- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, TXT, Maximum:11000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3267 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [First 100 posts][ Reply ]
121 posts omitted. First 100 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 425247
New mid-week thread.
I've got the feeling I was meant to look something up but I can't remember what and it's bugging me.
|>>|| No. 425248
I'm concerned that not masturbating is taking up so much of my concentration that I'd get more done if I just did it already.
|>>|| No. 425256
I've just been to Sports Direct to get a new pair of trainers but, unsurprisingly, they didn't have the ones I want in store so I'd have to order them online; I'm loath to pay their £5 delivery charge, though.
|>>|| No. 425262
I suppose I could always get my money's worth if I'm having to pay for delivery and get a shelf full of Sports Direct baseball caps like that lad on /poof/ years back.
|>>|| No. 425266
They've always charged a quid for it. They used to automatically add it to your order unless you un-checked a tiny hidden box, but they stopped being sneaky about it after Watchdog kicked up a fuss.
|>>|| No. 425268
They do in-store pick up of online orders, which I believe is cheaper than getting it delivered to your door.
|>>|| No. 425272
Click and collect is the way forward for many high street shops. Saves having to hang about all day for a courier, too.
|>>|| No. 425279
>Every time you use our Click & Collect delivery service and collect your parcel from our own stores, you'll receive a £5 voucher to spend in store. You'll be given your voucher by our store staff when you collect your parcel.
It's basically free, but only if you want to spend more in store. Though still good for even cheaper pairs of socks and pants.
|>>|| No. 425295
How does Amazon pricing work? There's been something I've been tracking for a little while and its price generally fluctuates between £24 and £27. The last time I looked at it and actually added it to my basket (before deciding to add it to my saved for later list) the price fluctuated several times within a couple of hours before settling at just over £25. Amazon are now running a £5 off if you spend at least £25 on qualifying items promotion today, but the price of it has now gone up to £28.
|>>|| No. 425309
It can't be any worse than most professional porn, it's all got such a bizarre atmosphere.
Fake Taxi just gives me the fucking creeps.
|>>|| No. 425311
I bought two doners in the morning as I couldn't be arsed to cook anything and just wanted a doner anyway. It bloody had to be this lass on the shift that is way too tight with the ingredients. The big doner wasn't that big and the small one was too small. Tasty nonetheless, if only it could be a tad larger.
Found a pack of optical discs in the cupboard. Turned out to contain that Russian crime drama series about the 90s (read: blatant glorification of the whole bratva business). The disc I put into the drive had that episode where the protagonist's ma dies due to heart attack. I never asked for this. Not now when I actually can empathise.
Moaning checked. Definitely not my best day.
|>>|| No. 425312
>I bought two doners in the morning.
If you're buying kebabs, from a shop that is open in the morning, you're going to have bigger problems than existential dread. Namely pissing out of your arse.
|>>|| No. 425314
blue screen of death shopping mall.jpg
I bought a new laptop battery off Amazon last night. I'm stingy and not in a hurry so I went for the free postage option, ETA April 1st.
It arrived this morning, and I feel I should point out that I live in the countryside away from any major distribution centres. The efficiency of the Amazon supply chain is frightening sometimes. Either that or this is come kind of pre-emptive April Fool's joke.
|>>|| No. 425317
They work from 07:30 to 22:00, the traffic is almost insane in that place. Thankfully, never had any problems with their food. I know several shops though whose munchies would give exactly the effect you describe.
|>>|| No. 425319
>I feel I should point out that I live in the countryside away from any major distribution centres.
Assuming you're in the UK, most of us are probably only a couple of hours away from a warehouse no matter where we are. It only takes 15 hours to drive the entire length of the island, so I'm not that surprised.
|>>|| No. 425320
Does anyone know if it matters what sort of clear plastic I use to build my greenhouse? Someone pointed out that I might need some with particular UV qualities or... something. Anyway I have no idea, I was just going to buy some transparent sheets from B&Q and cut them to size.
|>>|| No. 425321
Not really, it's all down to certain plastics degrading in sunlight. Normally people either use PVCU or acrylic.
|>>|| No. 425322
I'll look into those, cheers. The quest to find some PVCU that isn't awkwardly corrugated or some acrylic that isn't awkwardly expensive.
|>>|| No. 425325
I remember fondly the very early days of Amazon, when it was just about books - I lived in Central London, and you could order things up until about 2am and still get them that morning when you woke up. It seemed like complete magic at the time and made me spend nearly all my money on books.
|>>|| No. 425332
That's how I felt about Amazon in general when I was a lad (too young to really remember it as a book shop, sorry m8).
