134

True. Touring in bands a decade ago showed me that you'd have subgenre divides even on the local level. I'd have thought the internet (myspace at that time) would have brought music communities closer together, but it just seemed to dig even deeper ruts for that specific niche they liked.

I wonder if it's any different now. It's hard to tell since I'm an old man who doesn't go to gigs anymore.
>> No. 410138 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 1:38 pm
410138 spacer
There is an exercise in who is your kingmaker that dictates the artists you are aware of.

Essentially if you don't know an artist exists how are you ever going to know? 1. 'Something tells you' - be it a friend, a magazine, the news, the radio. 2. ‘You need to listen to them’. Either in a live or recorded format. And that means that the industry does a certain level of self-selection.

This gives kingmakers a certain level of power to make or break musicians and define the zeitgeist. And this has definitely lead to corruption. For example the US charts aren't an objective exercise you can sell the most records and not reach number 1.

The problem in recent history is that the old king makers are dead. People don't listen to the radio like they did, and even if you do, the music isn't as current and cutting edge as it used to be, and anybody can now load their song onto YouTube, and sound cloud. The only difference now really between a successful artist and an amateur is how many people are willing to listen to their music.

If there is a new kingmaker I'm not sure I've found it. Getting into the news seems to be important which is why Kanye West being such an utterly embarrassing shit show is probably the finest marketing move of the 21st century. There are lots of better artists then him. But I'm not sure I'd be able to name them.
>> No. 410139 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 1:45 pm
410139 spacer
>>410138

For me, it's spotify. It recommends music based on what I already listen to. It's lead me down some great paths. It really reminds me of being a 16 year old poring though Artrocker and Pitchfork for the newest/obscurest bands.

I can just pick a song and get it to generate a playlist of stuff it thinks is similar. I'm sure the other streaming music services do the same thing. It's great.
>> No. 410142 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 3:39 pm
410142 spacer
Just woke up with pasty crumbs on my shoulder. What is even happening?
>> No. 410143 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 3:51 pm
410143 spacer
>>410138

>Essentially if you don't know an artist exists how are you ever going to know? 1. 'Something tells you' - be it a friend, a magazine, the news, the radio. 2. ‘You need to listen to them’. Either in a live or recorded format. And that means that the industry does a certain level of self-selection.


A few nights ago, the Depeche Mode documentary "101" was on TV again. And it revealed two fundamental truths about the music business and how it has changed since the Internet.

In "101", Martin Gore, the creative mind behind Depeche Mode for much of its career, was filmed going into a local record store in Nashville, Tennessee, to sample some of the local country music. He bought audio cassettes (this was in 1988!) of various different local country music acts to listen to them during moments of downtime on the tour bus. And at another point of the documentary, he said that Depeche Mode were really kind of a niche band in the United States, and that turnouts at venues were greatly depending on whether local radio stations had been intruducing listeners to Depeche Mode beforehand. He said that Depeche Mode tended to do well in areas where DJs had been playing their music on the radio.

So, two obvious things - the Internet makes it vastly easier for bands to become acquainted with other kinds of music today, and it also means that the process of gathering a following has also changed drastically. But I guess in the end, in a way, the Internet is just a big record store and radio station all in one. Everything is just on a much more vast scale now.
>> No. 410145 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 4:53 pm
410145 spacer
>>410143

The bigger change IMO is the inverted economics of the music business. In the 80s, bands toured to promote their record. Today, they promote their record to sell gig tickets. Touring used to be a mildly profitable or break-even exercise that sold a ton of albums, but today it's the cash cow of the industry.

Record company accounting has always been dodgy, but today it's basically impossible for an act to make a living on record sales unless they're Adele or Ed Sheeran. A lot of household names make literally nothing on an album launch because of the dominance of streaming and piracy. On the other hand, live revenues have gone absolutely mental. Arena acts charging £65 for mediocre seats are the norm rather than the exception; mid-level acts touring Academy venues and arts centres are charging twice what they used to for tickets.

It's why you don't see one-hit-wonders any more. Stock Aitken and Waterman could make really good money with a load of no-marks selling novelty records, but today it's a completely pointless exercise. The only reason to release a record is as a promotional tool for live gigs.