Once Prime was a thing and I had student grants burning a hole in my pocket, it became a running joke amongst flatmates about how many fucking deliveries I got per week. Then Prime Now happened and I started ordering expensive shit just for the thrill of it arriving in under an hour. I'd just find excuses to order any old shit, like a laptop because wanted to work in the kitchen, or fifteen boxes of cornettos, because it was summer.
I know Bezos is worth a lot but I reckon at least a couple of his millions are directly from me.
|>>|| No. 425334
Been doing some more ancestry research tonight. Apparently, one of my ancestors in the 1600s was found guilty of being a witch and casting a spell on a fellow villager's water well to poison it, for which she was sentenced to death.
I can see now where my older sister gets it from.
|>>|| No. 425337
It's not just the distance, no delivery driver would surely make me a priority when I'm miles away from everyone else and may parcel isn't due for nearly two weeks anyway.
I think I must've just gotten lucky, maybe some crossed wires ended up listing my delivery as more crucial.
|>>|| No. 425349
I got a message from my brother, about 11 to give him a call. He told me that my niece was found dead this morning by a housemate. There's no suspicion of drugs or anything, she just passed in her sleep. She only turned 23 the end of January and I am just in shock. I've had to go home from work, I really just can't concentrate.
|>>|| No. 425361
I'm going to make biscuits tomorrow, but I'll be using raspberry jam instead of golden syrup. Don't try to stop me, I shalln't be posting again until they're in the oven and by then it'll be far, far too late.
|>>|| No. 425367
The melting point of jam would appear to be considerably higher than that of unsalted butter.
|>>|| No. 425369
I've never held jam in my hand because of how sticky it is. It got there in the end anyway.
|>>|| No. 425370
I've had my pay review at work today and, as well as a pay rise, they're introducing a performance-related bonus of up to £5,000 if I can meet 7 or 8 particular targets of £500 to £750 each; most of these I can meet just by carrying on as I am.
I've been given the option of either getting them paid ad hoc as and when I meet one of the targets or having it as a lump sum at the end of the year. I'm assuming the latter would be better as then I'd be more likely to do something meaningful with it and I'd pay much less in National Insurance but I thought I'd better check with you lads in case I'm missing anything.
|>>|| No. 425371
I'd likely choose the latter too, though HRMC will almost certainly get confused and shove you in the wrong tax bracket when that happens, so keep an eye out for that.
I'm like you, If I got a couple of hundred quid extra a month I'd just spend it on shite, but five grand in a lump is basically a savings account.
I don't like the idea of OTE pay at all though, simply because I've had experiences with companies who don't know how to set appropriate targets, essentially making their daft overblown projection for what their profit (or whatever) should look like into a pay cut for you.
|>>|| No. 425372
It breaks down into roughly one-third things I'll achieve simply by turning up, one-third things I was planning on implementing anyway and one-third things that are largely outside of my control and depend on the overall performance of the company. There's nothing that'll require me buzzing around like a blue-arsed fly.
|>>|| No. 425373
Would the lump sum payment be conditional on each of the targets being achieved?
Depending on whether they know their arse from their elbow at your work or not, the safer bet may be to opt for the ad hoc payment and then just trusting yourself to transfer it into a different account or hide it under the floorboards until you are ready to splash out.
|>>|| No. 425376
I would get that bit in writing then lad. Agree with other posters caution about OTE, it's just another form of zero hours work, for sales people.
|>>|| No. 425381
Not just sales people. I took a job with about ten grand tied to profit targets, and about a month into the job they raised those targets significantly - a 10% raise in GP targets. For context they were essentially asking me to find an extra 30k a week in profit, overnight.
I don't think they moved the goalposts specifically to fleece me, they just were being daft with their projections. But nonetheless it was basically a pay cut so I left. The sad irony being I probably capable of hitting that target, that sort of thing has been the foundation of my career. If they'd paid me the extra ten grand as regular salary I'd have happily done it, or at least tried very hard to do it. But instead I wandered off within my probation period.
|>>|| No. 425428
Continuing my ancestry research. It has been blown wide open because it turns out I have shedloads of members of nobility on my dad's side as my bloodline ancestors about 200 years back. If what I have found out is true, it ties me to about a dozen different noble families from Russian nobility to Poland's Szlachta and Germany's Uradle, and then later British Peerage, all going back at least to the 1300s.
It appears that one of my dad's ancestors was a commoner who then married one of their women. His occupation is listed as that of a "registrar", which meant he was not a member of the lower classes as such, but a woman from nobility marrying a commoner was apparently still quite frowned upon and it may be one reason why our family
are paupers never inherited any of the wealth that must have been knocking about in those circles.
|>>|| No. 425431
> to Poland's Szlachta
Huh, that's what I was told by my grandma once too.
One question I cannot answer in regards to that is 'so what?' It's not like that gives me any kind of privileges or makes me better in any way.
Just a curious piece of trivia.
|>>|| No. 425433
>One question I cannot answer in regards to that is 'so what?' It's not like that gives me any kind of privileges or makes me better in any way.
Hereditary nobility was always rooted in the idea of nobility of the blood, the presumption that your kin had superior hereditary qualities of character that made you a rightful part of the country's elite from the day you were born simply because your parents were nobility, and their parents before them. While questionable, you can't completely deny that certain character features can be hereditary.
Aristocratic monarchies were an exclusionary, pre-democratic concept and irreconcilable with modern forms of government as we know them today, but then again, not that much more exclusionary than today's Western elites tend to be, who like to cordon themselves off from the rest of society and favour their own kind, and who have risen to wealth and power as commoners in the last 250 years and now constitute the de facto ruling class in many Western democracies. Most people have no chance of ever becoming part of that elite the same way they rarely had the chance to be knighted or otherwise ennobled by a country's monarch. These economic elites, if not in writing then at least in fact, enjoy many of the same exclusionary privileges as the noble classes did in pre-democratic Europe.
In its own way, the system of a ruling noble class had its advantages, because tied to your nobility was not only the enjoyment of privileges and prerogatives not shared by commoners, but it was also an ethos. You were expected to follow certain codes of conduct and honour, the disobedience of which could cause you to be stripped of your nobility and all its privileges, usually for life. Rehabilitation with regards to your noble privileges, once you had lost them, was not considered possible. Unlike today's economic elites, for whom the old saying that behind every great fortune there stands a great crime probably couldn't be more true. And yet, their power is just as difficult to challenge as that of nobility in the old days.
Therefore, even if nobody in their right mind would want to undo all the democratic reforms of government of the last few centuries, it's worth noting that just because we no longer call it an aristocracy, that doesn't mean we don't still have one.
|>>|| No. 425434
It would take an absolute moron not to realise we still have an aristocracy. Even more truly so in places like the States, where wealth is the only thing about a person that matters.
All that happened during the Enlightenment was a shift of power from the inherited nobility to the newly powerful merchant wealthy, and thus capitalism was born.
At least in the old days, they didn't lie to you about being able to join their class. You were a peasant and that was that. People who somehow manage to fight their way into wealth in the modern day rarely find themselves ascending to the elites- That still takes a continuous intergenerational connection to power, money and influence before you'll be accepted.
|>>|| No. 425435
> At least in the old days, they didn't lie to you about being able to join their class. You were a peasant and that was that. People who somehow manage to fight their way into wealth in the modern day rarely find themselves ascending to the elites- That still takes a continuous intergenerational connection to power, money and influence before you'll be accepted.
But by contrast, once you were accepted into the realms of nobility, all the doors were open to you pretty much from one day to the next. There was probably still a gradient of social standing between "old nobility" and newly joined nobility, but beyond that, you were now one of them.