This economic inversion has had all sorts of weird effects. Ultra-niche acts with tiny followings can make a comfortable living as long as their fans are loyal enough to keep buying tickets. They don't need any promotion if they can build their following organically by word-of-mouth. Breaking a new act into the mainstream has become much harder, because there's no equivalent of Top of the Pops or the chart show. The music economy has become increasingly polarised - there's a cult underground, there are arena megastars, but there's not a lot in between.

A band like Depeche Mode couldn't exist today. There's just no room in the industry for that kind of breakthrough act. The charts were democratic in a way that radio playlists aren't. Playlisters select tracks that they think will appeal to an imaginary office worker, rather than selecting what they genuinely believe to be the best new releases.

On balance I think that the situation is an improvement for musicians, but I do worry about the future. The income of the music industry is dominated by old acts that were established before Napster. Innovation is happening, but it just doesn't have the opportunity to reach the mainstream. I'm not sure that the next generation of teenagers are going to have the opportunity to hear music that's relevant to their lives.
>> No. 410147 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 5:40 pm
410147 spacer
>>410145
Whose life was Bohemian Rhapsody relevant to? I pass kids on the street and they're listening to what sounds like some sort of grime hiphop stuff that was recorded in their mate's shed.
>> No. 410148 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 6:19 pm
410148 spacer
>>410145

To be fair, all the younger lads I went to school with who had bands are now the dominant players in their scenes in the UK. But they got there but giving their music away for free and touring. They are setting pretty goddamn pretty for guys in their late 20's.
>> No. 410150 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 6:23 pm
410150 spacer
>>410142
Have you just turned 30?
>> No. 410151 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 9:26 pm
410151 spacer
>>410150

32. But these guys have been comfortably living off music for a decade.
>> No. 410152 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 9:50 pm
410152 spacer
>>410151
I was replying to pastycrumblad, not you.
>> No. 410154 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 11:02 pm
410154 spacer
>>410145

>A band like Depeche Mode couldn't exist today

Depeche Mode got their first big break on Top of the Pops, btw. They famously travelled by commuter train from Basildon to the BBC studio with their keyboards and other cumbersome gear in tow to do their TV appearance.

There's another thing that doesn't quite exist in this way anymore. Back in those days, an appearance on TOTP could simply instantly over night make your career. There were a considerable number of previously unknown acts who rose to near instant national fame. Gary Numan is one example. He was a loner, unknown even to the majority of the synthpop scene and its most knowledgeable insiders. And that all changed after TOTP.

It's hard to think of anything that can similarly boost your music career today. An appearance on TOTP wasn't just coveted, it was THE biggest chance you ever got to make yourself known to wider audiences.
>> No. 410155 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 11:08 pm
410155 spacer
>Anybody remember the anecdote of some thug vandalising the front door to a doctor's practice because it had a sign on it that that doctor was a paediatrician?
I'm fairly sure I read an article about how this was an urban myth and no such event was ever confirmed to have happened.
>> No. 410156 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 11:21 pm
410156 spacer
>>410155

>I'm fairly sure I read an article about how this was an urban myth and no such event was ever confirmed to have happened.

You stand corrected.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society

>Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word "paedophile", it emerged yesterday.

>Dr Yvette Cloete, a specialist registrar in paediatric drugs at the Royal Gwent hospital in Newport, was forced to flee her house after vandals daubed it with graffiti in the middle of the night.

>The word "paedo" was written across the front porch and door of the house she shared with her brother in the village of St Brides, south Wales.
>> No. 410157 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 11:30 pm
410157 spacer
>>410156
How do we know the graffiti wasn't intended for the brother?
>> No. 410159 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 11:51 pm
410159 spacer
>>410156
Fair enough.

There is this to contradict it slightly: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/a-tale-told-too-much-the-paediatrician-vigilantes/
but it's mostly downplaying the "angry mob" story, rather than claiming the graffiti never happened.
>> No. 410161 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 12:10 am
410161 spacer
>>410154

John Peel used to get massive listener numbers on Radio 1, playing all sorts of weird nonsense. He personally listened to every demo he was sent and played anything that he thought was interesting. There's a long and illustrious list of bands who owed their career to John Peel. These days, unsigned acts have been relegated to the very fringes of the BBC radio schedules.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzRnffFq__Q
>> No. 410162 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 1:09 am
410162 spacer
>>410161
Quick, someone daub "paedo" on his gravestone.

(He actually did fiddle a few teenagers, but they were all up for it and it was the 70s so nobody cared.)
>> No. 410164 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 12:03 pm
410164 spacer
>>410162

>(He actually did fiddle a few teenagers, but they were all up for it and it was the 70s so nobody cared.)

I think some of what has surfaced is really cases of false memory syndrome. Yes, some TV personalities did abuse teenagers, who were legally children, and coerced them into sex by use of their position of power or authority. Prison is the right place for them, and they have been getting what was coming to them.

But if somebody was of legal age back then and, at that moment in time, was up for it, then that should be the end of it. You shouldn't just get to reframe it as rape thirty or forty years after the fact, let alone with legal consequences. I have read stories of middle-aged housewives whose adult lives turned into complete clusterfucks, for one reason or another, and they blame it all on that one afternoon in the 70s where they willingly had sex with a randy TV personality. That isn't just a refusal to accept responsibility for your own actions in life, which you had decades to turn into something fruitful, but it is also showing the middle finger to actual victims of sexual abuse.
>> No. 410165 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 12:08 pm
410165 spacer
>>410164

Peel really is bang to rights - he married a 15-year-old and bragged about bedding schoolgirls. That doesn't diminish his brilliance as a DJ and his importance as a promoter of new music.
>> No. 410166 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 12:23 pm
410166 spacer
>>410165

Well, Bill Wyman went out and had sex with Mandy Smith when she was just 14 and he was approaching his mid-30s. If stories were to be believed, she actively pursued him. But even so, she was legally a child, and I'm not really sure how Bill Wyman was able to avoid prison.

Mandy Smith herself is kind of messed up in the head these days. I think a few years ago she became a radical Christian and is now campaigning for abstinence and tougher age of consent laws.

That's another thing about that generation. They had it all, they had all the wild sex and free drugs and outlandish parties and whatnot, but now they're in middle age hell and want to make everything tougher for young people. Almost like the Baby Boomers.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOW7gKmixA
>> No. 410167 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 12:50 pm
410167 spacer
>>410166
I'm not sure we should be judging the past by the standards of today. Evidently at least some of that sort of behaviour was considered acceptable at the time, even if not entirely legal. "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."
>> No. 410168 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 1:17 pm
410168 spacer
>>410167

Right... just look at how attitudes have changed towards the death penalty and corporal punishment in schools.

Or just take environmental pollution. My granddad has told me that when he was younger, every Saturday there would be queues of people with their cars on the river bank near where he lived, where they would go to give their cars a hand wash with water from the river and plenty of soap and other cleaning products. On busy days, that section of the river was frothing with all the soapy water from people washing their cars there. Nobody really gave a thought to what it was doing to plant and animal life in that river. But it was the mid-60s, so it was alright. I guess.
>> No. 410169 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 1:48 pm
410169 spacer
>>410167
Attitudes towards "acceptable" sexual interaction with minors crept in with the sexual liberation of the 60s/70s but got shot down pretty quickly at the time, and rightly so; it was a simple case of taking liberalisation too far, without concern for the consequences. See the legalisation and fairly rapid re-criminalisation of porn involving minors in Europe at that time.
>> No. 410170 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 3:08 pm
410170 spacer
>>410169

The pendulum does swing both ways over time. With the Sexual Revolution, sexuality was suddenly a free-for-all. Across the Western world, many sexual behaviours were suddenly decriminalised within the space of just a few years. Homosexuality became legal in the late 60s in Britain, and so did pornography, cohabitation between unmarried couples, and a few other things.

I'm not sure where I really stand on pornography being illegal under the age of 18. First of all, sexually explicit pictures of persons above age 16 were legal in Britain up until the Sexual Offences Act of 2003. Rags like The Sun probably owed half their readership to 16-year-old Page Three girls.