As you said, it was kind of a more honest system in its own way. Broadly speaking, there was no false pretense that you could make it from rags to riches.
Or as George Carlin once said, it's called the American Dream for a reason, because you have to be asleep to believe it.
|>>|| No. 425436
I've always liked Michael Young's framing of meritocracy: a term he coined in the negative, describing a class unto itself. It's a perverse irony we now all aspire to it.)
The argument essentially went that in the past when you got your ruling position by merit of being of the upper class, you felt a sort of obligation to those lower down than you. Then, as people from the working class took leadership positions (think for example of the early Labour governments), even if their personal living situation and power improved, they still identified themselves with the working class, their concerns and their struggles. Often because they had shared them earlier in life. Through that kind of system, you keep everyone in contact with each other, and get at least some degree of caring governance. Then as we began to take a more scientific, meritocratic approach, that all changed.
It's rare that we have that kind of identity-system now. Instead what we have is an educated, mobile class of people who believe that everything they have, they've earned themselves, particularly through education and smarts. Whether they come from the rich, or have made themselves up from nothing, they have no need to feel obligation to any class. Instead they have their own social group: The meritocrats. And if they've earned everything they've got, they're entitled to what they can take, and if that screws people below them that's those fools own fault for being so lacking in personal merit. A king at least owes his position to god. The meritocrat is god unto himself.
For his words rather than mine, see:
|>>|| No. 425437
I think I agree with you that when people really do work their way up nowadays, it fosters a sense in them that what's theirs is theirs because they have worked hard to obtain it, and screw the lower classes who were unable to do the same, it's their own fault really for drinking beer and smoking fags all day in front of their 40'' plasma TVs. In that sense, having achieved personal wealth, however moderate, can make you quite an egotistical cunt.
>The argument essentially went that in the past when you got your ruling position by merit of being of the upper class, you felt a sort of obligation to those lower down than you.
This was part of upper class ethos. In a kind of condescending paternalistic way nonetheless, but the ruling class, noble or not, felt that the unwashed masses had no way of taking their lives into their own hands beyond the scraps earned for a day's work, and that it was therefore the duty of the aristocracy to both lead the way and look after them. Likewise, the system of mediaeval serfdom wasn't all just about exploiting poor peasants whom you legally owned for want of a better word, but a Lord of the manor also had the responsibility to look after his serfs and keep them out of harm's way. It would probably still pass as white slavery today, but again, you were responsible for the wellbeing of those below you.
Royalty today comes in different shapes and forms today than it used to, but it's still exclusionary, aristocratic royalty and it calls the shots and pulls all the strings behind closed doors like it always did. The Americans, for example, have their wealthy movie stars, singers and billionaire business tycoons. They are America's noble families, they are U.S. royalty. Just look at families like the Kennedys, the Bushes or the Clintons. Or indeed old ferret head now and his pretend real estate empire.
|>>|| No. 425440
I spoke to a recruiter this afternoon. I sent them a CV. They say they've spoken to a client and can get me an interview tomorrow, but I have to provide references up-front. They still haven't named the client.
This sounds sketchy as fuck to me.
|>>|| No. 425442
A recruiters entire business model relies on you not knowing which company wants you to work for them, otherwise you'd just go and contact them.
It's probably some pyramid scheme or one of them delivery companies where you have to pay them to use their vans, though.
|>>|| No. 425445
>The Americans, for example, have their wealthy movie stars, singers and billionaire business tycoons. They are America's noble families, they are U.S. royalty.
Far from it lad. They're the same as highly paid footie players over here. They are the working class rich, they spend their money on drugs and fast cars, the same things you or I would if we suddenly came into ten million overnight. They might be dripping with money but you rarely see them rubbing shoulders with anyone of actual power- If they do, they'll keep it very quiet and by necessity drop out of the "celebrity" limelight. Those who pull strings can't be seen to do so.
|>>|| No. 425458
I've started doing my family tree. One of my great-great-great grandfathers was cleared of aiding and abetting a murder but had to to pay a fine of £5 for stealing bacon.
|>>|| No. 425460
I got a shitty score on my yearly performance review at work today - the lowest, helpfully termed as 'inconsistent'. I've barely had management since I started last year and had 3 different managers in the space of the last couple months. It's a job I was thrown into the deep-end on and had to catch up on my own so now I try to look after the people who have joined after me including my new manager.
What feedback I did get from the previous 2 comes down solely to "you don't ask enough questions" which directly contradicts the experience of my current manager. The fact that they were never around and explicitly told me to stop bothering other members of the team with questions when I needed someone to help me feels like a real kick in the teeth. Fortunately there were people in other teams who took the time to look after me but the fact that despite doing what I think is a stellar job given the circumstances it is impossible to get any recognition for it.
Anyway, my question is there is a team we work closely with advertised today that they are looking to fill a now vacant space. I'm tempted to apply for the job even though it's up for an initial 6 months followed by an open interview process - not secure but from the start I've wanted to work in their area anyway. The problem is when I say we work closely I mean we sit in the same space which could make for some very awkward office politics and obviously I'd get a shitty reference if I do apply.
What do you lads reckon, burn the building down?
This has been my past experience as well. I don't see know how you can give a decent interview if you don't know the employer beforehand and the short time-frame is itself an issue. Are you sure this isn't a gate-keeper interview with the agency?
At any rate, I'm not even sure I would say this is sketchy so much as utterly negligent on the part of the agency. I wouldn't use them in future and think it only right you at least send an email demanding to know who exactly you are interviewing for because that's not only for your benefit but there's as well.
|>>|| No. 425461
I feel like I'd trust a guy that had been cleared of aiding and abetting a murder, but if I knew that on top of that he'd stolen some bacon...
|>>|| No. 425470
A company who tried to headhunt me nearly a year ago just sent me a box full of stuff. The fancier end of products they make (food) alongside other more expensive items. I haven't had contact with anyone at that company since I declined their offer a year ago, and nobody called or emailed or anything.
I didn't even think companies here did that sort of thing at all, it strikes me as a very American gesture and I think most brits, myself included, are far too cynical to be impressed by this sort of gesture. The fact that nobody's really explained to me what it's in aid of yet feels very strange, too. I assume their recruiter will be asking me if I fancy working for them yet but as far as it goes right now I have no indication of that. The note didn't say much other than "enjoy". Very odd.
Is this normal? I've never seen anything like it, though I've never really been courted by a proper corporation before this.
|>>|| No. 425471
In some industries it's really common to send gifts at christmas to customers and suppliers.
But I've never heard of stuff being sent out to individuals. Possibly they've just got your name on a list of contacts and got you mixed up. Or alternatively they still have an opening for a job and they want you, in that case sending out a random "gift" with no explanation is ok, but if they specifically told you a reason for sending it, then that has legal obligations.
|>>|| No. 425472
I know of a lass who wiped her boss's apple on her arse before putting it back on her desk and watching her eat it.
All I'm saying is give it a sniff before you eat any of it.
|>>|| No. 425474
If you have skills that are scarce and commercially valuable, the finder's fee for an agency could run into the high four or low five figures. You may or may not be endeared by their gesture, but you'll certainly remember it. Just keeping their company in your mind is a worthwhile investment.
|>>|| No. 425475
>But I've never heard of stuff being sent out to individuals. Possibly they've just got your name on a list of contacts and got you mixed up.
I had considered that. It sort of makes sense if they have me on file, it's my birthday on Sunday and they certainly could have confused me with a buyer going by my linkedin etc. Even without my birthday being a factor (can't remember if they'd know my DOB or not) this is likely a good time of year for them to be reminding people they exist.
Still seems more related to the job thing though, since they sought me out in the first place, and likely do still want me over there.
I do understand that, I still didn't think it was something people did over here. I've heard plenty of American references to getting baskets of muffins or iPads or whatever, but never anyone over here. I know we have a couple of techlads here and I imagine they might have been sent some magic swag before.
They know I turned them down to start a business, though, so I'm not sure why they think I'd be changing my mind now, unless they assume I've tanked it already.
|>>|| No. 425477
We occasionally get little plushies or coffee mugs and what have you in orders from our suppliers. I think the more specialist your needs, the more likely you are to get companies who keep their clients sweet with freebies.