On the other hand, I think there is no real harm in saying that maybe you should have to be 18 before you can be a commercial porn actor or actress. Or even have topless pictures of you printed in the yellow press or published online. The big question that arises, though, is what you do with sexual pictures of 16- and 17-year-olds. They are old enough to have sex. With each other, and with legal adults. By indiscriminately making nude pictures of them a sex crime, I don't think you are helping anybody. Some countries, including the U.S., have seen what that leads to in its extremes, which is that you have hundreds of teenagers with a criminal record, some of them having to register as sex offenders for life, because they took naked pictures of their 16-year-old partners. Which they never planned to share with anybody, and just keep for personal use.

So some countries have now adopted "personal use" clauses in their criminal codes. Meaning if you are an underage couple and you have taken nude pictures of yourselves, they are legal for you to own for as long as you don't show them to anybody else.

And I think that's not a bad idea. No commercial porn under 18, but also not branding people as sexual criminals for owning naked pictures of their teenage sweetheart.
>> No. 410171 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 5:05 pm
410171 spacer
>>410170
To this day I continue to find it bizarre that you can legally commit a sex act that you cannot legally record in any way even with the consent of all concerned.
>> No. 410174 Anonymous ## Mod ##
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 6:30 pm
410174 spacer

pfg.png
410174410174410174
Careful now.
>> No. 410178 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 8:40 pm
410178 spacer
>>410174
I think you should be able to have sex with people who are 16 years old and I don't care if you ban me for it.
>> No. 410179 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 9:08 pm
410179 spacer
>>410178

I think they're more worried about indecent imagery than your daft opinion, ladm8.
>> No. 410180 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 9:15 pm
410180 spacer
>>410179
>>410178
We have had a zero-tolerance policy for discussions on anything relating to lowering the age of consent from day 1, for good reasons.
>> No. 410181 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 9:24 pm
410181 spacer
>>410180

Can't you just think of some daft word filters like you do for every other controversial topic?
>> No. 410182 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 9:49 pm
410182 spacer
>>410181
The word filters aren't there to prevent you discussing them, it just makes otherwise tedious conversations mildly amusing.
>> No. 410183 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 10:03 pm
410183 spacer
>>410182
They do have the beneficial side effect of discouraging such discussions.
>> No. 410184 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 10:16 pm
410184 spacer
It's difficult to discuss age of consent issues calmly because a) it always brings out all the bona fide paedos who want it lowered to whatever age they fancy the most, and b) in light of what has been happening the last few years, well, it's not like many people will welcome such ideas with open arms in the first place. And despite your own best intentions, you will make yourself look like a nonce sooner than you know.

I agree that we must tread very carefully on .gs. Because the paedos have a sixth sense for any kind of online web forum/image board debate on the issue. They will home in on you, out of nowhere, faster than you can ban them, and spout their noncery. I know, because as a younglad, I used to be a mod for a (now defunct) general political debate forum, where you could debate anything from the government's tax plan to motorway speed limits and foreign policy. Everytime somebody started a topic in any way related to age of consent or teenage sex, suddenly you had people arguing that an age of consent of sixteen was just as arbitrary as twelve, and whatnot. Very difficult to stay on top of something like that as a mod, once it's in full swing.

So let's leave it at that now on here and get back to other stuff. The mod has my sympathy.
>> No. 410185 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 10:27 pm
410185 spacer
>>410182

I know.
>> No. 410186 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 10:27 pm
410186 spacer
>>410184
I say we raise the age of consent to at least 100. That should settle the debate for once and for all. By the time anyone's able to do it legally they're neither inclined nor equipped to do it.
>> No. 410296 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 2:41 pm
410296 spacer
I am sitting in the livingroom of my flat with the balcony door open, and there's an immense waft of somebody smoking weed coming in right now. I have tried to locate the source, but whoever is getting stoned isn't doing it on any of the other balconies.
>> No. 410324 Anonymous
8th May 2017
Monday 9:01 pm
410324 spacer
I ate two apples and suddenly am feeling quite depressed.

Apparently six apples from ASDA are 7 recommended servings, I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to work.
>> No. 410330 Anonymous
8th May 2017
Monday 10:41 pm
410330 spacer
>>410324

An apple is 1.1666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 servings of apple. Nothing odd about that.
>> No. 410331 Anonymous
8th May 2017
Monday 10:53 pm
410331 spacer
>>410330
Protractors are not cutlery.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password