The manager who deals with stock ordering seems to think they belong to him, as if he orders them of his own pocket, and not from the fucking NHS budget, the prick. I stole a penguin before he could get his hands on it once and he actually sent the company an e-mail asking for another.
|>>|| No. 425478
You sometimes have to be inventive in roping in good talent. People who know that they are good at what they do also know that they can pick and choose job offers. So by sending you a gift basket, it might give them the edge over other possible employers on a subconscious, personal level. And it also means you get to take a first-hand look at the products they make and maybe identify with those products. In a "seeing is believing" kind of way. These can all be little things to nudge you to come work for them.
The £50 or so that it cost them to send you a gift basket are probably well spent in the greater scheme of things for them. Even if they send ten people like you such a gift basket and only one of them is swayed, it still pays off.
|>>|| No. 425479
I was at one point responsible for buying from suppliers and we were spending about half a million a month per supplier on stock across all the sites. I never got any free shit from any of those cunts, though to be fair if I rang them and asked them for something they'd always bend over backwards. I think I might have quickly gained a reputation for being a ruthless bastard who would drop a supplier in response to a near negligible rise in unit prices, so they never bothered.
If they'd have just send me a free car or something I'd have happily signed whatever dodgy ten-year contract they'd have suggested, would have easily changed things around to require significantly more of their stock. I was quite willing and able to be as bent as a two bob note, but nobody ever asked.
|>>|| No. 425480
Stacey Dooley is fine as long as she isn't touring some shitehole African country where half the population live in corrugated iron huts along jungle dirt roads, and three fourths of the people in the village she is intruding upon with her African poverty porn are AIDS orphans, and she has a teary with the camera and repetitively complains that "it's not fair".
Other than that, yes, she makes good wank material, and I am sure she's a decent bonk. I do enjoy sex with redheads, so as long as she'll leave her social conscience at the bedroom door, I would be interested.
|>>|| No. 425483
I do not believe you've been intimate with a redhead.
Something about the genetics for ginger hair (proper ginger, fair skin and all) seems to correlate with a fanny as sweet as fresh fruit and a drive like an animal in heat.
Sciencelads, please respond.
|>>|| No. 425486
>and a drive like an animal in heat
And to boot, one redhead I was with was fresh off the pill because the pill gave her thrombosis (her smoking half a pack a day certainly had nothing to do with it) and she had a copper ion IUD implanted. Not only did the IUD mean worry free sex 24/7 at even lower statistical failure rates than the pill, but when a lass gets off the pill, her natural hormone balance gradually returns. The estrogen in the pill can cancel out a lot of the trace level testosterone that women have and which is vital for a healthy sex drive, and if you take away that extra estrogen, some women can almost end up glued to your knob.
It hasn't happened to me often that my knob was literally red with soreness after a weekend together, in a way that you normally only get anywhere on your skin if you fall asleep on a beach lounger in Magaluf, but during the three or four months with her, it was a regular occurrence. It didn't end up becoming something long term between us. We were just at different points in our lives and had too little in common to build an actual relationship on. But it was really the best sex I ever had. Images of her abound in my spank bank to this day.
|>>|| No. 425487
I was having an interesting conversation with my other half about the gender pay gap earlier; it's that time of year when firms have to disclose theirs so we've got the usual tripe like the Graun reporting that male doctors earn more than female doctors before burying in the text that men tend to specialise more in more demanding and lucrative areas, that men tend to work more hours or that most of the ones who've been around the longest are men so they'll be the highest earners and any universal percentage pay rises will simply compound the situation. There's no evidence whatsoever that a male and female doctor doing the same role with the same qualifications and level of experience are paid differently because the whole thing is a massive distraction from what really matters.
Anyway, she was saying that you can make arguments to make anything appear sexist if you really want to. Apparently people are claiming that cars are sexist because women have to be much closer to the steering wheel due to their shorter legs and also because the seatbelts start too high up for most of them. In Sweden politicians have been arguing that using snowploughs primarily on the main roads is sexist because it's predominantly men who'll be using them to get to work whereas women will be using the side streets to drop the kids off at school or pop to the local shops.
|>>|| No. 425488
There was a big kerfuffle the other day about the first all-female spacewalk being cancelled because they didn't have the right sized spacesuits. It turned out that the astronaut in question had trained in both the medium and large suits, was planning to use the large suit for the walk, but changed her mind at the last minute. One of the medium suits had been partially dismantled for servicing and couldn't be made ready in time, so another astronaut who preferred the large suit did the spacewalk instead to avoid delaying the mission. That perfectly reasonable explanation didn't stop half of Twitter from decrying it as proof that science is sexist.
|>>|| No. 425490
>Anyway, she was saying that you can make arguments to make anything appear sexist if you really want to.
I think the problem with actual maritime issues these days isn't that the actual maritime issues that exists is being downplayed. But it's that there is a hyperactive and very loud and vocal subgroup of militant trout farmers and fisherpersons who will call just about anything and anybody sexist for things that are both beyond the common person's comprehension and their ideas about what should really be seen as constituting actual maritime issues by a level headed person.
And programmes like "It Was Alright In The 70s" on Channel4 (?) both tie into that kind of phenomenon and perpetuate it, but also lay it bare. I simply cannot take a group of early 20something hipster comedians who have no real concept of the world around them beyond the brief five to ten years that they have spent in it as adults seriously when they cringe at clips of a woman in lingerie on a grainy also-ran 1970s BBC sitcom with their mouths gaping at what they think was earth shaking actual maritime issues.
|>>|| No. 425491
>there is a hyperactive and very loud and vocal subgroup of militant trout farmers and fisherpersons who will call just about anything and anybody sexist for things that are both beyond the common person's comprehension and their ideas about what should really be seen as constituting actual maritime issues by a level headed person.
They're probably a lot less active or vocal than you think and are to a large (though not exclusive) degree being amplified by those on the right who want to make fishing as a whole look silly.
|>>|| No. 425492
I was in the main SU building for my uni yesterday lunch time, and there was a group of lads wearing blue bibs with the slogan "I am a Zionist" written on them. They handed me a leaflet explaining that Israel is the most socially progressive country in the middle east, and that most Israeli-Arabs would rather live in the state of Israel than in a hypothetical Palestinian state.
I admire their bravery being so boldly pro-Israel in a university, I assume they didn't go down well as they'd moved on after an hour or so.
|>>|| No. 425494
I think maritime issues of the annoying, intrusive and unnecessary type are sort of going g away. There was the phase a few years ago when they tried to go for a full scale assault of the gaming press/industry, but largely that seems to have does because surprisingly, it hurt those publication's sales to try and shovel such horseshit down the necks of a largely male audience.
I think it's safe to say it'll be a quaint memory before long, like the Occupy movement or similar. Then we'll all be able to relax and concentrate on things that actually are an issue to fishing stocks, instead of hyperbolic reactionary bullshit.
Also, some new and even more annoying brand of hyperbolic reactionary bullshit will come along to replace it.
|>>|| No. 425495
I don't know if it's me being a snob/bore but towards the end of the working day it was mainly me in the office with the junior members of staff and I refused to make any effort to join in their conversation because it was just so tedious.
They laugh about how thick they are and think that not knowing things is an endearing personality trait. I'm talking about incredibly basic things here, such as what the capital city of Italy is or what an MP is. I just don't think I could lower myself to joining in and joking along; I can't stand people who boast about ignorance and I reckon I'd rather wipe my arse with sandpaper than join in.
|>>|| No. 425496
>There was the phase a few years ago when they tried to go for a full scale assault of the gaming press/industry, but largely that seems to have does because surprisingly, it hurt those publication's sales to try and shovel such horseshit down the necks of a largely male audience.
Their MO is usually that they complain that a certain group of people, be it gamers or really any social group, are too male dominated. Then they try to enter and infiltrate those groups because they believe it increases gender equality when there are no all-men groups of anyting (while all-women groups of something seem to be just fine), and then next thing they do is they say they want different, usually easier and more relaxed rules for the girls within that newly "gender equal" group.
Next to gaming, another example would be chess tournaments. You now have all women's chess tournaments, but IIRC they play according to much easier tournament rules.
I believe that just as women, men need certain social groups where they can just be among themselves. Male bonding, same as female bonding, often works best in homogenous groups of your own gender. That isn't to say you don't benefit from being in a few mixed gender social groups in your life, as a man, but contrary to what we are always told, I think there is nothing sexist about not wanting women in a few certain social groups. Especially when considering that women claim their moral right to have all-woman groups for just about anything.
|>>|| No. 425497
>Next to gaming, another example would be chess tournaments. You now have all women's chess tournaments, but IIRC they play according to much easier tournament rules.
There are a parallel set of titles for women only. Anyone (male or female) can earn the title of Grandmaster by achieving an ELO rating of 2500, with an effective ELO rating of 2600 in at least three major tournaments. The title of Woman Grandmaster is awarded to any woman with an ELO rating of 2300.
Naturally, this has been framed as a double-bind by some fisherpersons - the existence of the women's titles is sexist because it sets lower standards for women, but the paucity of women earning the non-gendered titles is also sexist for some reason.
See also the motte-and-bailey definition of fishing. fishing just means that you believe men and women are equal, unless it's convenient for fishing to mean supporting policy x. If you're not a fisherperson then you don't believe that men and women are equal, if you don't support policy x then you're not a true fisherperson, ergo if you don't support policy x then you're a horrible whale poacher.
|>>|| No. 425498
>adults seriously when they cringe at clips of a woman in lingerie on a grainy also-ran 1970s BBC sitcom with their mouths gaping at what they think was earth shaking actual maritime issues.
I miss bawdy television. The problem these days is you will see a pair of Klingon tits on telly but it will all be terribly serious.
I'm calling it getting worse before it gets better. Unconscious bias theory will sustain it for awhile yet as the permanent neuroticism ethics takes shape.
|>>|| No. 425499
I haven't seen any of the stuff you're talking about and am inclined to think you're watching people who deliberately call attention to it for whatever reason. I can't be bothered to argue about it and further, it's so tiresome.
|>>|| No. 425500
>Naturally, this has been framed as a double-bind by some fisherpersons - the existence of the women's titles is sexist because it sets lower standards for women, but the paucity of women earning the non-gendered titles is also sexist for some reason.
Having your cake and eating it.
I can understand when women have lower competitive standards in certain sports where raw physical strength counts. Woman weightlifters will by and large not be able to lift the kinds of weight totals that some ludicrously muscular blokes are capable of. That's a given, and it would seem more peculiar to not have diverging standards between female and male athletes in those sports.
But if women are equal to men in their mental capabilities, which by and large even I think they are, then a) I'm not sure that we need different chess tournament rules for women and b) it kind of does seem like disservice to society's image of women in itself.
>I miss bawdy television. The problem these days is you will see a pair of Klingon tits on telly but it will all be terribly serious.
James Buckley said in an interview last year that even a show like The Inbetweeners could not be made today because of some people's hair trigger response today to even the mildest sexual innuendo. Just ten years on, nobody seems to be able to take. a fucking. joke. anymore.
I think he is hitting the nail on the head.
And even the most raunchy Benny Hill runaround scene with a bit of tit flopping out and some butt spanking was really just meant all in good fun in the 70s and 80s when the show was made, and as pushing the boundaries of painfully dull evening entertainment of its time a little. Nobody was even remotely attempting to insinuate that women were subhuman sex objects. It was all just a big laugh, nothing more, and nothing less.
We may not realise it today (well, I do, but mainstream early 20s hipster militant trout farmers patently do not), but we live in quite dark times. Where everybody is afraid to be BRILLIANT or push boundaries or even make an innocent subversive joke for fear of having an angry twitter mob with pitchforks after them about a tenth of a second later. Our culture in that respect mirrors that of the 1950s and 60s with the BBC Green Book and all that. But even back then, people could take an BRILLIANT joke for what it was.
|>>|| No. 425502
Even if you think Piers Morgan is a tit, which he largely is, then James Buckley still has a point.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]